Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Trustom Pond National
Wildlife Refuge
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Trustom Pond 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: Least tern, William Kolodnicki, USFWS
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
Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge CCP
Chapter 1, Introduction and Background 1-1
Refuge Overview 1-2
Purpose of and Need for a CCP 1-2
Mission 1-5
Refuge Purpose 1-5
National and Regional Mandates Guiding this CCP 1-6
Existing Partnerships 1-10
Chapter 2, Planning Process 2-1
The CCP Process 2-2
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities 2-3
Chapter 3, Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-1
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting 3-2
Socio-economic Setting 3-5
Refuge Complex Administration 3-8
Refuge Resources 3-10
Public Uses 3-22
Chapter 4, Management Direction 4-1
Refuge Complex Vision 4-2
Refuge Complex Goals (and Trustom Pond 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 5-6
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. Trustom Pond Refuge 1-4
Map 1-3. Connecticut River/Long Island Sound Ecosystem 1-8
Map 4-1. Trustom Pond Refuge Habitat Improvements 4-18
Map 4-2. Trustom Pond Refuge Public Use 4-23
Trustom Pond Refuge CCP – May 2002 1-1
Owl on a refuge entrance sign
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
Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge (Trustom Pond Refuge) is
located on the south coast of Rhode Island in South Kingstown,
Washington County (see Maps 1-1 and 1-2). The main body of the
refuge is bordered by private land and the community of Green Hill
to the west; by Matunuck Schoolhouse Road to the north; and by
private land to the northeast and east. East of its main body, the
refuge also owns a separate 52-acre parcel, bordered by private
farmland to the west and east, Matunuck Schoolhouse Road on the
north, and Card Ponds Road on the south.
In 1974, Mrs. Ann Kenyon Morse donated the first 365 acres to the
refuge. In 1982, The Audubon Society of Rhode Island donated 151
acres. The refuge now includes 787 acres in either fee title or
conservation easement. The Land Protection Plan (Appendix E)
expanded the refuge acquisition boundary by 1,283 acres. The
refuge may now acquire up to 1,536 acres from willing sellers within
the newly expanded acquisition boundary.
The Purpose of and Need for a CCP
Developing a CCP is vital to refuge management. The purpose of
this CCP is to provide strategic management direction over the next
15 years, by…
  Providing a clear statement of desired future conditions for
habitat, wildlife, visitor services, and facilities;
  Providing refuge neighbors, visitors, and partners with a clear
understanding of the reasons for management actions;
  Ensuring refuge management reflects the policies and goals of the
Refuge System and legal mandates;
  Ensuring the compatibility of current and future public use;
  Providing long-term continuity and direction for refuge
management; and
  Providing direction for staffing, operations, maintenance, and
developing budget requests.
The need to develop a CCP for Trustom Pond Refuge is two-fold.
First, the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
(Refuge Improvement Act) requires that all national wildlife refuges
Chapter 1
1-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
have a CCP in place by 2012 to help fulfill the mission of the Refuge
System. Second, the Refuge Complex lacks a master plan that
establishes priorities and ensures consistent, integrated management
among its five refuges.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its Mission
The Service, part of the Department of the Interior, manages national
wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries. By law, Congress entrusts
the following federal trust resources to the Service for conservation
and protection: migratory birds and fish, endangered species, inter-jurisdictional
fish, wetlands, and certain marine mammals. The Service
also enforces federal wildlife laws and international treaties on
importing and exporting wildlife, assists with state fish and wildlife
programs, and helps other countries develop wildlife conservation
programs.
The National Wildlife Refuge System and its Mission
The Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands and
waters set aside specifically for conserving wildlife and protecting
ecosystems. More than 534 national wildlife refuges, in every state
and a number of U.S. Territories, protect more than 93 million acres.
Over 34 million visitors annually hunt, fish, observe and photograph
wildlife, or participate in environmental education and interpretive
activities on refuges.
In 1997, Congress passed the Refuge Improvement Act, establishing
a unifying mission for the Refuge System, and a new process for
determining compatible public use activities on refuges. The act
states that, first and foremost, the Refuge System must focus on
wildlife conservation. It further states that the mission of the
Refuge System, coupled with the purpose(s) for which each refuge
was established, will provide management direction for each refuge.
On public use, the act declares that all existing or proposed public
uses must be compatible with each refuge’s purpose. It highlights six
wildlife-dependent public uses as priorities that all CCPs must
evaluate: environmental education and interpretation, fishing,
hunting, and wildlife observation and photography. Each refuge
manager determines the compatibility of an activity by evaluating its
potential impact on refuge resources, insuring that the activity
supports the Refuge System mission, and ensuring that the activity
does not materially detract from or interfere with the refuge purpose.
Refuge Purposes
The establishment purposes for Trustom Pond Refuge are:
“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management
purpose, for migratory birds,” and for
“(1) incidental fish and wildlife oriented recreational development;
(2) protection of natural resources; and
(3) conservation of endangered or threatened species.”
– Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 and
Refuge Recreation Act of 1962
Chapter 1
Trustom Pond Refuge CCP – May 2002 1-5
“...working with others, to
conserve, protect and
enhance fish wildlife, and
plants and their habitats
for the continuing benefit
of the American people.”
– Mission, U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service
“...to administer a
national network of lands
and waters for the
conservation,
management, and where
appropriate, restoration
of the fish, wildlife, and
plant resources and their
habitats within the
United States for the
benefit of present and
future generations of
Americans.”
– Refuge System Mission,
Refuge Improvement Act;
Public Law 105-57
National and Regional Mandates Guiding this CCP
This section highlights Service policy, legal mandates, and existing
resource plans, arranged from the national to the local level, that
directly influenced development of this CCP.
The Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the USFWS lists the
various federal laws, Executive Orders, treaties, interstate compacts,
and regulations on conserving and protecting natural and cultural
resources (online at http://laws.fws.gov/lawsdigest/indx.html). The
Service Manual and Refuge Manual contain Service policies and
guidance on planning and day-to-day refuge management. The draft
CCP/EA was written to fulfill compliance with NEPA.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan (May 14, 1986)
This plan outlines a strategy among the United States, Canada, and
Mexico for restoring 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.
Chapter 1
Trustom Pond Refuge CCP – May 2002 1-7
Northeast Areas Study: Significant Coastal Habitats of Southern
New England and Portions of Long Island, New York (USFWS 1991)
Recognizing the biological and economic importance of the coast’s living
resources and natural values to the region and the Nation, in 1990
Congress funded a study to identify coastal areas in southern New
England and Long Island whose fish and wildlife habitat need
protection and whose natural diversity needs preservation. The
Northeast Coastal Study identifies species of regional importance, and
describes regionally significant habitat complexes. It specifically
describes significant or unique habitat, threats to sustaining the habitat
complex, and considerations for conserving and protecting it. We
utilized this study in the development of our land protection strategies.
Near Trustom Pond refuge, the study identifies areas north and east of
Trustom Pond and Green Hill Swamp (Washington County, RI)
Connecticut River/Long Island Sound Ecosystem Priorities, 1997
During the last decade, we have emphasized ecosystem conservation,
particularly the role of refuges within ecosystems, and their ability to
affect the long-term conservation of natural resources. Implementing
an ecosystem approach to resource management is one of our top
national priorities. We have initiated new partnerships with private
landowners, state and federal agencies, corporations, conservation
groups, and volunteers, to form 52 ecosystem teams across the
country, typically using large river watersheds to define ecosystems.
Those teams work on developing goals and priorities for research and
management within each ecosystem.
The Refuge Complex lies within our Connecticut River/Long Island
Sound Ecosystem (Map 1-3). A team composed of Fish and Wildlife
Service personnel and representatives from six State Fish and Wildlife
Departments developed a Priority Resources Plan (July 1996) that
identifies seven priorities, each involving numerous action strategies:
1. Protect, restore, and enhance listed and candidate
populations…with special emphasis on beach strand species,
coastal sandplain habitat, and Connecticut River species.
2. Protect, restore, and enhance anadromous and interjurisdictional
migratory fish populations…with special emphasis on Atlantic
salmon, American shad, shortnose sturgeon, and river herring.
3. Reverse the decline of migrant landbirds…with special emphasis
on grassland and forest interior species.
4. Protect, restore, and enhance populations of colonial nesting
waterbirds, shorebirds, and waterfowl…with special emphasis on
coastal areas and major rivers.
5. Protect, restore, and enhance wetland habitats.
6. Manage refuge lands to protect, restore, and enhance native
communities and trust resources.
7. Develop a public that values the fish and wildlife
resources…understands events and issues related to these
resources, and acts to promote fish and wildlife conservation.
Chapter 1
Trustom Pond Refuge CCP – May 2002 1-9
Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), Atlantic Coast Population,
Revised Recovery Plan, 1996
The piping plover is the only Federal- listed endangered or
threatened species that currently breeds on refuge lands within the
Rhode Island Refuge Complex (Trustom Pond Refuge). The primary
objective of the revised recovery program is to remove the Atlantic
coast piping plover population from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants by:
  Achieving well-distributed increases in numbers and productivity
of breeding pairs; and
  Providing for long-term protection of breeding and wintering
plovers and their habitats.
The Revised Recovery Plan describes detailed “Recovery Tasks”
needed to meet the recovery objective. The Rhode Island Refuge
Complex is specifically mentioned in the following tasks:
  Draw down or create coastal ponds, where feasible, to make more
feeding habitat available.
  Reduce disturbance of breeding plovers from humans and pets.
  Develop mechanisms to provide long-term protection to 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.
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
Piping plover. USFWS photo.
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. Six relate to Trustom
Pond 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
Chapter 1
1-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Trustom Pond Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-1
Public Open House on CCP, Rhode Island
USFWS photo
  The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
  Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
Chapter 2
Planning Process
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Given the mandate in the Refuge Improvement Act to develop a CCP
for each national wildlife refuge, our Northeast Regional Office
began the planning process for the Refuge Complex in February
1998. Figure 2-1 displays the steps of the planning process and how
they incorporate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
requirements.
First, we focused on collecting information on natural resources and
public use at the Refuge Complex, and developed its long-term vision
and preliminary goals, including issues associated with each of its
refuges. Next, we compiled a mailing list of more than 2,000
organizations and individuals, to ensure we would be contacting a
diverse sample of the interested public.
Recognizing that not everyone could attend the open houses planned
for April and May 1998, we developed Issues Workbooks in March, to
encourage even more people to provide their written comments on
topics related to managing the Refuge Complex. We offered the
workbooks to everyone on our mailing list, including adjacent
landowners, and made workbooks available at refuge headquarters,
local libraries, and on the Internet from the Region 5 Home Page
(http://northeast.fws.gov). We received 150 completed workbooks.
Those responses and public input at our meetings have influenced
our formulating issues and developing alternatives on resource
protection and public use.
In April and May 1998, we began a series of public meetings: five
Open Houses in the communities
of Middletown, South Kingstown,
Charlestown, and Block Island
invited public comments on goals
and issues. We advertised the
meetings through news releases,
radio broadcasts, and notices to
our mailing list. From 15 to 40
people attended each meeting.
We also organized 15
informational meetings with
state and federal agencies, non-profit
conservation groups, town
planners, conservation
commissions, and sporting clubs.
Public responses suggested more
than 50 additional areas where
lands warranted protection,
typically along the coast. We
evaluated those lands for their
potential as national wildlife
refuges, using criteria such as
the presence of threatened,
endangered, or other trust
species and their habitats, the
presence of wetlands, our ability
to manage or restore the areas,
existing threats to their integrity,
and their size and location.
Chapter 2
2-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
A. Preplanning:
Plan the Plan
E. Prepare Draft
Plan & NEPA
Document
NEPA
• purpose and need
NEPA
• prepare & distribute draft CCP
and NEPA documentation
• public comment & review
H. Review &
Revise Plan
NEPA
• NEPA compliance &
public involvement
when applicable
NEPA
• notify the public
• involve the public
• scope the issues
B. Initiate Public
Involvement&
Scoping
NEPA
• NEPA compliance & public
involvement when applicable
C. Review Vision
Statement & Goals,
& Determine
Significant Issues
NEPA
• identify significant issues
F. Prepare &
Adopt Final Plan
NEPA
• respond to public comment
• identify preferred alternative
• prepare & distribute final CCP
and NEPA documentation
• prepare & distribute FONSI
for EA or ROD for EIS
NEPA
• reasonable range of alternatives
• No Action alternative
• assess environmental effects
• the Proposed Action
D. Develop &
Analyze
Alternatives
G. Implement
Plan, Monitor, &
Evaluate
The Comprehensive
Conservation
Planning Process &
NEPA Compliance
Figure 2-1. NEPA and the CCP Process
We distributed a Planning Update to everyone on our mailing list in
September 1998. This newsletter summarized public comments from
meetings and workbooks, described policy guidelines for managing
public use on refuges, and identified the long-term vision and goals
for the Refuge Complex.
Once the key issues had firmed up, we developed alternative
strategies by May 1999 to resolve each one. We derived the
strategies from public comment, from follow-up contacts with
partners, or from the planning team. We distributed a second
Planning Update newsletter in May 1999, updating everyone on our
planning timelines and our decision to start a separate
Environmental Assessment for the visitor center/headquarters.
We released the 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 will reveal whether resource objectives are being met,
and whether we 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 that were analyzed
in the draft CCP/EA.
Some issues and concerns were outside the scope of this analysis.
These issues were identified in the draft CC/EA, but we will not
address them further in this final CCP.
Key Issues
Public and partner meetings and further team discussions produced
the following key issues.
1. Protection of endangered and threatened species and other
species and habitats of special concern.
This is the most important issue facing the refuge. Protecting
federally listed endangered and threatened species is integral to the
mission of the Refuge System. Other federal trust species are also of
primary concern, including migratory birds, anadromous fish, and
certain marine mammals.
Chapter 2
Trustom Pond Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-3
In the forefront of this issue is management for piping plover, a
Federal-listed threatenedspecies. Piping plover nest on the beaches
at Trustom Pond Refuge. 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 have been
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.
Appendix A lists species and habitats of special management
concern. The list includes the status of all plants, wildlife, fish, and
rare natural communities known to occur in Rhode Island that are
federally listed as endangered or threatened, were candidates for
listing, or are otherwise of management concern. Combined with
location information, we used that list to identify additional land
protection needs and opportunities. We know very little about many
of these species’ presence on or use of refuge habitats. The
alternatives in the draft CCP/EA differed in their strategies for
managing these species and habitats. Addressing this issue will help
achieve Goal 1: Protect and enhance federal trust resources and
other species and habitats of special concern.
2. Restoration and maintenance of coastal sandplain and
maritime natural communities, including grasslands and
shrublands (less than 60 years old).
While it is true that the Northeast landscape was primarily forested
prior to rapid agricultural settlement in the 1800’s, grasslands
Chapter 2
2-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
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
grasslands and sandplain shrublands, coastal maritime grasslands
and shrublands, and agricultural fields and pastures, have been in
rapid decline in New England due to a combination of development,
changes in agricultural technology, succession to forest as farms
were abandoned, and lack of a natural disturbance such as fire
(Vickery 1997).
In Rhode Island, the State’s farmland dropped nearly 50 percent
between 1964 and 1997, from 103,801 to 55,256 acres. An additional
3,100 acres of farmland will be lost in the next 20 years if current
sprawl patterns continue (Common Ground 2000). As a result, few
large, contiguous grasslands and shrublands are left; only smaller,
fragmented, and isolated habitat patches remain (<75 acres).
These smaller areas are unsuitable for many focus species, including
once-common grassland birds such as grasshopper sparrow and
upland sandpiper. Grasshopper sparrows have declined by 69
percent in the past 25 years, according to Breeding Bird Survey data
(Vickery 1997). Our best available information suggests that
grasslands should ideally be managed in 100 acre or larger patches.
Smaller grassland habitat patches are much less productive for
grassland birds, and could serve as “sinks”, where species try to
nest, but becaused of increased predation and other factors,
productivity and survival is severely limited.
Other grassland and shrubland species have declined dramatically as
well. Many of Rhode Island’s State-listed plant and animal species
are dependent on these habitat types.
Tremendous potential exists for refuge staff to become involved in
restoring habitat on private lands. Grassland and shrubland
restoration offers opportunities for our staff to provide technical
expertise to local communities. The alternatives in the draft
CCP/EA compared different levels of restoring and maintaining
these habitats and providing technical assistance to private
landowners. Addressing this issue will help achieve Goal 2: Maintain
and/or restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy,
functioning ecosystems.
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 compared 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
Trustom Pond Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-5
4. Management of Trustom Pond.
Many consider Trustom Pond one of the jewels of Rhode Island’s
South Shore because of its aesthetic and ecological values. This 160-
acre pond, which lies fully within Trustom Pond Refuge, is the only
coastal pond in Rhode Island not flanked by development. Diverse
waterfowl and wading birds use the pond year round. Many
shorebird species use its shoreline during migrating and breeding
seasons. Despite its apparent habitat values, important long-term
concerns about water quality, invasive species, and the quality of
shoreline habitat remain. Most of the sources suspected of
contributing to increased nitrogen and coliform bacteria levels in
Trustom Pond are off the refuge.
Resolving these remaining concerns will require a cooperative,
watershed-based approach. Although we focus on Trustom Pond,
these same water quality and habitat degradation concerns pervade
all the coastal salt ponds in Rhode Island. Cooperating with state
agencies, local towns, land trusts, and non-governmental groups such
as the Coastal Salt Pond Coalition, would provide opportunities for
refuge staff involvement and technical exchange to manage similar
issues in other coastal salt ponds. Future management of Trustom
Pond will be ecosystem-based, recognizing that the health of adjacent
upland vegetation contributes to its viability and ecological integrity.
Some responses supported active management of Trustom Pond to
improve its habitat quality for certain species; however, there could
be trade-offs with other species. For example, increasing open
mudflats to promote foraging habitat for piping plover and other
shorebirds, may reduce the habitat quality for anadromous fish and
certain waterfowl. These trade-offs need to be further evaluated and
their implications understood. The alternatives in the draft CCP/EA
evaluated different strategies to better understand and balance
competing concerns and opportunities for resolving this issue.
Addressing this issue will help achieve both Goal 1: Protect and
enhance federal trust resources and other species and habitats of
special concern, and Goal 2: Maintain and/or restore natural
ecological communities to promote healthy, functioning ecosystems.
5. Protection 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). The more recent growth had occured outside the
urban areas, and threatened the remaining wetlands.
Estuarine wetlands consisting of tidal salt and brackish waters are of
particular concern. Invasive species are dominating refuge wetlands
and threatening their biodiversity.
Non-point pollution and sources off-refuge are impacting water
quality and the health and productivity of these wetlands. The
alternatives in the draft CCP/EA compared different levels of
Chapter 2
2-6 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
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.
6. 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 and state and local governments.
Thirteen invasive plant species affecting the natural communities
within the Refuge Complex are considered of high management
concern. The most prevalent are Phragmites, purple loosestrife,
Asian bittersweet, autumn olive, and Japanese honeysuckle. Other
species such as Japanese knotweed and multiflora rose are
increasing on the Refuge Complex, and likely to become an issue
soon.
Several wildlife species occur on the Refuge Complex that are known,
or suspected to be, adversely affecting natural diversity. Issues
surface when these species directly impact federal trust species or
degrade natural communities. Mute swans are non-native, invasive
species that aggressively drive native waterfowl and shorebirds away
from nesting areas, compete with them for food, degrade water
quality when they spend extended periods of time molting on coastal
ponds, and are sometimes aggressive towards humans.
Native species such as deer, red fox, gull, and small predatory
mammals such as mink, skunk, and weasel can be a problem when
their populations exceed the range of natural fluctuation and the
ability of the habitat to support them. Excessive numbers of deer are
a threat to rare plant communities on the Refuge Complex, and
excessive browse lines are evident on two refuges. Adjacent
landowners are also concerned about deer impacts on landscaping,
the increase in vehicle-deer collisions, and the threat of Lyme disease.
Red fox, gull, and some small mammals are voracious predators that
can adversely impact other native wildlife populations. Occurrences
have been documented of herring and black-backed gull, red fox, and
weasel preying on piping plover and the state-listed least tern.
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
Chapter 2
Trustom Pond Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-7
measures for each species are controversial, and may include lethal
removal, visual and audio deterrents, or destroying eggs, nests, or
den sites.
The alternatives compared different strategies for managing
invasive species. Addressing this issue will help achieve Goal 1:
Protect and enhance Federal trust resources and other species and
habitats of special concern, and Goal 2: Maintain and/or restore
natural ecological communities to promote healthy, functioning
ecosystems.
7. Protection of biologically significant areas through
acquisition and/or cooperative management.
Public meetings, partner meetings, and workbook responses
expressed a great deal of support for the protection of additional fish
and wildlife habitat in southern Rhode Island. That support runs
across the State, as Rhode Islanders consistently vote ballot
measures to maintain open space and protect fish and wildlife
habitats. Many people mentioned that their support stems from
their concern over the rapid pace of development on the South
Shore. As we stated earlier, development in non-urban areas of
Rhode Island has increased dramatically over the last 30 years. It is
now the second most densely populated State in the country. One
estimate predicts that current sprawl patterns will ensure the loss of
all its rural areas before 2100 (Common Ground 2000). The Rhode
Island Office of The Nature Conservancy has noted that the
conservation actions taken during the next 5 to 10 years will be the
most important for the majority of Rhode Island towns (The Nature
Conservancy 2000).
This dramatic increase in development has changed land use
patterns and practices, significantly modifying natural landscapes.
As natural lands (those with sustainable native species populations
and intact ecological processes) become isolated and fragmented into
smaller pieces disconnected from other natural areas, their ability to
support a full complement of native species is adversely affected.
Cut off from larger populations, species and plant communities
within these natural areas face the problems of limited genetic
exchange, a decreased ability to support diverse populations, and lost
capacity to recruit new individuals. Ultimately, the number of native
species declines and exotic species gain a stronghold. It is precisely
this diminished ability of natural areas to support diverse species
with different habitat requirements that leads to a decline in
biodiversity. While some species can tolerate fragmentation, as they
prefer “edge habitat,” many others, including “interior” dependent
species, require larger, contiguous natural areas or functional
corridors linking patches of natural habitat. This ability to protect
and sustain larger natural areas and corridors, coupled with the
protection of unique or rare species or communities, is critical to
maintaining biodiversity.
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
Chapter 2
2-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
beaches are dynamic ecosystems, and their nesting conditions can
change dramatically from year to year. While 1999 was a good
nesting year on Moonstone Beach (Trustom Pond Refuge), in 2000,
the beach consisted entirely of cobble with virtually no sand for
nesting. The piping plover pairs from 1999 appeared to have shifted
to the Ninigret Conservation Area. Without consideration of these
shifts in habitat use across a landscape, management for these
species would be ineffective.
Some individuals preferred that the Service acquire and manage
federal trust resources, and that the Refuge Complex continue to
acquire these sites from willing sellers. 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.
8. Assurance of access to credible information about
resources regarding the Refuge Complex to ensure
management decisions are based on the best available science.
We need to determine and prioritize what information reasonably
could be collected to facilitate decision-making using the best
available science. In particular, many individuals expressed concern
over the lack of information available to fully evaluate impacts to
wildlife and habitats from excessive public use. Others questioned
the effectiveness of management actions that have not been
adequately monitored and evaluated. Several university researchers
and other partners encouraged our staff to prioritize baseline
inventory needs, establish monitoring protocols to better evaluate
management actions, and identify information needed to determine
each refuge’s contribution to the ecosystem.
Implementing the Service’s Policy on Maintaining the Biological
Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health of the National
Wildlife Refuge System will require us to ascertain the natural
conditions for each refuge and identify the natural communities,
species, and ecological processes that are rare, declining, or unique.
Opportunities to cooperate in collecting this information could be
developed once the priorities have been identified. Addressing this
issue will help achieve all the goals identified for the Refuge
Complex.
Chapter 2
Trustom Pond Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-9
9. 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 formally opened through the compatibility
determination process.
The Act also directs refuges to phase-out existing uses determined to
be incompatible. 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 comments and workbook responses make it clear
that public use on refuges is extremely important to most people.
More than 90 percent of the workbook responses 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.
10. Hunting.
Hunting surfaced late in the scoping process as a key issue, perhaps
because, initially, few viewed it as a possibility on the Refuge
Complex. This issue was raised by Service personnel, by RI DEM
biologists, and by individuals both for and against expanding hunting
opportunities on the Refuge Complex. Those in support primarily
are interested in deer hunting on all refuges, waterfowl hunting on
Chafee Refuge and Ninigret Refuge, and pheasant hunting on Block
Island. Advocates of hunting refer to its inclusion as one of the six
priority public uses that “...shall receive priority consideration in
refuge planning and management” (1997 Refuge Improvement Act).
Parts of Trustom Pond Refuge were hunted prior to acquisition by the
Service. Presently, 20 acres of upland field on the refuge remain
open to migratory bird hunting. RI DEM has expressed its interest
in any new opportunities for hunting because rapid residential
development in Rhode Island is confining public hunting
opportunities to fewer and fewer areas.
The Service views managed or administrative hunts in areas where
there are overabundant deer populations as an effective tool for
regulating them. The overabundance of deer is a concern in Rhode
Island, reflected in increased numbers of vehicle-deer collisions,
Chapter 2
2-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
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.
Alternatives in the draft CCP/EA offered varying levels of hunting
opportunities, from no hunting at all, to opening four refuges
during State-regulated seasons for deer, waterfowl, and pheasant.
Addressing this issue will help achieve both Goal 2: Maintain and/or
restore natural ecological communities to promote healthy,
functioning ecosystems, and Goal 4: Provide opportunities for high
quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent public use with particular
emphasis on environmental education and interpretation.
11. 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.
12. Provision of staffing, operations, and maintenance
support sufficient to accomplish goals and objectives.
The Refuge Complex lacks adequate funding and personnel to
provide the programs and services desired by the public and to
effectively meet the goals for this CCP. The alternatives in the
draft CCP/EA compared different funding and staffing levels based
on their proposed management strategies for dealing with the
issues. Addressing this issue will help achieve Goal 5: Provide
Refuge Complex staffing, operations, and maintenance support to
effectively accomplish refuge goals and objectives.
13. 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
Chapter 2
Trustom Pond Refuge CCP – May 2002 2-11
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.
14. 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. We completed an Environmental
Assessment for the new Refuge Headquarters and Visitor Center in
February 2001. Addressing this issue will help achieve Goal 5:
Provide Refuge Complex staffing, operations, and maintenance
support to effectively accomplish refuge goals and objectives.
Chapter 2
2-12 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Trustom Pond Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-1
Shorebirds
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.
Chapter 3
3-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
As early as 12,000 years ago, Native Americans began occupying the
area. Documented evidence places the first intensive occupation of
the salt pond region during the late Archaic period (5,000 to 3,000
years ago). Native American camps from more than 4,000 years ago
are known to have existed at one location along the shore of Ninigret
Pond. However, societies of that time were primarily hunter-gatherer
with little agriculture; broad changes to landscape
vegetation probably did not occur.
During the Woodland Period 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).
Chapter 3
Trustom Pond Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-3
Fall and winter storms combining wind, rain, and waves are the
predominant physical process shaping this landscape today.
“Nor’easters” are well known along the New England coast in
winter, winds generated offshore from the southeast, can actually be
more destructive to the south shore, because of its exposure to the
open ocean. The draft Salt Pond Region Special Area Management
Plan describes the geologic, wave, and wind action for the South
Shore, including details on how sediment movement constantly
reshapes this dynamic landscape (RI CRMC 1998).
The Great New England Hurricane of 1938 was the most recent 100-
year storm, one of immense power along the coast. Not only did
winds reach speeds up to 240 miles per hour, but also a spring high
tide created a storm surge between 10 and 15 feet. Storms of this
magnitude are suspected to have occurred only four other times in
recorded history: 1635, 1683, 1815, and 1821 (Bell 1985). Smaller
hurricanes are less powerful but more frequent than the hurricane of
1938. Hurricanes in 1944, 1954, 1955, 1960, 1976, and Hurricane Bob
in 1991 each left their mark on the coastline.
Human influences on sustaining the form and function of coastal
landscapes and ecosystems over the long term are predominantly
negative. Attempts to stabilize the beach system by constructing
jetties or breach ways and planting beach grass have greatly affected
the natural dynamics of this system by interrupting the natural flow
of waves and sediment. In fact, the breach ways connecting the
ponds to the ocean and one pond to another are the single greatest
human impact on the ecology of coastal ponds (RI CRMC 1984).
Introducing non-native, invasive plants, diverting or draining coastal
wetlands for development, converting uplands for residential use,
and spilling oil are other significant human impacts on the coastal
landscape. Recent studies indicate that the greatest threats to
Rhode Island’s estuaries and coastal salt ponds are septic systems
and road runoff (RI DEM 1996). More studies are needed to
establish the extent to which each of these factors influences Refuge
Complex ecosystems.
On Rhode Island’s upland landscape, a combination of management
and natural succession has allowed forests to make a comeback. The
State Division of Forest Environment estimates that 300,000 acres of
privately owned forest plus 45,000 acres of State-managed forest
make up 45 percent of the State’s land area. Their estimate places
80 percent of the privately owned forest in tracts from 1 to 10 acres
in size, which are difficult to manage as forest and are rapidly being
converted to residential areas (RI DEM 1996).
Ecosystem Delineations
The Service emphasizes an ecosystem approach to conservation,
typically using large river watersheds to define ecosystems. Rhode
Island falls within the 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
Chapter 3
3-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
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 Setting
The Refuge Complex lies close to some of the largest population
centers on the east coast. The New York City metropolitan area,
population 8.5 million, is 2.5 hours to the southeast. Metropolitan
Boston, population 3.2 million, is 2 hours to the north. Hartford, with
a population of 140,000, is 1.5 hours to the northwest, and
Providence, population 161,000, is 45 minutes to the north (U.S.
Census Bureau 1996 estimates; 1990 U.S. Census).
According to those estimates, the population of Rhode Island is about
1 million; 94 percent live in metropolitan areas (cf. the national
average of 80 percent) and 6 percent in rural areas. South County,
which includes Ninigret Refuge, Trustom Pond Refuge , and Chafee
Refuge , has the fastest growing population and the highest number
of building permits issued annually (RI CRMC 1998). South County
population figures between 1990 and 1996 increased 7.4 percent, 4.6
percent, and 5.3 percent respectively in Charlestown, Narragansett,
and South Kingstown, while Middletown’s population decreased by
1.4 percent. The Town of New Shoreham, which includes Block
Island, had a population increase of 10.8 percent. The population for
the entire state of Rhode Island decreased by 1.3 percent over the
same period (http://www.riedc.com).
Chapter 3
Trustom Pond Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-5
The Refuge Complex directly contributes to the economies of
Charlestown, South Kingstown, Narragansett, Middletown, and New
Shoreham through Refuge Revenue Sharing payments. The Federal
Government does not pay property tax; it does pay refuge revenue
sharing directly to cities and towns each year, based on the fair
market value of refuge lands. The revenue sharing formula calculates
three-quarters of 1 percent of the fair market value of refuge lands as
the maximum amount payable each year. An appraisal updated every
five years keeps their fair market value current. The actual amount
of revenue sharing paid each year varies, depending on what portion
of the maximum amount Congress appropriates that year (rarely the
maximum). Figure 3-1 depicts Refuge Revenue Sharing payments to
those towns for the fiscal year 2000.
The University of Rhode Island Department of Resource Economics
(Spring 1997) reports that travel and tourism is the State’s fastest
growing industry. In 1996, it generated $1.7 billion. The number of
visitors to the State in 1997 increased at a rate twice the national
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.
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)
Current travel and tourism literature does not feature the Refuge
Complex. According to Ms. O’Neill, its refuges are not well known as
tourist destinations, although many visitors discover them during
their visit and enjoy the scenery and open space they provide. They
are small enough to explore in one day, and generally do not prompt
an additional night’s lodging. Ms. O’Neill stated that, since the
Tourism Council is trying to showcase a greater mix of outdoor
recreational opportunities in South County, the Refuge Complex will
figure more prominently in future promotional material.
The greatest contribution by the Refuge Complex to the local
economy comes from the values attributed to the preservation of
open space (NPS 1992). We represent those values using three
indicators, below: Cost of Community Services; Property Values;
and Public Willingness to Pay.
Cost of Community Services compares the cost per dollar of revenue
generated by residential or commercial development to that of
revenue generated by an open space designation. On the one hand,
residential development expands the tax base, but the costs of
increased infrastructure and public services (schools, utilities,
emergency services, etc.) often offset any increase in revenue. On
the other hand, undeveloped land requires few town services and
places little pressure on the local infrastructure. The cost per dollar
of revenue generated by commercial land typically falls between
those of residential and open space.
The American Farmland Trust (1989, 1992, and 1993) and the
Commonwealth Research Group (1995) evaluated community
revenues and expenses associated with open space vs. residential
and commercial development. All available information on the New
England States shows that open space and commercial development
produced more revenues than costs, while the opposite was true for
residential land.
Conversations with local realtors and appraisers helped us evaluate
the refuges’ influence on property values. Two South County realtors
and one realtor/appraiser confirmed that properties adjacent to
refuges generally are valued higher (Gross, et al. 1998). That value is
realized through increased sales price/acre in properties adjacent to a
refuge, compared to otherwise similar properties, and by how quickly
those properties sell. Properties with views protected by their
proximity to a refuge exhibit an even greater difference. All the
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.
Chapter 3
Trustom Pond Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-7
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, affecting our
staffing levels. Table 3-1
summarizes budget and staffing
levels from 1995 to 1999.
Fluctuations reflect funding for
special projects, moving costs for
new employees, or large
equipment purchases. Most of the
funding is earmarked; very little
discretionary funding is available.
Resource Protection and Visitor Safety
Law enforcement officers, with full authority to enforce federal
regulations, are required to ensure resource protection and visitor
safety. Three permanent refuge staff have been assigned collateral
duties for law enforcement at any time during the course of refuge
operations, but those collateral duties draw staff time and resources
away from other important programs. We typically hire up to three
seasonal staff with law enforcement authority each year.
During the past 5 years, formal notices of violation averaged 15 per
year. They typically involved vehicle and pedestrian trespass,
vandalism, and waterfowl hunting in closed areas. Well over 100
verbal warnings are also given each year, typically for inadvertently
walking or driving in closed areas, littering, walking dogs in a closed
area or off-leash, bicycling in closed areas, and digging plants. In
1993, a Trail Warden program began using volunteers to assist in
documenting violations. Wardens also inform visitors of public use
policy and permitted activities.
Refuge Complex Office
The Refuge Complex office lies in the Shoreline Plaza strip mall in
Charlestown. In addition to housing our staff, it also houses our
Division of Ecological Services Southern New England/New York
Bight Coastal Ecosystem Program five-member staff, an Atlantic
Coast Joint Venture staff person, and Friends of the National
Wildlife Refuges of Rhode Island.
An environmental assessment was written in 2000, which determined
a new location for a Refuge Headquarters and Visitor Center. The
new building will be located on Deer Run Road (off U.S. Route 1) in
Charlestown, RI. The building is currently being designed, with
construction to begin in 2003.
Chapter 3
3-8 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Fiscal year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Operations
$216,299
355,715
350,700
428,400
441,900
Maintenance
$85,700
23,900
97,700
171,000
28,000
Full time staff
7
7
8
8
9
Seasonal staff
3
3
4
4
2
Table 3-1. Refuge Complex staffing levels and budgets between 1995 - 1999.
Contaminants
Contaminant issues have been coordinated by a combination of
refuge staff, Service contaminant biologists, our Pollution Control
Office, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and RI DEM.
Five sites on the Refuge Complex are listed in the EPA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information database (CERCLIS).
While conducting field surveys in a wooded portion of Trustom Pond
Refuge, a University of Rhode Island biology class discovered an old
farm dump that had gone undetected until 1982. The initial
inspection found small piles of debris, discarded DDT canisters, and
one container of pink liquid thought to be fuel. No analysis was
conducted at that time. The site subsequently was listed on the
Federal Facilities Compliance Docket as CERCLIS No.
RID980915599.
Our Ecological Services Division began its Preliminary Assessment
in the fall of 1995. They conducted a focused sampling and
geophysical survey to determine if the old dump was a potential
source of contamination, and an electromagnetic survey to search out
buried wastes. One partly buried, rusted-out drum containing soil
was found, removed, and its contents analyzed.
Their survey found trace-to-low concentrations of organochlorine
pesticides sporadically present in surface soils in only one of the two
small debris areas at the site. DDT slightly exceeded screening
levels for ecological risk. None of the contaminants, including DDT,
exceeded any screening levels for human health. The Preliminary
Assessment concluded that the site did not pose a significant threat
to human health or the environment (March 1996).
RI DEM requested some additional ground water analysis. Initial
results on ground water sampling found slightly elevated lead levels
in unfiltered samples. Subsequent analysis of filtered ground water
samples found no elevated lead levels. RI DEM agreed at that point
that the site did not warrant further cleanup.
On April 2, 1998, the site was archived (removed) from the EPA
CERCLIS database. On April 21, 1998, EPA determined that a “No
Further Federal Remedial Action Planned” decision was appropriate.
EPA at that point considered RI DEM to be the lead agency
overseeing hazardous waste compliance at the site. EPA did note in
their April 21, 1998 decision that archived sites could be returned to
the CERCLIS database if additional information or substantially
altered site conditions warranted.
Chapter 3
Trustom Pond Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-9
Refuge Resources
Physical Resources
Topography and Soils
The terrain at Trustom Pond Refuge is gently rolling and slopes south
to the ocean. Slopes are generally less than 5 percent. The refuge is
located on a coastal outwash plain created by glacial meltwater
carrying and depositing unsorted till and sorted sand, gravel, silts, and
clay. Most soils on the refuge are silt loams in the Bridgehampton and
Enfield series. Other areas, which were maintained as pasture but
were not cultivated, are stony loams in the Charlton series.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Trustom Pond is a 160-acre brackish coastal pond that serves as the
centerpiece of the refuge, and has the distinction of being the only
coastal pond in Rhode Island without houses on its shoreline. It is
also the only coastal salt pond in Rhode Island that lies entirely
within a national wildlife refuge, and whose waters are fully managed
by the Service. The pond varies between 1 to 6 feet in depth, with
substrates varying from mud to coarse sands. There is no
permanent breachway; however, we mechanically breach the pond at
least once a year, usually in early April, primarily to provide foraging
habitat for piping plovers and other shorebirds. Natural breaching
occurs periodically as an overland sheet flow during periods of
extreme high water. The watershed feeding Trustom Pond is
estimated at 794 acres (RI CRMC 1998).
During high water, Trustom Pond flows into adjacent Card’s Pond, a
43-acre brackish coastal pond. Card’s Pond averages 1.5 feet in depth.
The refuge boundary includes roughly the southwestern one-sixth of
its perimeter. There is no permanent breachway in Cards Pond;
however, we breach it mechanically eight to ten times throughout the
year, primarily in response to landowners’ concerns about the high
water table backing up into their septic and well systems. The
watershed feeding Card’s Pond, estimated at 1,820 acres is much
larger than Trustom Pond’s watershed (RI CRMC 1998).
Rhode Island Salt Pond Watchers, a volunteer group, has been
monitoring water quality on Trustom Pond for at least 10 years.
Other water quality studies have also been done, including a study
conducted by the RI Department of Health (1991). Both nitrogren
and bacterial contamination in the pond are concerns. The
Department of Health study found concentrations of fecal coliform
bacteria that exceeded shell fishing standards in both Trustom Pond
and Card’s Pond.
In both ponds’ watersheds, most of the residential and commercial
development lacks sewer systems, relying instead on individual
septic systems, as is the case with Ninigret Pond. Older, failing
septic systems are suspected of being the leading cause of nitrate,
nitrogen, and bacteria loading in coastal ponds (RI CRMC 1998).
Other likely causes include storm water runoff in the watershed,
domestic pets, and the summer populations of Canada geese and
mute swans, who are confined to the ponds while molting. A single
mute swan can produce about 2 lbs. of manure a day!
Chapter 3
3-10 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Nitrogen loading results in extensive macro algae buildup. During
the summer, both ponds are thick with macro algae and
phytoplankton, which cover the bottom in a thick mat and form an
anoxic zone (RI CRMC 1998). One significant impact of algal blooms
is that they reduce the abundance and density of submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV) by decreasing the amount of light transmitted
through the water column. SAV is a critical food source for an array
of aquatic and terrestrial animals (see Vegetation, below). Since 1978,
SAV beds have been declining in Trustom Pond (Harlin, et al. 1995).
Biological Resources
Wetlands
Freshwater wetlands of various types account for about 70 acres, or
11 percent, of Trustom Pond Refuge. Five freshwater ponds totaling
about 8 acres occur on the refuge. The largest of these, the 4-acre
“mud pond,” lies along Moonstone Beach Road. The only man-made
pond is a small farm pond created when the former owners of the
farm dammed a small creek drainage near the present refuge
maintenance facility.
Barrier beach habitat (also referred to as “beach strand” habitat)
Coastal development and shoreline stabilization have been the major
causes of sand dune loss and the rapid decline of barrier beaches
along the Rhode Island coast. One of the State’s few remaining
undeveloped barrier beaches is Moonstone Beach, 1.3 miles long.
Changes in its width have been an increasing concern since 1985,
when it began steadily declining (URI 1996). Without the natural
processes of sand removal and replenishment, beach loss occurs.
Since 1961, beach profile surveys at Moonstone and other beaches on
the South Shore have documented widespread decline in sand
volume. When dune habitat is lost, the barrier beaches cannot
absorb large waves, and lack the volume of sand required by
adjustments in beach profile during storms.
Intense summer recreational use of Moonstone Beach and other
barrier beaches exacerbates the impacts on these fragile ecosystems.
People continue to walk on the dunes at Moonstone Beach, despite
refuge signs that prohibit it. Pedestrian traffic destroys stabilizing
vegetation and contributes to dune erosion. The beach also provides
important nesting habitat for piping plovers and least terns. In
order to protect these species, Moonstone Beach, above mean high
tide, is closed to public use from April 1 to September 15 each year.
Vegetation
Trustom Pond Refuge contains a diverse collection of vegetation cover-types
(Table 3-2). Red maple swamp is the dominant freshwater
forested wetland cover type. A detailed plant list for the refuge is
available from the Refuge Office upon request (George 1999).
Chapter 3
Trustom Pond Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-11
Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation (SAV)
Widgeon grass and sago
pondweed dominate the aquatic
vegetation of Trustom Pond
(Harlin & Thorne-Miller 1978
and Harlin, et al. 1995). A 1995
survey found that these plant
populations had decreased
drastically since the original
survey in 1978. In 1996,
researchers found an increase in
SAV abundance and diversity
over 1995 levels. We need to
continue monitoring SAV levels
to determine the reasons for
fluctuations, and outline the
relationships among nutrient
loading, breaching cycle, and
turbidity.
Grasslands
Following completion of the
Trustom Pond Refuge
Grasslands Management Plan
(1995), the refuge has
systematically converted former
hayfields and crop lands (corn
and potato) to native grasses for
the benefit of grassland nesting
birds. We have now restored 85
acres of a targeted 125 acres of
little bluestem and big bluestem
grasslands on the refuge. Under
a cooperative agreement with the
Meyer family, 40 acres were restored on adjacent private property,
with plans to restore another 15 acres within 2 years.
The restoration process converts old fields by discing (with an offset
harrow), plowing, harrowing, packing (using a roller), fertilizing, and
seeding them before June. The original seed mix used was typically
big bluestem (50 percent), little bluestem (20 percent), Indian grass
(20 percent), and switchgrass (10 percent). Recently, the seed mix is
primarily little bluestem, using the other species more sparingly
depending on the topography, soils and hydrology. Weeds are
chemically treated with herbicides soon after germination.
A combination of mowing and burning has maintained the newly
established grasslands. An experimental burn in Field 6 in 1998
had very promising results. The burn was designed to consume
dead vegetation and control weeds. Established fields are mowed
twice in the first year for weed control. Horseweed and ragweed
are the principle problem species. Current management strategies
require that restored grasslands be mowed or burned every 3 to 5
years to control woody vegetation. We monitor during both the
growing and dormant seasons using photo points and Robel pole
Chapter 3
3-12 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Table 3-2. Land cover at Trustom Pond Refuge, Washington County, Rhode Island
(source: aerial photo interpretation by J. Stone).
Cover-type
Agriculture
Developed
Exposed rock
Native emergent wetland
Native forest upland
Native forest
wetland
Native grass
Native shrub upland
Native shrub
wetland
Non-native
emergent wetland
Non-native forest upland
Non-native shrub upland
Sand
Vegetated sand dunes
Water
Total
Acreage
18.9
5.0
4.2
5.1
209.3
34.8
94.6
26.2
7.8
25.0
0.1
13.4
18.0
12.1
168.0
642.5
Percentage
2.9%
0.8
0.7
0.8
32.6
5.4
14.7
4.1
1.2
3.9
-
2.1
2.8
1.9
26.1
100%
readings. A Trustom Pond Grasslands Progress Report (1998)
makes several recommendations about the mix of seed and the
timing of burning, mowing, and herbicide application (Flores 1998).
Shrublands and Forest
Shrublands and forest compose 39 percent of Trustom Pond Refuge,
mostly on its western portion. Shrublands are dominated by
shadbush, northern arrowwood, and bayberry, whereas forests are
dominated mainly by red maple and black oak. We brush-hog
approximately 5 acres of old field brush land (formerly sheep
pasture), primarily composed of Autumn olive and black cherry. It is
too rocky to maintain as grasslands, and is being maintained as early
successional shrub habitat (< 60 years old).
Invasive Plants
Invasive species have several strongholds on the refuge. Phragmites
is found around much of the edge of Trustom Pond, and is impacting
the population there of State-listed sea pink (Sabatia stellaris,
endangered); autumn olive is found on the edges of most fields;
honeysuckle are found on the edges of shrublands and forest; and
Asian bittersweet is found along hedgerows adjacent to fields.
Phragmites dominates approximately 25 acres of emergent wetland;
invasive plants dominate at least 14 acres of upland on the refuge.
Herbicide treatments and mechanical control on approximately 10
acres of Phragmites on the eastern side of Trustom Pond involved
spraying with Rodeo and removing dead vegetation by mowing and
burning. Follow-up treatments have been inconsistent, and some
regrowth has occurred.
We have attempted to control autumn olive in recent years by using a
farm tractor to push the shrubs over and then burning them. We have
also applied cambial treatments of Garlon 3A directly to the stems.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Refuge Plover Program
Since 1982, refuge staff have protected nesting piping plover and
least tern on Moonstone Beach by using different combinations of
beach closures, law enforcement, biological monitoring, predator
exclosures, and predator control. The colorful history of those
management techniques spans public acceptance, support, protests,
and lawsuits. The Compatibility Determination for Piping Plover
Management on Trustom Pond Refuge (1990) and the Refuge Annual
Narratives of the 1980’s describe that management in detail.
Before 1982, the refuge owned 2,640 feet of beachfront, but did not
record nesting details, although observations in May of nesting
plover have been documented. No restrictions on public use were in
force at that time. In 1982, the Audubon Society transferred its
former Moonstone Waterfowl Refuge to the Service, extending the
refuge beachfront to 1 mile.
Chapter 3
Trustom Pond Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-13
During the 1982 nesting season, we fenced individual, active nest
sites in that mile of beach with oak posts and single strand wire, and
posted warning signs. We allowed public use, including sunbathing,
to continue on the remainder of the beach. During the breeding
season, sunbathers would lie right up against the fencing, and both
beach users and their dogs frequently trespassed in the fenced areas.
All three plover pairs abandoned their nests.
In 1982, the New England Naturist Association filed a lawsuit in
federal court against closing Moonstone Beach. The lawsuit was
dismissed, but protests by this group and other beach users
continued for several seasons.
In 1983, 1984, and 1985, we closed three-quarters of a mile of the
entire beach, fencing it with double strand wire mounted on posts
to prevent public use from the western refuge boundary to the
eastern edge of Trustom Pond breachway. The beach closure
extended from May 1 through August 31 (nesting season). We
hired a Biologist Aide to monitor nest sites and inform the public
about the closure. Law enforcement personnel were present on
weekends. In 1985, we replaced the wire strand fencing with wire
mesh fencing, to ensure that the public and their dogs would stay
out. Also this year, we began trapping predators in the vicinity of
plover nesting sites.
In 1986 and 1987, we posted 800 feet of beach east of the Trustom
Pond breachway, in addition to the three-quarters of a mile already
posted. In 1986, the piping plover became a federally listed species
under the Endangered Species Act. That listing increased
management concern for plover, legally obligating the refuge to
ensure plover protection and restoration.
A Master Plan for Trustom Pond Refuge (January 1988) stipulates
that all public use activities cease on Moonstone Beach above the mean
high tide line. That plan also proposes “…to seek a management
agreement with the State of Rhode Island prohibiting public use of the
intertidal zone adjacent to the refuge between April 1 and August 31.”
In 1988 and 1989, we fenced all of the refuge beach from April 6 to
August 31, except a 137-foot section under permit to the Town of
South Kingstown to operate a public beach. The RI CMRC issued
the refuge a Notice of Violation for constructing a fence without
filing a consistency determination. The New England Naturists
Association also filed a request for a preliminary injunction in federal
court to stop the fencing. The court denied the injunction (C.A. No
88-0218T). A new group, Taxpayers for Access to Moonstone Beach,
surfaced with a petition requesting that the Service reopen
Moonstone Beach. The beach, however, remained closed.
A Piping Plover Management Compatibility Determination (1990) for
Trustom Pond Refuge acknowledged that the Master Plan of 1988
had not been fully implemented. Its findings determined that
Moonstone Beach be closed to all public entry above the mean high
tide line, from April 1 through September 15; that fencing be erected
around the closure area; that no sunbathing or other non-wildlife-dependent
recreational activities be permitted; and, that no permit
be issued to the Town of South Kingstown to operate a public beach
on refuge land.
Chapter 3
3-14 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
The current plover management strategy at Moonstone Beach began
in 1990, and includes:
  Erecting symbolic fencing to close the beach to public use above
the mean high tide line from April 1 to September 15;
  Providing an outdoor exhibit with information on plover and their
management;
  Erecting observation platforms for monitoring nests;
  Erecting predator exclosures around nests;
  Erecting predator drift fencing on the back side of the dunes to
direct predators away from the beach nesting sites;
  Using law enforcement officers to patrol the beach during the
closure period;
  Monitoring the activities of piping plover nests and chicks; and
  Controlling mammalian predators like red fox, coyote, mink,
long-tailed weasel, skunk, opossum, and raccoon through
selective trapping.
The Town of South Kingstown owns a 50’-wide section of beach,
directly out from the end of Moonstone Beach Road.
Since 1982, when plover management began on Trustom Pond Refuge,
plover nesting has increased from a low of 2 pairs to a high of 11 pairs.
However, fledgling rates per pair have stayed relatively constant (see
Figure 3-2).
In 1999, the Piping Plover Recovery Team assessed the current
condition of plover habitat in a field review of Moonstone Beach,
Maschaug Beach (a.k.a. East Beach, Watch Hill), and approximately
one-third of Ninigret Beach, including all of the Ninigret Refuge
barrier beach (Hecht, et al. 1999). They ranked those beaches using
the “Habitat Ranks and Provisional Density Objectives for Breeding
Piping Plovers in Massachusetts (Mass DFW 1996). Rankings were
assigned solely on physical and vegetative attributes of habitat,
without regard to observed or
reported sources of human
disturbance or predation.
The Team estimated that
Trustom Pond had a “provisional
abundance objective” of 10
nesting pairs. This should be
interpreted as the current
carrying capacity based on the
existing 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. As such, this
number is a guideline and should
not be considered a maximum.
The Revised Recovery Plan
Chapter 3
Trustom Pond Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-15
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Year
nesting pairs
# fledge/pair
Figure 3-2. Nesting pairs and fledging rate per pair of piping plovers on
Moonstone Beach, Trustom Pond Refuge. In 1999, the estimated carrying capacity
of this site was 10 nests (Hecht 1999).
(1996) also lists an estimated carrying capacity of 10 pairs.
Significant information needs for effectively managing plover
remain, primarily related to the control of mammalian predators,
which are the suspected major cause of plover loss at Moonstone
Beach. Information on control methods, predator populations, the
effects of aversive conditioning on predators, the effectiveness of
dawn and dusk “guarding” of nest sites, and the seasonal availability
of food for plover are all critical information needs.
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. The
latest is “Rhode Island Piping Plover Restoration Project: 1999”.
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 3-3
provides a summary of each site.
Management and protection for piping plovers is a priority for the
Refuge Complex. Tremendous resources are channeled into
protecting and monitoring nesting beach habitats, both on
Moonstone Beach and non-refuge beaches along the South Shore. It
is important to recognize that many other shorebird species benefit
from piping plover management as well, especially the State-listed
least tern (threatened).
Other Listed Species
Piping plover is the only federally-listed species breeding on
Trustom Pond Refuge. Other endangered species use the refuge
during migration: bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), roseate
tern (Sterna dougalli), and the recently de-listed peregrine falcon.
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
Chapter 3
3-16 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Chapter 3
Trustom Pond Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-17
Figure 3-3. Nesting success of piping plovers in coastal Rhode Island from 1992 to 1999. See Figure 3-2 for nesting success at
Trustom Pond.
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
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.
A variety of State-listed species are also found on the refuge,
predominately plants. These include wild coffee (Triosteum
aurantiacum), hyssop-leaved hedge nettle (Stachys hyssopifolia),
dragon’s mouth orchid (Arethusa bulbosa), Indian grass, sea pink,
and wood lily (Lilium philidelphicum). State-listed vertebrates
found on the refuge include four-toed salamander (Hemidactylus
scutullatum) and osprey (Pandion haliaetus).
Waterfowl
Trustom Pond is well known in southern New England as a premiere
migrating and wintering spot for waterfowl. It is one of the few
coastal ponds in Rhode Island where minimal public use near the pond
Chapter 3
3-18 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Table 3-3. Peak waterfowl numbers on Trustom Pond Refuge from 1992 to 1999.
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Snow goose 1 200 4 - 1 40 33 2
Brant - - - - - 1 - -
Canada goose 885 1000 581 342 1115 1000 775 1106
Wood duck 16 18 12 2 7 3 2 2
Green-winged teal 24 25 51 52 16 39 81 96
Blue-winged teal 14 5 20 2 - 2 - 20
American black duck 249 309 360 200 104 235 210 215
Mallard 92 185 193 78 41 406 73 93
Northern pintail 4 7 2 9 12 4 18 17
Northern shoveler - 5 2 - - - 3 -
Gadwall 72 35 9 15 10 5 8 11
American wigeon 46 30 37 7 20 4 8 3
Canvasback 13 82 8 7 275 54 252 44
Redhead - 3 - 1 - 18 12 2
Ring-necked duck 3 9 2 5 4 10 7 2
Greater scaup 1260 801 332 375 420 551 470 500
Lesser scaup 1 1 - 265 196 250 568 -
Common eider 4 - - 800 2500 75 300 75
King eider - - - - - - 1 1
Harlequin duck - - - 1 - - - -
Oldsquaw 1 - - - 2 - - -
Black scoter 18 - 35 1 275 63 90 17
Surf scoter 180 - - 30 35 20 30 1
White-winged scoter 5 2 40 3 130 56 140 77
Common goldeneye 37 69 51 46 102 236 285 195
Barrow's goldeneye - - - - - - 5 -
Bufflehead 1 22 6 33 5 8 15 57
Hooded merganser 10 39 50 46 10 48 45 89
Common merganser - 9 1 330 21 6 98 2
Red-breated merganser 15 116 187 50 55 197 325 134
Ruddy duck 36 285 448 685 398 1097 776 1244
Mute swan 194 225 60 32 11 54 22 15
Red-breasted merganser
offers an undisturbed resting area for waterfowl. For its size, the
pond attracts a significant diversity of waterfowl, some species in very
large numbers. Table 3-3 displays the results of waterfowl counts on
the refuge from 1992 - 1999.
Shorebirds
Other than piping plover and least tern, many shorebird species also
benefit from the seasonal closure of Moonstone Beach, particularly
during fall migration. Maintaining a beach closure through
September 15 ensures that migrating shorebirds have an
undisturbed rest area on Moonstone Beach.
Mute Swans
Mute swans are a non-native, invasive species of waterfowl
introduced from Europe in the late 1800’s. This species is very
aggressive during nesting
season, and will kill the young of
other waterfowl nesting nearby.
Adult swans produce about 2
pounds of manure per day,
significantly increasing nutrient
loading in the pond. Although it
has not been proven conclusively,
it is surmised that mute swans
are a significant contributor to
Trustom Pond water quality
problems (see SAV, above).
Mute swan populations on
Trustom Pond typically average
five pair during nesting season,
but increase dramatically during
the summer, when the birds use
the pond for molting. The swans
remain flightless for several weeks until they grow new flight
feathers. As depicted in Figure 3-4, mute swan numbers have been
widely erratic, but generally have been declining since 1993.
Nesting mute swans have been actively controlled on Trustom Pond
by addling eggs on the nest. RI DEM uses this method across the
State to control swan numbers.
Grassland Birds
Trustom Pond Refuge is one of the few protected places left in
Rhode Island where bobolink and eastern meadowlark still nest. In
1995, the refuge began a grasslands management program aimed at
restoring up to 200 acres of former old fields, shrub lands, and crop
lands to native grasslands. Both eastern meadowlark and bobolink
are target species for the grassland restoration program. Upland
sandpiper and grasshopper sparrow are also very desirable, but the
amount of acres probably limits the ability to support breeding
populations of these species. In 1997, an upland sandpiper was
observed for the first time in one restored field, but we have not
Chapter 3
Trustom Pond Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-19
Figure 3-4. Peak mute swan use at Trustom Pond from 1968 to 1998.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997
Number of Swans
documented nesting. To increase nesting opportunities for grassland
birds, refuge staff developed the following objectives for the
grasslands program in 1995:
  Achieve at least 90-percent coverage by native grasslands plants;
  Maintain less than 1-percent coverage by shrubs;
  Achieve a 25-percent increase in total numbers of nesting pairs of
any of the following grassland nesting species: mallard, American
black duck, gadwall, green-winged teal, field sparrow, eastern
meadowlark, eastern bluebird, bobolink, American woodcock, and
bobwhite quail.
The refuge added the following objective in 2001:
  Manage upland, native coastal sandplain grasslands and shrub habitat
(less than 60 years old) in the project area, in patches at least 40 acres
in size, or are otherwise contiguous with larger patches of similar
suitable habitat.
Our recent understanding of grassland bird dynamics suggests that
grasslands should ideally be 100 acres in size or larger. Restoration
of these habitats on blocks less than 40 acres in size will not occur if
the sole justification is to benefit grassland birds.
Smaller patches are much less productive and could serve as “sinks”,
where grassland bird species try to nest, but because of increased
predation and other factors, they do not survive.
Objectives for both vegetation and wildlife use are based on
achievement over a 3-year period. Occupancy by grassland birds will
depend on the maturation of the fields into suitable nesting cover.
This past year, we began to reevaluate our targeted species
composition for grassland plants. Historic, early successional, native
coastal sandplain habitat was likely a mosaic of young shrublands
(less than 60 years old) and grasslands. As we develop our Habitat
Management Plan, we will continue to consider habitat patchiness
and the habitat implications for bird species.
Neotropical Migrants
Since 1993, the refuge has cooperated with the University of Rhode
Island to monitor Neotropical species of interest in a red maple
swamp on the refuge, using the Monitoring Avian Productivity
Station (MAPS) program. Each year during the nesting season, 10
mist nets are used for 6 hours every 10 days to catch birds. This
project has demonstrated that the swamp is important nesting
habitat for wood thrush, veery, northern water thrush, Canada
warbler, and a variety of other Neotropical species. MAPS results
are available at the Refuge Complex office.
Mammals
A study by Paton, et al. (1998) found nine species of small mammals
on the refuge. The most abundant species was the masked shrew,
followed by the short tailed shrew, red-backed vole, meadow vole,
meadow jumping mouse, star- nosed vole, water shrew, and smoky
shrew. Large mammals include the usual common species: deer, fox,
raccoon, mink, coyote, cottontail rabbit, woodchuck, and skunk.
Chapter 3
3-20 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
In March 1999, an aerial reconnaissance of approximately three-quarters
of the refuge counted 22 deer. This number was
surprisingly low, since the high browse line along trails and openings
indicates a much greater density, near or exceeding carrying
capacity. We will work with RI DEM to determine habitat capacity
for deer.
Under a partnership agreement with the Mystic Marine Aquarium,
Trustom Pond Refuge has been designated the official burial site for
stranded marine mammals in Rhode Island. Burial sites have all
been mapped and catalogued by Mystic Aquarium for future
scientific research.
Fish
Approximately 10 species of fish currently inhabit Trustom and
Card’s Ponds, although relative abundance cannot be determined. It
is important to recognize the ecology of fish in Trustom and Card’s
Ponds has changed dramatically over the years with the reduction in
breaching that has occurred. The large populations of smelt, oysters,
white perch, and alewife that supported a commercial industry are no
longer there. Some white perch, alewife, and flounder will use
Trustom Pond if breaching coincides with their runs. Other species in
Trustom Pond include Atlantic silver-sides, mummichogs, sheepshead
minnows, banded killifish, striped killifish, herring, mullet, and
pipefish (Trustom Pond draft EA/Master Plan May 1987).
Invertebrates
Information on the availability of intertidal invertebrates is
significant for shorebird management. Systematic surveys of
invertebrates have been done on certain portions of Trustom Pond
Refuge. A 1997 summer sample of invertebrates collected at
Moonstone Beach was compared to other beaches to determine
seasonal abundance of invertebrates in the intertidal zone and on the
beach itself. A beach invertebrate survey was also conducted during
the North Cape Oil Spill Damage Assessment (1998) and during a
piping plover behavior/disturbance study (Hoopes, et al. 1989). A
study to determine the presence of northeastern beach tiger beetle
occurred in 1996. No northeastern tiger beetles were found, but two
other species of beach tiger beetle occur on the refuge.
Since 1993, several tick surveys have been done in the forested
uplands of the refuge to document the presence of deer ticks
carrying Lyme disease. One survey showed that Trustom Pond had
the second highest density of deer ticks in the state. Surveys of
Trustom Pond benthos were done during the 1970’s by refuge staff.
Surveys were also conducted during the North Cape Oil Spill
Damage Assessment, and by the Greater Scaup Contaminants Study
(Cohen 1998). Reports are on file at the Refuge Complex office.
Reptiles and Amphibians
Two studies of reptiles and amphibians on Trustom Pond Refuge
have been done (Johnson 1994; Paton, et al. 1998). Johnson found 11
species of amphibians and 5 species of reptiles. Paton, et al. found
10 species of amphibian and 4 species of reptiles. Species richness
Chapter 3
Trustom Pond Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-21
results were identical in the two studies. Both are on file at the
refuge office.
The significance of the Refuge Complex for amphibians should not be
underestimated. Paton, et al. (1998) states that “…the Rhode Island
Refuge Complex provides critical habitat for amphibians in southern
Rhode Island.” These may be the only lands where these species can
exist south of Route 1 due to suburbanization. Further, Chris Raithel
(RI DEM) has stated that Route 1 is a complete barrier to
amphibian movement, reaffirming the importance of the Refuge
Complex in sustaining meta-populations of amphibians and reptiles.
An interesting result of the Paton study is that Trustom Pond Refuge
has some of the largest populations of amphibians documented in
Rhode Island, including four-toed salamander, spotted salamander
(Ambystoma maculatum), and red-spotted newt (Notophthalumus v.
viridescens).
Cultural Resources
A 1982 archaeological survey (Morenon, et al. 1983) found Trustom
Pond to be of minor importance to understanding precolonial history
in the area. Nine out of 19 sites examined contained evidence of
prehistoric activity, but the densities were low. No sites were
deemed important enough for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places. However, areas not surveyed are considered highly
sensitive for archeological deposits. Service archaeologists identified
additional sites in 1996 and 1999, but neither site was investigated
further, or included in the National Register.
Public Uses
Estimated public use for Trustom Pond Refuge in 2000 was 45,000
total visitor days. As stated earlier, the Refuge Complex has not
established a consistent process for collecting and documenting
visitation data.
Known public use activities vary seasonally, but include wildlife-dependent
activities such as nature observation and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation. Waterfowl and dove
hunting occurs on approximately 20 acres of upland field on the eastern
portion of the refuge. About 24 percent of the refuge (151 acres) is
permanently closed to hunting through an Audubon Society deed
restriction.
Of all these activities, only environmental education, wildlife
observation and interpretation, photography, and migratory bird
hunting have formerly been determined compatible with refuge
purposes. Non-wildlife-dependent activities that now occur on the
refuge include jogging, berry picking, horseback riding, bicycling,
swimming, and sunbathing.
In 1994, the refuge manager formally determined that dog walking,
jogging, swimming and sunbathing were incompatible with refuge
purposes. Except during the plover nesting season, its enforcement
has been inconsistent.
Vandalism to signs, noncompliance with the piping plover beach
Chapter 3
3-22 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
closure, loitering in parking lots, and other inappropriate behaviors,
and the threat of Lyme disease are all current issues for managing
public use at Trustom Pond Refuge.
The visitor contact station was completed in 1998 through a
Challenge Cost Share grant. Refuge Complex staff, volunteers, and
the Friends Group designed and built the facility. It will offer a
location to disseminate information to visitors, provide a base of
operations for trail wardens and law enforcement staff, and provide
an environmental education and interpretive site. Volunteers have
staffed the visitor contact station since the summer of 1999.
School groups use the farm pond as an outdoor classroom to study
pond ecology. A wooden dock with benches is available. Also, an
outdoor exhibit is set up on Moonstone Beach during the plover
nesting season to share information on barrier beach and dune
ecology and piping plover management.
Trail System
Three trails compose the 3-mile trail system, the Osprey Point, Otter
Point, and Red Maple Swamp trails. Viewing platforms at Osprey
Point and Otter Point offer wonderful opportunities to observe and
photograph wildlife. Currently, only a small section of the Otter
Point trail offers barrier-free (American with Disabilities Act
compliant) access to the farm pond.
Chapter 3
Trustom Pond Refuge CCP – May 2002 3-23
Trustom Pond Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-1
Redstart
USFWS photo
  Refuge Complex Vision
  Refuge Complex Goals
  General Refuge Management
Chapter 4
Management Direction
Refuge Complex Vision
We developed this vision statement to provide a guiding philosophy
and sense of purpose for the five refuge CCPs. It qualitatively
describes the desired future character of the Refuge Complex
through 2015 and beyond. We wrote in the present tense to provide
a more motivating, positive, and compelling statement of purpose. It
has guided, and will continue to guide, program emphases and
priorities for each refuge in Rhode Island.
“The Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex protects a
unique collection of thriving coastal sandplain, coastal maritime,
and beach strand communities, and represents some of the last
undeveloped seacoast in southern New England. Leading the way in
the protection and restoration of coastal wetlands, shrubland, and
grassland habitats, the Refuge Complex contributes to the long-term
conservation of migratory and resident native wildlife populations,
and the recovery of endangered and threatened species. These
refuges offer research opportunities and provide an outstanding
showcase of habitat management for other landowners.”
“The Refuge Complex is the premiere destination for visitors to
coastal Rhode Island to engage in high quality, wildlife-dependent
recreation. Hundreds of thousands of visitors are rewarded each
year with inspiring vistas and exceptional opportunities to view
wildlife in native habitats. Innovative environmental educational
and interpretive programs motivate visitors to become better
stewards of coastal resources.”
“Through partnerships and extensive outreach efforts, Refuge
Complex staff are committed to accomplishing refuge goals and
significantly contributing to the Mission of the National Wildlife
Refuge System. This commitment will strengthen with the future,
revitalizing the southern New England ecosystem for generations
to come.”
Refuge Complex Goals
Our planning team developed the following goals for the Refuge
Complex after reviewing applicable laws and policies, regional plans,
the Refuge Complex vision statement, the purpose of each refuge,
and public comments. All the goals fully comply with Service policy
and national and regional mandates.
Our Refuge Complex goals are intentionally broad, descriptive
statements of purpose. They highlight specific elements of our vision
statement and provide the foundation for our management emphasis.
We identified Goal 1 as the top priority for the Refuge Complex;
Goals 2-5 are not presented in any particular order.
Each goal is further refined by a series of objective statements.
Objectives are incremental steps to be taken toward achieving a goal
and define the management emphasis in measurable terms, where
possible. Some of our objectives relate directly to habitat
management, while others strive to meet population targets tied to
species’ recovery plans, or state or regional species plans. The
strategies for each objective are specific actions, tools, techniques,
considerations, or a combination of these, which may be used to
Chapter 4
4-2 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Freshwater wetland. USFWS photo.
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
Trustom Pond Refuge’s Moonstone Beach will meet or exceed a 5-
year average of 1.5 fledged chicks/pair per year (1996 Revised Piping
Plover Recovery Plan). An additional annual objective is to meet or
exceed the site’s estimated nesting carrying capacity (estimated at
10 pairs in 1999), which may vary from year to year given the
dynamics of the beach ecosystem.
Background:
The 1996 Revised Revised Piping Plover Recovery Plan describes the
status, habitat requirements, and limiting factors for this federally
endangered .species. The major factors contributing to the species’
Chapter 4
Trustom Pond Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-3
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.
In addition, the PIF Plan for Southern New England (Physiographic
Area 9; draft Oct 2000) lists several implementation strategies and
management guidelines to achieve habitat objectives for piping plover,
including: monitoring and research, actively deterring predators,
preventing human disturbance at nesting sites, and public education.
All of these are incorporated as strategies or guidelines in Objectives
1.1 to 1.5 below.
Strategies:
  Continue to coordinate each year with the Service’s Ecological
Services Division and RI DEM prior to the piping plover
nesting season.
  Continue to install symbolic fencing along the entire length of
Moonstone Beach each year to exclude public access above mean
high water from April 1 to September 15.
  Continue to exclude vehicles from the beach year-round.
  Continue to hire at least 3 seasonal employees to monitor piping
plover and least tern nest sites, conduct outreach, and enforce
public use restrictions. Not all seasonal staff will be supported
through refuge funding; some will be funded from other sources
procured by the piping plover coordinator (see objective 1.2).
Refuge-funded seasonal staff may also support other priority
biological program activities.
  In 2003, reassess the nesting carrying capacity for Moonstone
Beach, 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:
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 landowners. Six of
these sites have had consistent nesting attempts over the last 5
years. Our primary objective has been to protect all active piping
Chapter 4
4-4 Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
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
Ninigret Refuge CCP because our South Shore cooperative
management program is integrated between the refuges).
Strategies:
  Each year, continue to monitor piping plover activities in suitable
habitat on the nine sites, 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.
  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 and fledging success. Predation is highly site-specific,
but evidence indicates that human activities are exacerbating natural
predation levels by influencing the types, numbers, and activity
patterns of predators. As a result, we are managing human activities
as described in Objectives 1.1 and 1.2, and also trying to influence
Chapter 4
Trustom Pond Refuge CCP – May 2002 4-5
Piping plover chick. USFWS photo.
predator behavior at nesting sites. Our predator management
includes the use of non-lethal strateg