Removing “Institutional Knowledge” In Charlestown May Affect Ninigret Park Usage

At the Town Council meeting on June 22, a piece of history was removed from the Ninigret Park Utilization Plan, the “blueprint” for future activities and expenditures in Ninigret Park, according to Council President Deb Carney. Why?

When the land was given to Charlestown, there was a stipulation that the decision was based on the land being used compatibly with, or not inconsistently with, the adjacent land, which is now the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge. Paul E. Goulding, in his decision, noted that this area is a major migration site for waterfowl and other birds and of great ecological and scenic importance. It was a primary reason the town received the land over a power company that wanted to build a nuclear power plant, along with other contenders. Bird numbers are already in steep decline in many cases, as are those of other creatures.

Ms. Carney recently pointedly asked in her letter to the National Park Service, in her personal capacity as a resident but sent on Town letterhead, whether the decision was needed in the plan. The NPS responded that it was not in the deed and that was all they referenced; however, the town could choose how to address that if it wished. Councilor Bonnie Van Slyke noted that the application from the town and the Program of Utilization, as amended, are specifically noted in Covenant No. 1 in the deed. Ms. Carney chose to propose that references to the Goulding decision be removed. The proposal passed 4-1, with Councilors Peter Slom, Stephen Stokes, and Craig Marr joining Deb Carney in voting for its removal. Ms. Van Slyke opposed.

My main concern is that removing it from the plan could encourage incompatible activities to be proposed. New people arrive and have no idea why Ninigret Park should be low-key, unlit, and relatively quiet. Residents have said in surveys that they do not want more large events or lighting, but such things might now be “allowed” simply because the Goulding decision is no longer in the plan to remind people of the intent of the gift to Charlestown and the town’s moral obligation to abide by Mr. Goulding’s rationale for deeding it to the residents of this town. Ms. Carney did not offer any explanation as to why she wanted it removed, other than that she deemed it unnecessary. The removal of history is happening elsewhere, but I did not think it would happen here in Charlestown.

In a similar action, Ms. Carney quoted the National Park Service’s response to her personal letter, stating that it does not differentiate between passive and active recreation. However, it is commonly understood that “passive” recreation requires little or no infrastructure — trails, nature watching, birding, and hiking, for example — while “active” recreation requires infrastructure and/or physical exertion, such as tennis courts, swimming pools, and paved surfaces: things that permanently disturb the land. This could also encompass noisy and bright events that create disturbance. Recreation is a fuzzier term. Some active recreation may be appropriate even on the 172 acres to which this determination applies, as long as it isn’t disturbing to the adjacent parcel. Soccer, cycle racing, and disc golf seem to be relatively compatible. Fireworks, bright lights, and noisy events are disturbing, especially during nesting season, between April and August, and during migration, which peaks in April/May and again in September/October. The 55 acres the town owns separately, to my mind, still carries an obligation to be mindful of any disturbance to wildlife it might generate, as it was part of the original decision. The standard is whether the use supports public park and recreation purposes and remains consistent with the deed’s terms and conditions, including the approved Program of Utilization. As provided in the deed, “the Program of Utilization may be amended from time to time at the request of either the Town or the NPS-FLP, with the written concurrence of the other party.” Has the current master plan been approved by the NPS, or just filed?

So the current master plan, entitled “Utilization Plan,” for Ninigret Park is to be updated with the Goulding decision removed. It is a shame there are not more people to voice their opinion, one way or the other, at Town Council meetings. Such things pass with little community engagement until it is too late.

You can learn more about the author, Frances Topping, a 2026 candidate for Charlestown Planning Commission, at her profile page.

Banner image is a photo of a Least Sandpiper in Charlestown by Peter Herstein.