Assabet River NWR Final CCP - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Assabet River National 

Wildlife Refuge 

Final Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 

January 2005

This goose, designed by J.N. “Ding” 

Darling, has become the symbol of 

the National Wildlife Refuge 

System 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principle federal agency for conserving, 

protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife in their habitats for the continuing benefit of 

the American people. The Service manages the 96-million acre National Wildlife Refuge 

System comprised of 544 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 

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. 

Cover Photo: Assabet River NWR © Marijke Holtrop

Table of Contents 

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background................................................................................- 1 - 

Refuge Overview......................................................................................................................- 1 - 

Purpose and Need for a CCP.................................................................................................- 1 - 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission ................................................................................- 3 - 

Refuge System Mission ..........................................................................................................- 4 - 

Laws...........................................................................................................................................- 4 - 

National and Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding this CCP...............- 5 - 

Gulf of Maine - Ecosystem Priorities................................................................................- 5 - 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan ..............................................................- 5 - 

Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plans....................................................................- 7 - 

Regional Wetlands Concept Plan- Emergency Wetlands Resources Act...................- 9 - 

Our Irreplaceable Heritage - Protecting Biodiversity in Massachusetts, 1998 .........- 9 - 

Existing Partnerships.............................................................................................................- 9 - 

Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process.......................................- 11 - 

Wilderness Assessment ........................................................................................................- 12 - 

Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................................- 13 - 

Issues and Concerns Considered Outside the Scope of This Plan .................................- 14 - 

Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions .....................................................................- 17 - 

Geographic/Ecosystem Setting ...........................................................................................- 17 - 

Socio-economic Setting .........................................................................................................- 17 - 

Refuge Resources..................................................................................................................- 18 - 

Climate ................................................................................................................................- 18 - 

Topography ........................................................................................................................- 18 - 

Geology................................................................................................................................- 19 - 

Soils......................................................................................................................................- 19 - 

Hydrology ...........................................................................................................................- 20 - 

Air Quality ..........................................................................................................................- 21 - 

Water Quality.....................................................................................................................- 22 - 

Other Contaminant Issues ...............................................................................................- 26 - 

Physical Safety Hazards...................................................................................................- 27 - 

Biological Resources .............................................................................................................- 28 - 

Vegetation and Habitat Types.........................................................................................- 28 - 

Vernal pools ............................................................................................................................- 31 - 

Invasive or Overabundant Species..................................................................................- 31 - 

Wildlife Resources.................................................................................................................- 32 - 

Migratory Birds.................................................................................................................- 32 - 

Mammals.............................................................................................................................- 33 - 

Reptiles and Amphibians..................................................................................................- 35 - 

Fisheries .............................................................................................................................- 35 - 

Invertebrates......................................................................................................................- 37 - 

Threatened and Endangered Species.............................................................................- 37 - 

Special Designations .........................................................................................................- 37 - 

Cultural Resources................................................................................................................- 38 - 

Prehistoric Period..............................................................................................................- 38 - 

Historic Period...................................................................................................................- 39 - 

Socio-economic Resources....................................................................................................- 44 -

Population and Demographic Conditions.......................................................................- 44 - 

Adjacent Communities and Land Uses..........................................................................- 44 - 

Chapter 4: Management Direction..........................................................................................- 45 - 

Refuge Complex Vision.........................................................................................................- 45 - 

Refuge Complex Goals..........................................................................................................- 45 - 

General Refuge Management ..............................................................................................- 59 - 

Refuge Access and Fees ...................................................................................................- 59 - 

Accessibility........................................................................................................................- 60 - 

Fire Management ..............................................................................................................- 60 - 

Land Protection .................................................................................................................- 61 - 

Resource Protection and Visitor Safety.........................................................................- 62 - 

Special Use Permits and Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement ............- 62 - 

Research .............................................................................................................................- 63 - 

Chapter 5: Refuge Administration..........................................................................................- 65 - 

Refuge Staffing ......................................................................................................................- 65 - 

Refuge Funding .....................................................................................................................- 65 - 

Refuge Buildings and Facilities...........................................................................................- 66 - 

Step-Down Management Plans ...........................................................................................- 66 - 

Maintaining Existing Facilities ...........................................................................................- 67 - 

Compatibility Determinations .............................................................................................- 68 - 

Monitoring and Evaluation ..................................................................................................- 69 - 

Adaptive Management..........................................................................................................- 70 - 

Additional NEPA Analysis...................................................................................................- 71 - 

Plan Amendment and Revision............................................................................................- 71 - 

Literature Cited.........................................................................................................................- 73 - 

Glossary.......................................................................................................................................- 79 - 

List of Preparers........................................................................................................................- 89 - 

Appendices..................................................................................................................................- 91 - 

Appendix A: Relevant Laws.....................................................................................................- 93 - 

Appendix B: U.S. Forest Service Content Analysis Team Summary Report ................- 101 - 

Appendix C: Responses to Substantive Comments............................................................- 157 - 

Appendix D: Species Lists......................................................................................................- 171 - 

Appendix E: RONS and MMS...............................................................................................- 201 - 

Appendix F: Existing and Proposed Staffing Charts for Assabet River, Great Meadows, 

and Oxbow NWRs....................................................................................................................- 205 - 

Appendix G: Final Compatibility Determinations ..............................................................- 209 - 

List of Tables 

Table 1-1: NAWMP Species Occurring at Assabet River NWR .....................................- 7 - 

Table 1-2: Bird Species of Concern Occurring on Assabet NWR....................................- 8 - 

Table 3-1: Revenue Sharing Payments to Towns within Assabet River NWR ...........- 18 - 

Table 3-2: Cover Types and Acreage at Assabet River NWR .......................................- 30 - 

Table 3-3: Rare Plant Species at Assabet River NWR ...................................................- 31 - 

Table 3-4: Invasive Species at Assabet River NWR........................................................- 32 - 

Table 3-5: State-listed Bird Species at Assabet River NWR .........................................- 33 - 

Table 3-6: State-listed Amphibians and Reptiles at Assabet River NWR ...................- 35 - 

Table 4-1: 2004 Massachusetts Hunting Seasons.............................................................- 56 - 

Table D-1: Fish of Assabet River NWR ...........................................................................- 171 -

Table D-2: Birds of Assabet River NWR .........................................................................- 171 - 

Table D-3: Mammals of Assabet River NWR..................................................................- 174 - 

Table D-4: Amphibians of Assabet River NWR ..............................................................- 175 - 

Table D-5: Reptiles of Assabet River NWR ....................................................................- 175 - 

Table D-6: Moths of Assabet River NWR........................................................................- 175 - 

Table D-7: Butterflies⁄Dragonflies at Assabet River NWR ..........................................- 177 - 

Table D-8: Vascular Plants of Assabet River NWR .......................................................- 178 - 

Table E-1: Projects Currently in the RONS Database and Proposed Projects to be 

included for Assabet River NWR ..................................................................- 201 - 

Table E-2: Projects Currently Backlogged in the Maintenance Management System 

(MMS) for Assabet River NWR.....................................................................- 203 - 

Table E-3: Projects Currently Backlogged in the MMS for the Eastern Massachusetts 

Refuge Complex ...............................................................................................- 203 - 

List of Maps 

Map 1-1: Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex.................................- 2 - 

Map 1-2: Gulf of Maine Ecosystem ...........................................................................................- 6 - 

Map 4-1: Public Uses to be Phased in at Assabet River NWR ...........................................- 51 -

Puffer Pond at Assabet NWR: Staff photo 

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 


This Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) has been prepared for 

the Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), which is one of eight 

refuges of the Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex (Complex) (see Map 

1-1). Concurrently, we are releasing the Final CCPs for Great Meadows 

(Concord and Sudbury divisions), and Oxbow NWRs. 

We will prepare a separate CCP and Environmental Impact Statement 

(CCP/EIS) for Monomoy and Nomans Land Island NWRs beginning later 

in 2004. We propose to begin the CCP process for Massasoit in 2005 and 

Mashpee and Nantucket NWRs in 2006. 

This CCP is the culmination of a planning process that formally began in 

January 1999. Numerous meetings with the public, the State, and 

conservation partners were held to identify and evaluate management 

alternatives. A draft CCP and Environmental Assessment (CCP/EA) was 

distributed in July 2003 for public review and comment. 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 (Refuge System) Mission, achieve refuge purposes and legal 

mandates, support regional conservation priorities, and serve the American 

public. 

Refuge Overview 

Formerly known as the Sudbury Training Annex, Assabet 

River NWR is the most recent addition to the Complex, 

created in the fall of 2000, when Fort Devens Army base 

transferred 2,230 acres to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service). This transfer was made in accordance with the 

Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, with 

the purpose of having “particular value in carrying out the 

national migratory bird management program.” All acres 

within the approved Refuge boundary are acquired. The 

large wetland complex and the contiguous forested areas 

are important feeding and breeding areas for migratory 

birds. Under Army administration, the area was not open to 

general public use. Because of this, public access remains a 

high priority for local community members. 

Purpose and Need for a CCP 

The purpose of a CCP is to provide managers and other interested partners 

guidance and direction for each refuge over the next 15 years, thus 

achieving refuge purposes and contributing to the mission of the Refuge 

System. The plan identifies what role the refuge plays, consistent with 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 1 -

- 2 - 


Map 1-1: Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Assabet River NWR

Eastern Bluebird: Photo by 

Bruce Flaig 


sound principles of fish and wildlife conservation, in the protection, 

enhancement and restoration of trust resources. 

This plan is also needed to: 

provide a clear statement of desired future conditions for habitat, 

wildlife, visitors and facilities; 

provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and partners with a clear 

understanding of the reasons for management actions; 

ensure management reflects the policies and goals of the Refuge 

System and legal mandates; 

ensure the compatibility of current and future uses; 

review current boundaries of the refuges, and evaluate the need to 

revise boundaries to better achieve refuge purposes; 

provide long-term continuity and direction for refuge and Complex 

management; and, 

provide a basis for staffing and operations, maintenance, and the 

development of budget requests. 

Currently, there is no management plan in place for Assabet River NWR 

that establishes priorities or provides consistent direction for managing 

fish, wildlife, habitats, and public uses on the refuge. This plan will help to 

resolve issues related to control of nuisance and invasive species, public 

uses in conflict with wildlife needs, lack of opportunities for wildlife 

dependent recreation, and the needs of our federal trust wildlife 

species. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

(Refuge Improvement Act; Public Law 105-57) requires that all NWRs 

have a CCP in place by 2012 to help fulfill the new mission of the 

Refuge System. The Refuge Improvement Act states that wildlife 

conservation is the priority of the Refuge System’s lands, and that the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuge lands 

shall be maintained. Additionally, the Refuge Improvement Act identifies 

six wildlife-dependent recreational uses that will receive priority 

consideration over other recreational uses of the refuge: wildlife 

observation and photography, hunting, fishing, environmental education, 

and interpretation. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission 

The Refuge System is managed by the Service, under the Department of 

the Interior. The mission of the Service is: 

“...working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and 

plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American 

people.” 


“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 

Improvement Act; Public 

Law 105-57)–Mission of the 

Refuge System. 

Winter at Assabet River NWR: Staff 

- 4 - 


The Service manages NWRs, waterfowl protection areas, 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, interjurisdictional fish, 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. 

Refuge System Mission 

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

aside specifically for the conservation of wildlife and ecosystem protection. 

The Refuge System consists of 544 national wildlife refuges that provide 

important habitat for native plants and many species of mammals, 

Laws 

birds, fish, and threatened and endangered species, encompassing 

over 95 million acres. Refuges offer a wide variety of recreational 

opportunities, and many have visitor centers, wildlife trails, and 

environmental education programs. Nationwide, over 34 million 

visitors annually hunt, fish, observe and photograph wildlife, or 

participate in interpretive activities on national wildlife refuges. 

In 1997, the Refuge Improvement Act established a unifying mission 

for the refuge system, a new process for determining compatible 

public uses, and the requirement to prepare a CCP for each refuge. 

The new law states that the refuge system must focus on wildlife 

conservation. It further states that the National mission, coupled with 

the purpose(s) for which each refuge was established, will provide the 

principal management direction for each refuge. 

While the Refuge System Mission and each refuge’s purpose provide the 

foundation for management, national wildlife refuges are also governed by 

other federal laws, executive orders, treaties, interstate compacts, and 

regulations pertaining to the conservation and protection of natural and 

cultural resources (see Appendix A for a more complete list of 

guiding laws). 

A primary law affecting refuge management is the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (Administration Act) 

which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to permit any use of 

a refuge “...whenever it is determined that such uses are compatible 

with the major purposes for which such areas were established.” 

The Administration Act was amended by the Refuge Improvement 

Act. It is also the key legislation on managing public uses, and 

protecting the Refuge System from incompatible or harmful human 


Wood Duck: Photo by Bruce 

Flaig 


activities to ensure that Americans can enjoy Refuge System lands and 

waters. 

Additionally, it is Service policy to address how each refuge, with an 

approved CCP, can help achieve the goals of the national Wilderness 

Preservation System. Thus, concurrent with the CCP process, we have 

incorporated a summary of a wilderness assessment into this document 

(see Wilderness Assessment section in Chapter 2). 

The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 requires that any recreational use of 

refuge lands be compatible with the primary purposes for which a refuge 

was established and not inconsistent with other previously authorized 

operations. 

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 provides for the 

management of historic and archaeological resources that occur on any 

refuge. Other legislation, such as the Endangered Species Act, the North 

American Wetlands Conservation Act, the Wilderness Act of 1964 and 

particularly the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) all provide 

guidance for the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats. 

National and Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding this 

CCP 

Gulf of Maine - Ecosystem Priorities 

The Service has 52 ecosystem teams across the country. The Assabet River 

NWR is located in the Gulf of Maine ecosystem (see Map 1-2). The 

ecosystem priorities that are applicable to the refuge are: 

Protect, enhance, and restore populations of migratory bird species of 

special concern and their habitats. 

Manage service lands to protect, enhance and restore habitats to 

maintain biodiversity. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) documents 

the strategy between the United States, Canada and Mexico to restore 

waterfowl populations through habitat protection, restoration, and 

enhancement. Implementation of the plan is at the regional level. Ten 

regional habitat “joint ventures” are partnerships involving federal, state, 

provincial, tribal nations, local businesses, conservation organizations, and 

individual citizens. Units of the Complex are contained within the Atlantic 

Coast Joint Venture. 

The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture Program identifies seven focus areas in 

Massachusetts. One of these focus areas includes the inland rivers of the 

Blackstone, Nashua, and the Sudbury-Assabet-Concord Rivers. The 


- 6 - 


Map 1-2: Gulf of Maine Ecosystem 



Assabet River NWR is part of this focus area, with nationally significant 

wetlands that support migrating waterfowl. The Program is developing a 

focus area report that identifies important waterfowl resources, threats, 

and conservation recommendations. 

A draft updated NAWMP document is at: 

http://birdhabitat.fws.gov/NAWMP/2003nawmpdraft.htm. In the 

Implementation Framework section of this document species priorities are 

listed for each region. Table 1-1 includes species identified in the NAWMP 

that occur at Assabet River NWR. 

Table 1-1: NAWMP Species Occurring at Assabet River NWR 

Species Continental Breeding Breeding Nonbreeding Nonbreeding 

Priority Importance Need Importance Need 

Mallard High Mod. Low Moderate Mod. High High 

Wood Duck Moderate Mod. Low Mod. Low Mod. Low Mod. Low 

Great Blue Heron with fish: Photo 

by Bruce Flaig 

Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plans 

Partners in Flight (PIF) was initiated in 1990 as a voluntary, international 

coalition of agencies, organizations, institutions, industries, and other 

citizens dedicated to landbird conservation. The foundation for PIF’s 

long-term strategy for bird conservation is a series of scientifically based 

bird conservation plans. The goal of each PIF bird conservation plan is to 

ensure long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native landbirds. 

These plans use information on bird population trends, species’ 

distributions, and the vulnerability of the species and their habitats to 

threats, to rank the conservation priority of birds occurring within a 

particular physiographic area. 

The PIF approach differs from many existing federal and state-level listing 

processes in that it (1) is voluntary and non-regulatory, and (2) focuses 

proactively on relatively common species in areas where conservation 

actions can be most effective, rather than ocal emphasis on rare and 

peripheral populations. A Landbird Conservation Plan for the southern 

New England physiographic area was completed in 2000, which includes all 

of eastern Massachusetts. This plan identifies 72 priority breeding bird 

species, 8 priority winter species, and 7 major habitat types as priorities for 

conservation in this area. Of the priority species for this physiographic 

area, at least 29 of the priority breeding species have been 

recorded as occurring on the refuge and 1 of the 8 wintering 

species have been recorded as wintering on the refuge. In the 

plan, focal species are selected for each habitat type and used in 

developing population and habitat objectives. 

Implementation strategies and management guidelines for 

achieving these objectives are also included for each habitat type. 

Priority habitats for southern New England include maritime 

marshes, beaches/dunes, mature forest, early successional 


- 8 - 


scrub/pine barrens, freshwater wetlands, and grasslands. The list of 

priority species, objectives, and conservation actions recommended in the 

southern New England Bird Conservation Plan will help direct landbird 

management on the refuge. 

The North Atlantic Regional Shorebird Plan (NARSP) identifies 38 

priority shorebird species based upon a national scoring system that 

assesses population trends, relative abundance, threats and distribution 

patterns. The Service has recorded 3 of these species as occurring on the 

refuge. The NARSP builds upon the information in the U.S. Shorebird 

Conservation Plan (USSCP). The USSCP is a partnership involving 

organizations throughout the United States committed to the conservation 

of shorebirds. At a regional scale, the goal of the USSCP is to ensure that 

adequate quantity and quality of habitat is identified and maintained to 

support the different shorebirds that breed in, winter in, and migrate 

through each region. In August 2004, the USSCP was revised based upon 

the latest population and habitat information available. The revised list 

included 7 highly imperiled shorebird taxa and 23 taxa of high concern. 

The refuge supports 1 species of shorebird of high concern. 

Additionally, the Service has attempted to assess and integrate all the 

information above and compile a list of Birds of Conservation Concern for 

Bird Conservation Region 30, which contains the refuge. There are a total 

of 32 species listed, 7 of these have been recorded as occurring on the 

refuge. 

Table 1-2: Bird Species of Concern Occurring on Assabet NWR 

PIF BCR 30 NARSP USSCP 

Species Priority Wintering Conservation Priority High Concern 

Breeding 

Concerns Shorebird 

Blue-winged Warbler � � 

Wood Thrush � � 

Prairie Warbler � � 

Baltimore Oriole � � 

Scarlet Tanager � 

American Woodcock � � � 

Golden-winged 

Warbler 

� � 

Rose-breasted 

Grosbeak 

� 

Chimney Swift � 

Eastern Wood-pewee � 

Black-and-white 

Warbler 

� 

Hairy Woodpecker � 

Eastern Towhee � 

Purple Finch � 

Canada Warbler � � 

Blackburnian 

Warbler 

� 



PIF BCR 30 NARSP USSCP 

Species Priority Wintering Conservation Priority High Concern 

Breeding 

Concerns Shorebird 

Bobolink � 

Whip-poor-will � � 

Northern Parula � 

Yellow-breasted Chat � 

Red-shouldered 

Hawk 

� 

Northern Harrier � 

Vesper Sparrow � 

Sharp-shinned Hawk � 

Barred Owl � 

Cooper’s Hawk � 

Osprey � 

Savannah Sparrow � � 

Great Blue Heron � 

Common Snipe � 

Killdeer � 

Volunteer cleanup at Assabet NWR: Staff Photo 

Regional Wetlands Concept Plan- Emergency Wetlands Resources Act 

In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act to 

promote the conservation of our nation’s wetlands. This act requires 

identification of the location and types of wetlands, and which lands should 

be targeted for state and federal land acquisition efforts. In 1990, the 

Northeast Regional Office of the Service completed a Regional Wetlands 

Concept Plan to identify wetlands in the region. The Regional Plan 

identifies a total of 850 wetland sites and complexes in the region. 1,800 

acres of wetlands associated with the Sudbury, Assabet and Concord 

Rivers were identified as being regionally valuable for wildlife, fisheries, 

and recreation. 

Our Irreplaceable Heritage - Protecting Biodiversity in Massachusetts, 

1998 

This report recommends that the state develop a 

biodiversity protection strategy that outlines how all native 

biodiversity will be conserved. It also identifies and 

describes eight types of natural communities that may 

require immediate conservation attention because of their 

potential vulnerability and large number of rare species 

they contain. Seven of the eight communities listed in the 

report occur within the Complex boundary. 

Existing Partnerships 

Throughout this CCP, we use the term “partners”. In 

addition to our volunteers, we receive significant help from 


- 10 - 


the following partners: 

• Ecological Services, New England Field Office (Service) 

• Friends of the Assabet River NWR 

• Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of 

State Parks and Recreation 

• Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game (DFG), Division of 

Fisheries and Wildlife (MassWildlife) 

• New England Wildflower Society 

• Organization for the Assabet River (OAR) 

• Stow Conservation Trust 

• SuAsCo Watershed Community Council 

• Sudbury Foundation 

• Sudbury Valley Trustees (SVT) 

The Friends of the Assabet River NWR provide considerable time and 

effort toward accomplishment of refuge and Service goals. They 

participate in environmental education and outreach, land protection, 

biological surveys, habitat management, and fund raising projects. During 

fiscal year 2003, the Friends of Assabet River NWR contributed a total of 

3,206 volunteer hours to the refuge. Without their assistance, much of the 

work necessary to open the refuge would not be done yet. 


Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process 

Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning 

Process 

Given the mandate in the Refuge Improvement Act to develop a CCP for 

each national wildlife refuge, the Complex began the planning process in 

1998. We started by forming a core planning team of refuge staff and 

regional office planners. We placed a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an 

EIS in the January 1999 Federal Register to officially kick-off our planning 

effort for all eight of the Complex refuges. 

First, we collected information on our biological and habitat resources. 

While in the process of collecting information, we initiated the public 

scoping and involvement part of the process. We held meetings with each 

town’s board of selectmen and state and federal agencies. Many of these 

partners provided information on natural resources and public uses on 

refuges in the Complex. In February of 1999 we held open houses in each 

town to provide an opportunity for public comment on different issues 

including current and future management 

strategies, land protection and public uses. 

We 

were pleased with the participation at many of 

our meetings, which ranged from 30 people to 

over 100. 

We recognized that attending our open houses 

will be difficult for many and designed an issues 

workbook to encourage additional comment. Over 

8,000 people representing a variety of interests 

received workbooks. Workbooks were also 

available at open houses and at the refuge 

headquarters. We received over 660 responses. 

Using the information collected from our partners 

and through public comment we identified 

significant issues to be addressed in the plan. In 

August of 1999, we distributed a planning update 

to everyone on our mailing list describing the key 

issues identified for each refuge. Once key issues were determined and 

refined, we developed alternative strategies to resolve each one. We 

derived the strategies from public comment, follow-up contacts with 

partners and refuge staff. After a reasonable range of alternatives was 

identified, we evaluated the environmental consequences of each 

alternative. 

In February of 2001 we recognized that producing a CCP/EIS for the 

entire Complex would be far too cumbersome to be efficient. At that time, 

we published an NOI to prepare a CCP/EA for five of the refuges in the 

Complex, Assabet River, Great Meadows, Oxbow, Mashpee and Massasoit 


Blue Iris: Photo by Marijke Holtrop 

- 12 - 


NWRs. Additional issues and a need for more information prompted us to 

later split Mashpee and Massasoit NWRs from the draft as well. 

The Service solicited comments on the draft CCP/EA for Great Meadows, 

Assabet River, and Oxbow NWRs from July 20 to September 3, 2003. We 

contracted with the U.S. Forest Service’s Content Analysis Team (CAT) to 

compile the nearly 2,000 comments that we received. The CAT developed a 

summary report of comments (Appendix B) as well as a database of 

individual comments. We utilized the original comments received, CAT 

report and comment database to develop a list of comments that required 

responses. Editorial suggestions and notes of concurrence with or 

opposition to certain proposals were noted and included in the decision 

making process, but do not receive formal responses. We have included our 

responses to requests for additional information or clarification, provisions 

of additional information, and specific concerns as Appendix C. We have 

made changes to the CCP where appropriate. 

The final product of the process is three stand-alone CCPs, one 

for each refuge. Implementation of the CCPs can occur once the 

Finding of (No) Significant Impact (FONSI) is signed. 

Each year, we will evaluate our accomplishments under the CCPs. 

Monitoring or new information may indicate the need to change 

our strategies. The collection of additional data at Assabet River 

NWR will likely require modification and specification of the 

wildlife and habitat management strategies. We will modify the 

CCP documents and associated management activities as needed, following 

the procedures outlined in Service policy and NEPA requirements. 

The 

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

Wilderness Assessment 

The 

planning team conducted a Wilderness Assessment, as required by 

Refuge Planning Policy, to determine if any lands and waters in fee title 

ownership were suitable to be proposed for designation as a Wilderness 

Area. During the inventory stage, we determined that the Assabet River 

NWR does not fulfill the eligibility requirements for a Wilderness Study 

Area as defined by the Wilderness Act. The refuge and its surrounding 

area have been altered in some way by man, with the imprint of man’s work 

generally noticeable. The refuge does not have 5,000 contiguous acres, and 

is not of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an 

unimpaired condition. Furthermore, permanent roads are contained within 

the refuge. Therefore, suitability of the refuge for Wilderness Designation 

is not analyzed further in this document. 



Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities 

Issues, concerns, and opportunities were brought to the attention of the 

refuge planning team through early planning discussions with local 

governments, state, and federal representatives, and through the public 

scoping process. We received comments from the public both verbally at 

open houses and in writing, through Issues Workbooks and individual 

letters. In addition issues were identified by the Service and from 

comments received on the Draft CCP/EA. Many issues that are very 

important to the public often fall outside the scope of the decision to be 

made within this planning process. In some instances, the Service cannot 

resolve issues some people have communicated to us. We have considered 

all issues throughout our planning process, and have developed plans that 

attempt to address the important issues where possible. 

Habitat and Wildlife Management 

Many people were interested in our management programs. The refuge has 

begun additional surveys and inventories to collect baseline information. 

Our efforts at the refuge will help us develop a Habitat Management Plan 

(HMP) which will provide a detailed description of our goals and objectives 

for habitat management on the refuge. 

Individuals and groups expressed a great deal of interest in how we 

manage migratory birds and upland habitats on the refuge. The public is 

concerned about what will happen with fencing that currently surrounds 

the refuge and how it impacts wildlife movement. The fencing was not 

removed when the property was transferred to the Service. 

Control of Invasive, Injurious, and Overabundant Plant and Animal 

Species 

Invasive species, including Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), 

black locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia), and spotted knapweed (Centaurea 

maculosa) and are a concern at the refuge. These species limit the 

productivity of wildlife habitat. Management to control invasive species was 

mentioned as a watershed-wide priority to some conservation associations. 

We continue our efforts to control known invasives on the refuge. 

Hunting 

Requests were made at public meetings and through written comments 

both to allow and not to allow deer hunting on the refuge. We received a 

petition requesting consideration of bow hunting at Assabet River NWR. 

There were suggestions to provide lawful hunting opportunities on the 

refuge to control deer populations and deter poaching. Cooperation with 


- 14 - 

Trailmarker: Photo by Karla 

Thompson 


local towns and hunting groups was a suggestion. Others opposed hunting 

of any kind on the refuge. 

Management of Public Use and Access 

The Complex Headquarters and visitor contact station is located in 

Sudbury, MA. The need for environmental educational programs in 

local schools as well as additional interpretive opportunities where the 

public can learn about the refuge was also raised. 

We do not have a consistent process for collecting and documenting 

visitation at the refuge. The refuge will be opened in phases 

beginning in the fall of 2004. Trespass has been occurring at the 

refuge. 

Resource Protection and Visitor Safety 

Many people voiced concern for additional protection for cultural and 

historical resources. Other concerns included the need to control 

poaching, trespassing and other refuge regulations violations. We 

need to address use of existing structures, if possible, and determine 

where a number of buildings need to be removed. To date, 18 

buildings have been removed from the refuge. There is still a large amount 

of material to be removed from the refuge, including razor wire, and holes 

to be filled. 

Infrastructure and Operations and Maintenance 

We heard from some people that the Complex doesn’t have the resources 

and staff needed to support programs and maintenance of the refuge. A 

new biological position was added to the Complex in 2004 and additional 

positions have been identified to be filled as funding allows. 

Issues and Concerns Considered Outside the Scope of This Plan 

Some external threats to the refuges such as water quality and 

contamination were identified by the public. 

Poor water quality in the Concord, Sudbury and Assabet Rivers prompted 

concern among citizens. The Concord and Sudbury Rivers both are 

reported to have high levels of contamination, and the Assabet River 

suffers from excessive nutrient loading. In these watersheds, the Service is 

currently involved in watershed-wide efforts and partnerships to review 

and reduce impacts to the communities and to refuge resources. Service 

contaminants specialists represent wildlife interests in contaminants 

cleanup efforts that directly affect refuge lands, such as lands transferred 

to the Service or rivers that flow into the refuges, and refuge staff 



participates in advisory committees that comment on permits and plans 

that affect water quality. 

Some Towns wish to develop water supply wells on refuge property. 

Some towns requested access for the purpose of drilling water supply wells. 

Wells have been shown to draw down the surrounding water table. A 1994 

study by the Massachusetts Office of Water Resources identified that 

“wells can have a significant impact on nearby (surface) water bodies and 

may affect specific biological resources.” Concerns were 

raised by the public during CCP scoping that disturbance 

to wildlife, and other impacts due to the wells, or access to 

the wells, could occur. 

Chemical control of mosquitoes on National Wildlife 

Refuges nationwide is being evaluated by the Service. 

The Service has developed a draft national mosquito 

policy for refuge managers to apply when determining 

how and when mosquito populations may be managed on 

lands administered within the Refuge System. The draft 

Hazards at Assabet NWR: Staff photo 

science-based policy indicates that mosquito populations 

will essentially be allowed to function unimpeded as part 

of the wetland ecosystem. Mosquito populations may be reduced in certain 

circumstances. We work with state and local public health departments 

and mosquito abatement agencies to monitor and if necessary contain 

mosquito-borne diseases. Mosquito spraying to control larval mosquitoes 

on Assabet River NWR has not occurred. The decision to restrict mosquito 

control on the refuge is consistent with the current draft policy. Any 

future Service policy will be applied to Assabet River NWR. 


- 16 - 


(This page intentionally left blank) 


Assabet River NWR: Staff photo 

Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions 


Geographic/Ecosystem Setting 

Assabet River NWR, formerly referred to as the U.S. Army’s Fort Devens 

Sudbury Training Annex, is a 2,230-acre parcel of land located 

approximately 20 miles west of Boston, and 4 miles west of the Complex 

headquarters. It is located in portions of the towns of Hudson, Maynard, 

Stow and Sudbury and covers approximately 3.5 square miles. The Assabet 

River NWR consists of two separate pieces of land. The larger northern 

section is just north of Hudson Road. The southern section is located to the 

south of Hudson Road. 

The land, centered in a developed area, has been protected by the Army for 

the last 58 years. That protection has allowed the maturation 

of extensive, structurally diverse wetland habitats, whose 

ecological integrity is enhanced by its surrounding upland 

forests and grasslands. The refuge provides significant 

habitat for migrating and resident wildlife. Along with 

providing habitat to numerous species considered threatened 

or endangered by the state of Massachusetts, the refuge also 

includes several rare wetland types and a number of vernal 

pools, which are considered to be habitats of special concern. 

More specifically, approximately 70 percent of the refuge land 

is forested with white pine (Pinus strobus) and mixed 

hardwoods dominating. Approximately 22 percent is 

considered wetland habitat, including a remnant Atlantic white cedar 

swamp, 6 dwarf-shrub bogs, 2 minerotrophic peatland bogs, a collection of 

vernal pools and historical cranberry bogs, and grass and shrubland 

habitats in the remaining areas. 

Socio-economic Setting 

The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of June 15, 1935, as amended, provides 

annual payments to taxing authorities, based on acreage and value of 

refuge lands located within their jurisdiction. Money for these payments 

comes from the sale of oil and gas leases, timber sales, grazing fees, the 

sale of other Refuge System resources, and from Congressional 

appropriations. The Congressional appropriations are intended to make up 

the difference between the net receipts from the Refuge Revenue Sharing 

Fund and the total amount due to local taxing authorities. The actual 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Payment does vary from year to year, because 

Congress may or may not appropriate sufficient funds to make full 

payment. 


- 18 - 

Forested Wetland: Photo By 

Emily Holick 


The Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments are based on one of three different 

formulas, whichever results in the highest payment to the local taxing 

authority. In Massachusetts, the payments are based on three-quarters of 

one percent of the appraised market value. The purchase price of a 

property is considered its market value until the property is reappraised. 

The Service reappraises the value of refuge lands every five years, and the 

appraisals are based on the land’s “highest and best use”. On wetlands and 

formerly farmland-assessed properties, the full entitlement Refuge 

Revenue Sharing Payments sometimes exceed the real estate tax. In other 

cases, Refuge Revenue Sharing payments may be less than the local real 

estate tax. 

Table 3-1: Revenue Sharing Payments to Towns within Assabet River NWR 

Year Hudson Maynard Stow Sudbury* 

2003 $775 $13,823 $19,112 $35,474 

2002 $806 $14,382 $19,885 $36,909 

2001 $863 $15,395 $21,286 $39,510 

2000 $846 $15,083 $20,854 $33,393 

*Refuge revenue sharing payments for Sudbury include payments for lands in Great 

Meadows NWR. 

The fact that refuges put little demand on the infrastructure of a 

municipality, must be considered in assessing the financial impact on the 

municipality. For example, there is no extra demand placed on the school 

system or utilities; and little demand on roads, police and fire protection, 

etc. However, visitation to the refuge often benefits local businesses. The 

refuge controls uses only on the properties it owns. 

Refuge Resources 

Climate 

Assabet River NWR experiences moderately cold, moist winters and warm, 

damp summers with an annual mean precipitation of 44 inches per year. 

Precipitation is fairly well distributed throughout the year. The driest 

months are July and October, with mean precipitation of 3.3 inches, and the 

wettest months are March and November with mean precipitation of 4.7 

inches. Winter precipitation is usually in the form of snow and ice storms. 

Due to its proximity to the Atlantic Ocean, the refuge experiences the 

influence of tropical storms and hurricanes and their associated gusty 

winds and torrential rains. July is the warmest month, with an average 

temperature of 72 degrees Fahrenheit (U.S. Army 1995). 

Topography 

The refuge is located near the western boundary of the seaboard lowlands 

of the New England-maritime province, and is dominated by broad flat 

plains with elevations of 190-200 feet above mean sea level (msl). Overall, 


Diverse habitats fill Assabet 

NWR such as this area near 

Taylor Brook: Photo by 

Marijke Holtrop 


elevations on the refuge range from approximately 170 to 321 feet above 

msl (U.S. Army 1995). Hills are located across the refuge, but predominate 

across the northern boundary and the central area of the northern portion 

of the property. In general terms, the topographic features on the refuge 

may be described as being approximately: 81 percent lowlands, 16 percent 

hills and 3 percent open water (U.S. Army 1980). 

Geology 

The Wisconsin stage glaciation has shaped the landform of the refuge, and 

the northeast in general. Eight surface depositional types are found on the 

refuge, and six of these are from glacial action: kames, kame terraces, kame 

fields, outwash plains, ground moraines and drumlins. The remaining two 

sediment deposits are alluvium swamps. Glacial tills are compact, unsorted 

mixtures of clay, silt, sand, gravel and boulders. The hilly portions of the 

refuge tend to be till, with the flatter areas being glacial outwash. The tills 

may reach thicknesses of up to 40 feet in moraine areas, and up to 80 feet in 

drumlins. Alluvium is generally fine gravel, and the swamps are 

predominately sand, silt and organic matter. Kames are irregularly shaped 

mounds of poorly sorted sands and gravels. Kame fields are simply 

described as areas of closely spaced kames. Kame terraces were formed by 

glacial meltwater depositing suspended matter between ice sheets. Vose 

Hill and the hill immediately south of Tuttle Hill are mapped as drumlins, 

glacially formed accumulations of till indicating by their orientation the 

direction of ice flow (USGS 1956). A million-year old river valley underlies 

Lake Boon, White Pond and the southern portion of the refuge (U.S. Army 

1995). 

The deeper lying bedrock is igneous and metamorphic rock of the 

Precambrian and Paleozoic ages. Depth to bedrock across the refuge is 

generally in the range of 40 to 100 feet below the ground surface. Primary 

formations found on the refuge include the Precambrian Marlboro schist; 

the Devonian age Salem and Dedham granodiorites; the carboniferous 

Nashoba gneiss; and, the Gospel Hill gneiss. Bedrock outcrops occur in 

several irregularly distributed areas across the refuge (U.S. Army 1995). 

Soils 

Soils across the refuge are comprised of a diverse range of types reflecting 

varied glacial and alluvial depositional processes. The U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service soil maps indicate 

the more common soils include those of the Carver, Windsor, Merrimac, 

Paxton, Deerfield, Montauk, and Charlton-Hollis series in the uplands; and, 

the Swansea and Freetown series in wetlands (USDA 1995). 

The Carver soil series consists of nearly level to steep, deep (5+ feet), 

excessively drained soils on glacial outwash plain, terraces, and deltas. 

They are very friable or loose loamy coarse sands, with very rapid 


- 20 - 


permeability. They tend to be droughty, with severe concern for seedling 

survival and slight concern for erosion in well managed forest cover. 

Windsor soils are found in nearly level to very steep conditions; are up to 

5+ feet deep; excessively drained soils on glacial outwash plains, terraces, 

deltas and escarpments. They formed in sandy glacial outwash, and have a 

very friable or loose loamy sand or loamy fin sand surface soil. They have 

rapid permeability and tend to be droughty, but concern for seedling 

mortality is listed as being slight. 

Merrimac soils occur in level to steep slopes; are up to 5+ feet deep; and, 

are excessively drained soils found on glacial outwash plains, terraces, and 

kames. They formed in water-sorted, sandy glacial material, and are 

friable, fine sandy loams and sandy loams in the surface. They are 

moderately rapid in permeability, with few limitations for most uses, and 

moderate risk for seedling mortality. 

Paxton soils are deep (5+ feet), well drained soils found on glacial drumlins. 

They formed in compact glacial till. These soils are friable fine sandy loams, 

with a very stony surface. They have slow or very slow permeability and 

moderate risk for seedling mortality. 

The Deerfield series are deep, well drained, loamy fine sand soils. They are 

found on glacial outwash plains, terraces, and deltas. These soils may have 

a seasonal high water table at 18 to 36 inches and moderate seedling 

mortality risk. 

Montauk soils are well drained and found on drumlins. They formed in 

compact glacial tills, and are friable, fine sandy loams, with moderately 

rapid permeability. Montauk soils are stony to extremely stony, with a 

slight seedling mortality risk. 

The Charton-Hollis-rock outcrop complex soils are well drained, with (on 

average) approximately 10% bedrock outcrops. 

The Swansea and Freetown series are very poorly drained wetland soils. 

They formed in depressions and flat areas of glacial outwash plains and 

terraces, and may be 50 inches to many feet of black, highly decomposed 

organic material over sandy mineral materials. They have a water table 

that is at or near the surface most of the year (USDA 1995). 

Hydrology 

Most of the northern section and westernmost parts of the southern section 

of Assabet River NWR fall within the Assabet River drainage basin. The 

majority of the northern portion of the refuge drains northward through 

Taylor Brook and its tributaries, including Honey Brook. Two small, 

intermittent streams also flow from the northern/northwest portion of the 



refuge into the Assabet River. The central and eastern areas of the 

southern portion of the refuge are within the Sudbury River drainage 

basin. Marlboro Brook drains from the southeastern portion of this section 

of the refuge into Hop Brook, a tributary of the Sudbury River, just above 

Stearns Millpond. The western portions of this section of 

the refuge drain toward White Pond, which has no surface 

outlet, but is thought to drain underground to Lake Boon 

and thence to the Assabet River (U.S. Army 1995). 

The water table under much of the refuge is shallow, as 

indicated by the extensive swamps, bogs, and water-holes 

found on the property. Groundwater discharge is thought to 

be supplying much of the flow occurring through the 

outwash plains underlying the lowlands of the site (U.S. 

Army 1995). The poorly drained lowlands soils have 

Taylor Brook: Photo by Marijke Holtrop 

supported the establishment of extensive and diverse 

wetland habitats, which include forested and shrubdominated 

wetlands, bogs, emergent wetlands, open-water bodies in the 

form of several lakes and ponds, an abandoned cranberry bog, and 

scattered seasonally-flooded vernal pools (USFWS 1995). 

Air Quality 

The Massachusetts annual air quality report for 1999 (MADEP, 2000), and 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) air quality planning 

and standards web page (EPA, 2001), contain the most recent data 

available for air quality in this area. The nearest data appear to be limited 

to those from monitoring sites in the City of Worcester and the Town of 

Stow. The Stow monitoring site has been located on the Assabet River 

NWR since 1999, and prior to that time was located nearby on the Great 

Meadows NWR in Sudbury. 

The pollutants for which state-wide data are available are ozone (O 3 ), 

carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), lead (Pb), sulfur dioxide 

(SO 2 ) and particulate matter (both 2.5 microns (PM2.5) and 10 microns 

(PM10)). 

The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) determined by 

USEPA set the concentration limits that determine the attainment status 

for each criteria pollutant. Massachusetts does not attain the public health 

standard for two pollutants – ozone (O 3 ) for the entire state and CO in a few 

cities (MADEP 2000), including parts of Worcester and Middlesex counties 

within which the refuge is located (USEPA 2001). 

There are two ozone standards based on two different averaging times, 1hour 

and 8-hour. In 1999, there were 85 exceedances of the 8-hour standard 

occurring on 22 days, and 5 exceedances of the 1- hour standard occurring 

on 4 days on a state-wide basis. The 12-year trends for ozone readings in 


- 22 - 


the state have been generally decreasing toward better quality since 1988. 

Massachusetts has made significant progress in attaining the CO standard 

by implementing air pollution control programs. The last violation of the 

CO NAAQS occurred in Boston in 1986. The Boston metropolitan area was 

redesignated to attainment of the CO federal air quality standard by the 

USEPA in 1996. Lowell, Springfield, Waltham, and Worcester remain in 

non-attainment of the CO standard. MADEP is currently preparing a 

request to the USEPA to redesignate these areas to attainment for CO 

because monitoring data has been below the standard for many years. The 

redesignation request, which includes technical support and a maintenance 

plan, will be subject to public review and comment prior to being submitted 

to the USEPA. 

In recent years there has been concern regarding the aerial deposition of 

mercury from atmospheric sources outside the northeast region (see for 

example Sweet and Prestbo 1999). Researchers have speculated that this 

may be the source of mercury levels found in some species and age-classes 

of fish in New England above the 1 part per million standard established by 

the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) (see discussion in the 

water quality section below). 

The annual average concentration of lead in the air decreased substantially 

since 1985 from more than 300 ug/m 3 to less than 0.05 ug/m 3 (the annual 

average NAAQS for lead is 1.5 ug/m 3 ). Massachusetts is well below the 

standard. This result is attributed to the use of unleaded gasoline in motor 

vehicles, which are the primary source of airborne lead emissions (MADEP 

2000). While air quality concentrations of lead have dramatically decreased, 

there may still be concern regarding residual lead levels in soils along 

heavily traveled roadways deposited prior to the change to unleaded 

gasoline usage. 

Water Quality 

The waters of the Assabet River have been designated as Class B, warm 

water fisheries by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Class B waters 

are defined as being suitable for “protection and propagation of fish, other 

aquatic life, for wildlife, and for primary and secondary contact recreation” 

(MADEP 1998). All sections of the Assabet River are included in the 

MADEP 303(d) list of waters as failing to meet the Class B standards, 

primarily due to elevated levels of phosphorus and nitrogen, and low 

dissolved oxygen concentrations (OAR 2000). The source of nutrient input 

is thought to be associated with discharges from seven municipal 

wastewater treatment facilities, storm water runoff from lawns and 

agricultural lands and releases from nutrients previously settled in the 

sediments of the river bottom (OAR 2000). Environmental consulting firms 

working for the Army have conducted four studies of contaminants in 

surface water, sediment and fish of Puffer Pond since the mid-1980s. 



Summaries of these studies (taken from U.S. Army 1995) are presented 

below: 

Dames & Moore – 1984 

In 1984 Dames & Moore (D&M) collected background samples of surface 

water and sediment (D&M 1986). One of the samples was collected 

upstream of Puffer Pond, and one of them was collected downstream. 

Phenols were detected in upstream surface water, and polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAHs) were detected in downstream sediment. D&M 

reported that the observed PAH compounds may have resulted from 

widespread distribution of coal ash at the installation. D&M conducted an 

expanded second round of surface water and sediment 

sampling, to better define the pattern of contaminant 

distribution. On the basis of the second-round sampling 

results, D&M concluded that “no significant 

contamination sources exist in the Puffer Pond area” 

(D&M 1986, p. 2-32). 

U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency – 1991 

The potential presence of contaminants in and around 

Puffer Pond led the Fort Devens preventive medicine 

Reflections: Photo by Emily Holick 

service to request a study of the pond by the U.S. Army 

Environmental Hygiene Agency (AEHA), “to determine 

if there is contamination that will compromise the health 

of people fishing in Puffer Pond” (AEHA 1991). AEHA conducted its study 

of Puffer Pond in April of 1991. They collected surface water and sediment 

samples at four locations in the pond, and fish at one location. Sixteen fish 

were collected, only one of which was from the predator trophic level (a 

large pickerel). The fish were filleted, and the samples were analyzed for 

metals, pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The surface 

water and sediment samples were also analyzed. In the surface water 

samples, cadmium, lead, silver, and zinc exceeded USEPA water quality 

criteria for the protection of aquatic life. In sediment, the concentrations of 

all metals were “extremely low compared to sediments from other Army 

installations around the country and background soil concentrations in the 

eastern united states” (AEHA 1991, p. 5). The mercury concentration (1.2 

ug/g) in the pickerel sample exceeded the USFDA action level (1.0 ug/g). 

All other analytes in all fish samples were within safe levels for human 

consumption. AEHA (1991, p. 6) concluded that: (a) “no contamination was 

detected from past practices”; (b) exceedence of the USFDA action level by 

mercury in one fish sample may not be representative of the fish population 

in Puffer Pond; and, (c) that more fish should be sampled before releasing a 

health advisory. AEHA recommended that the additional fish sampling be 

conducted as part of investigations then being planned by the U.S. Army 

Toxic and Hazardous Materials Administration (USATHAMA). As a result 


- 24 - 


of the AEHA findings, Fort Devens issued a catch-and-release advisory for 

Puffer Pond. 

OHM Corporation - 1992 

OHM Corporation (OHM) prepared a work plan (August 1992) for a Puffer 

Pond fish study to be conducted under contract to USATHAMA. The work 

plan incorporated a discussion of the methods and results of an ecological 

survey of Puffer Pond fish conducted by OHM in the spring of 1992. Using 

hook and line, on April 24 OHM caught and released 23 largemouth bass, 

and on May 1 OHM caught and released three pickerel, three largemouth 

bass, two black crappie, and two yellow perch. OHM visually inspected the 

fish, looked for swimming eccentricities, and observed nesting patterns 

along the shoreline. They found no deformities, behavioral problems, or 

other indications of stress or disease. OHM concluded that Puffer Pond 

contained a diverse and balanced fish population with no overt signs of 

stress. 

OHM’s work plan expanded the goals of the Puffer Pond fish studies to 

address ecological risks as well as human health risks. The plan was to 

make comparisons to background ponds, using fish data from the Service, 

the MADEP, and the published literature. OHM presented criteria for 

selecting background data from the identified sources. 

The field program was conducted in October 1992. OHM collected fish 

using a shrimp trawl instead of seines, because of flood conditions and 

because of cold water and air temperatures. The flood conditions prevented 

OHM from collecting largemouth bass or any other top predator species. 

Black crappies were collected, and they were used to represent the 

predator trophic level. Fish background data provided to OHM were 

rejected as insufficient or inappropriate, on the basis of the selection 

criteria established in the work plan. OHM concluded from its quantitative 

human health and ecological risk assessments that the observed conditions 

do not pose a risk to human receptors (OHM April 1994, p. 5-9) and that the 

concentrations of analytes observed in the fish tissue “do not appear to be 

affecting the ecological health of Puffer Pond” (OHM 1992, p. 6-5). 

Ecology and Environment - 1993 

E&E conducted a bioaccumulation study at Puffer Pond to evaluate the 

extent of fish contamination and to fill data gaps in previous investigations. 

Sampling of surface water, sediment, and fish was conducted in Puffer 

Pond and in a background pond in November, 1993. Ministers Pond, 

located northeast of the junction of Routes 117 and 62 near the center of 

Stow, was selected as the background pond to use for comparing Puffer 

Pond sampling results. It generally met the following criteria: 

no or minimal potential site-related impacts; 



a central Massachusetts location; and 

morphology, pH, alkalinity, trophic status, and watershed 

characteristics similar to Puffer Pond. 

Surface water and sediment sample pairs were collected at six locations in 

each pond. Fish samples were collected at four locations in each pond, using 

gill nets, angling, and electroshocking. Chain pickerel were sampled as 

predators, yellow perch as foragers, and bullheads as bottom feeders. 

During actual sampling, four bullheads were the only bottom feeders 

collected in Ministers Pond. In the predator and bottom feeding levels, 

fillet concentrations were used to calculate human health risks, and whole 

fish concentrations were used to determine ecological risks. In the forager 

level, only whole fish samples were analyzed. 

In water samples from Puffer Pond, arsenic, cadmium, and lead were 

detected at concentrations above the screening values. Concentrations of 

those metals were below the screening values in all of the background pond 

surface water samples. However, the maximum lead concentration in the 

Puffer Pond samples was only slightly higher than the maximum 

concentration detected in the background pond. 

In sediment samples, arsenic concentrations exceeded the screening value 

in all Puffer Pond samples, whereas only one of the background samples 

exceeded the arsenic screening value. Concentrations of cadmium, lead, 

silver, and the pesticides DDD and DDE exceeded the 

respective screening values at approximately the same 

frequencies in samples from both ponds. 

Mercury was not detected in surface water or sediment 

from either pond at concentrations above the laboratory 

method detection limits (0.2 ug/l and 0.1 ug/g, respectively). 

Although mercury was not detected in surface water or 

sediment, it was detected in 14 of 24 fish from Puffer Pond 

and in 17 of 19 fish from Ministers Pond. Mercury exceeded 

the USFDA action level (1.0 mg/kg) in only one fish (a 

Beaver activity: Photo by Marijke Holtrop 

yellow perch from Puffer Pond), at a concentration of 1.12 

mg/kg. Concentrations of mercury, arsenic, chromium, and lead in Puffer 

Pond fish samples “were not statistically different from local background 

conditions” (E&E 1994). 

E&E concluded that potential human health risks associated with eating 

fish from Puffer Pond are negligible and that potential ecological and 

human health risks are no greater than those posed by Ministers Pond or 

other similar ponds in the area. Despite low environmental concentrations, 

mercury is bioavailable to aquatic organisms. The fish are a primary food 

source for piscivorous wildlife and “may result in allowing the contaminants 

to magnify in the food chain as they are generally consumed whole” (E&E 

1994). 


- 26 - 


Other Contaminant Issues 

The USEPA designated the Fort Devens Sudbury Training Annex as a 

national priorities list (NPL) superfund site in 1990 based on environmental 

studies that had been conducted by the Army. Under USEPA and MADEP 

oversight, the Army completed investigations and, where necessary, cleanup 

actions at 73 locations that were identified through record searches, 

interviews with past and current employees and field sampling results as 

being potentially contaminated. Facility-wide investigations of 

groundwater hydrology and quality, background soil contaminant 

concentrations and surface water and sediment quality were conducted. In 

addition, a site-wide investigation of potential arsenic contamination in soil, 

water, sediment, plants and soil invertebrates was completed (USEPA 

2000). 

The 73 specific sites investigated included individual, abandoned empty 

drums, disturbed ground and vegetation, underground fuel storage tanks, 

demolition grounds, solvent and waste dumps, test clothing burial areas, 

refuse dumps, old gravel pits, chemical disposal sites, etc. The U.S. Army’s 

master environmental plan, revised and reissued in December 1995 

provided a status report of Army actions on these sites (U.S. Army 1995). 

The USEPA issued a final close out report for the 73 sites at the Fort 

Devens Sudbury Training Annex in September 2000 (USEPA 2000). Of the 

73 sites investigated on the Fort Devens Training Annex, USEPA and 

MADEP determined: 

18 were classified no contamination found; 

11 were classified no contamination found following an enhanced area 

reconnaissance; 

9 were classified as posing no risk to humans or wildlife following 

preliminary risk assessments; 

5 were classified as having no contamination found following a full risk 

assessment; 

12 were classified as posing no risk to humans or wildlife following a full 

risk assessment; 

16 sites were subjected to removal actions, with confirmatory sampling 

indicating there was no residual risk to humans or wildlife; 

1 site was considered to be free of risk to humans and wildlife, but an 

additional set of testing results were to be evaluated for confirmation; 

and, 

1 site (A7) was classified as no further action following construction of a 

full, lined and capped landfill at the site. Long-term monitoring by the 

Army for groundwater quality, landfill cap integrity and site fencing 

condition is required at site A7. 

The USEPA final close out report is available at the refuge headquarters in 

Sudbury. Formal de-listing of the property from the national priority list 

has occurred. 



The Service accepted the transfer of the Sudbury Training Annex subject 

to our complying with certain long-term institutional controls. These 

institutional controls were established by the Army and USEPA in 

consultation with MADEP and the Service. They restrict the Service from 

conducting any actions that will impair the integrity of the landfill cap, 

liner, topography, etc. at site A7, and from allowing the construction of 

residences within 50 feet of the center line of the former World War II era 

railroad beds and the former internal Army fence line/firebreak along what 

the Army called the Patrol Road. 

According to the bioaccumulation study at Puffer Pond, mercury, zinc and 

DDT degradation products are present in fish tissue from Puffer Pond; 

however, the levels were generally below available regional and national 

background fish tissue levels. This report concluded that the site-related 

human health and ecological risks associated with the use of Puffer Pond 

are not likely to be greater than those associated with the use of any other 

local pond. Puffer Pond is listed in the Massachusetts Department of Public 

Health freshwater fish consumption advisory list for mercury hazard. The 

advisory states that “the general public should not consume any fish from 

this water body.” 

Physical Safety Hazards 

Open wells, like this one, are being secured: Photo 

by Marijke Holtrop 

Assabet River NWR has been closed to the public due to a number of 

unmitigated safety hazards. These include: 

at least 33 open, hand-dug farm wells that pre-date the Army, 

some concertina wire, 

some smooth communication wire in the woods. 

Most of the concertina wire, the large utility pole 

physical fitness obstacle course and fencing have all 

been removed by or with help from the Friends of the 

Assabet River NWR. We do not need to remove the 

bunkers as they are covered with vegetation and have 

blended into the habitat. 


- 28 - 


Biological Resources 

Vegetation and Habitat Types 

Service biologists completed a survey and evaluation of the habitat of 

portions of what then was still the Fort Devens Sudbury Training Annex in 

1992 (USFWS 1995). Short duration site visits, wetland mapping produced 

by the Service’s national wetland inventory team, forest cover mapping 

completed by the Fort Devens Natural Resource 

Management Office (NRMO), aerial photographs and 

other existing data were used in the evaluation. The 

focus of this evaluation was the eastern portion of the 

property north of Hudson Road. 

The report notes that aerial photos, extensive stone 

walls, successional second-growth forests, old cranberry 

bogs and discussions with knowledgeable people all 

document the fairly extensive farming history of the 

land prior to the Army’s acquisition in the early 1940’s. 

The presence of diverse wetland and upland habitat of 

high value to wildlife species was noted. Others have 

suggested that the diversity of habitat found on the 

refuge is due to the presence of highly varied 

topography, soils, drainage patterns, and the Army’s 

ownership and management of the property over a 50 

year time span. 

Although only portions of what is now the refuge were 

evaluated, the report found 476 acres of wetland habitat. 

North of Hudson Road, approximately 291 acres (67%) 

were forested or mixed forested/shrub cover; 29 acres 

(7%) were shrub dominated; 41 acres (9%) were 

shrub/emergent herbaceous cover; 62 acres (14%) were 

open water ponds; and 14 acres (3%) were former 

cranberry bogs. The report indicated the portion of the 

Grasses: Photo by Emily Ann Hollick 

property south of Hudson Road contained 

approximately 39 acres of wetlands (~9% of the area). 

Approximately 87% of these wetlands were forested and the remainder was 

shrub-dominated wetland habitat. 

The forested wetlands are dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum) with 

black ash (Fraxinus niger), swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor), and some 

eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) and white pine present. Understory 

shrubs included sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), swamp azalea 

(Rhododendron viscosum), european buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula), 

winterberry (Ilex verticillata), and maleberry (Lyonia ligustrina). At least 

one remnant Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) wetland was 



also noted. Shrub-dominated wetlands were characterized as including 

speckled alder (Alnus serrulata), silky dogwood (Cornus ammomum), 

gray stemmed dogwood (Cornus racemosa), elderberry (Sambucus 

canadensis) and black chokeberry (Aronia melanocarpa), buttonbush 

(Cephalanthus occidentalis), meadowsweet (Spiraea latifolia), steeplebush 

(Spiraea tomentosa), and others. Emergent wetland type vegetation 

included broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia L.), sedges (Abildgaardia), bluejoint 

grass (Hemarthria), boneset (Tamaulipa), joe-pye-weed 

(Eupatorium), purple loosestrife, pickerel weed (Pontederia cordata L.), 

arrowhead (Sagittaria L.), smartweed (Polygonum), spike rush 

(Eleocharis R. Br.), waterlily (Nymphaea), and many submergent plants. 

Though historically much of the area was logged for agriculture, a majority 

of the upland areas within the refuge have succeeded back to forest. Mixed 

white pine and oak hardwoods dominate. Common hard woods included 

red maple, white oak (Quercus alba), red oak (Quercus rubra), quaking 

aspen (Populus tremuloides). Other frequently encountered species 

included birches, beeches, American elm (Ulmus americana), black cherry 

(Prunus serotina var. serotina), and shagbark hickory (Carya ovata var. 

ovata). The understory was commonly mixes of sassafras (Sassafras 

albidum), blueberries and dogwoods. The cleared fields that were once 

utilized as agricultural land are now in successional transition into forests. 

These meadows, shrub thickets and immature forests have the potential to 

provide food and cover to many species of migratory birds and other 

wildlife. Approximately 70% of the portions of the Army property surveyed 

were in forest at the time (USFWS 1995). 

The former ammunition bunkers that were once employed as storage 

facilities have become well revegetated. The bunkers, measuring 

approximately 75 feet long and 40 feet wide, are 

surrounded by dry, sandy, disturbed soils, which 

had good growth of cherry, white pine, oak, 

aspen, sweetfern, sedges, mosses and other p 

species. 

lant 

Approximately 3% of the Army lands included in 

the survey were primarily in native and 

introduced grasses, including approximately 30 

acres at the Army Taylor Drop Zone. 

The Service’s evaluation summarized the 

National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping 

based on 1975-77 aerial photography, and an 

Sunset with geese: Photo by Paul Olsen 

earlier forest cover type mapping done for the 

NRMO by Leupold Forestry Service using 1980 

aerial photography. B.H. Keith Associates of Conway, NH prepared a 

wetland cover type map for all of the Sudbury Training Annex for the 

NRMO in April, 1983 using 1980 aerial photography. However, the wetland 


- 30 - 


classification scheme used by B.H. Keith does not conform to the NWI 

classifications, and it was not used for the Service’s evaluation. See Table 3- 

2 for the 1,647 acres the Service evaluated. In 1991, Aneptek Corporation 

completed an inventory of wildlife species and their habitats on portions of 

the Army’s Sudbury Training Annex, which were in use by the Army’s 

Natick Research, Development and Engineering Center, Natick, MA 

(Aneptek 1991). The Aneptek evaluation included the areas around the 

Army family housing on Bruen Road and the Taylor Drop Zone on the 

northern portion of what is now the refuge. The family housing area abuts 

the portion of the refuge located south of Hudson Road. Detailed 

inventories of the plant and animal communities found in these two areas 

are provided in the Aneptek report. Where species observations made at 

the Taylor Drop Zone have not been superceded by more recent or more 

encompassing evaluations, Aneptek’s records are included in the Service’s 

developing species lists for the Assabet River NWR (Appendix D). 

Table 3-2: Cover Types and Acreage at Assabet River NWR 

Cover Type Acreage Percent 

White Pine 191 12 

White Pine – Hardwoods 123 7 

White Pine – Oak 561 34 

Oak Hardwoods 73 4 

Mixed Oak 159 10 

Cherry Hardwoods 11


A total of 8 rare plant species were documented on the property, including 

a state-listed endangered species (se), a state threatened species (st), two 

species listed by the state as being of special concern (sc), and three state 

watch list (wl) species and are shown in Table 3-3. Special concern species, 

a lady’s tresses (Spiranthes vernalis) listed in the Aneptek report as 

occurring on the property, was not found by Hunt. Hunt found the more 

common lady tresses (S. cernua) within the same location as the Aneptek 

record, and believed the earlier identification may have been incorrect. 

Included in the species found by Hunt were an additional 34 species (26 

native and 6 introduced), which he characterized as being uncommon in 

eastern Massachusetts. 

Table 3-3: Rare Plant Species at Assabet River NWR 

Common name Scientific name Status 1 

Midland Sedge Carex mesochorea SE 

Few Fruited Sedge Carex oligosperma ST 

New England Blazing Star Liatris borealis SC 

Philadelphia Panic Grass Panicum philadelphicum SC 

var. philidelphicum 

Small Beggar-Ticks Bidens discoidea WL 

Lacegrass Eragrostis capillaries WL 

Northern Starwort Stellaria clycantha WL 

1 SE – state-listed endangered, ST – state-listed threatened, SC – statelisted 

species of special concern, WL – state watch list 

Vernal pools 

Vernal pools are a priority habitat type within the state of Massachusetts. 

Several vernal pools have been identified on the Assabet River NWR 

(Dineen 2001). Additional surveys to locate vernal pools were initiated in 

the spring of 2001. Vernal pools are temporary freshwater depressions 

which hold spring rains and snowmelt waters, and then typically dry 

out during late summer. Vernal pools are critical breeding habitat for 

amphibian and invertebrate species due to the lack of predatory fish. 

The vernal pools of Assabet River NWR are confirmed breeding 

habitat for the blue-spotted salamander (Ambystoma laterale), which is 

a state species of special concern, and spotted turtles (Clemmys 

Vernal Pool: Photo by Rob Vincent 

guttata), have also been observed on the refuge (Meyer and 

Montemerlo, 1995). 

Invasive or Overabundant Species 

Hunt found that the number of exotic plant species was lower than 

expected, in part due to the undisturbed nature of the former Sudbury 

Training Annex. However, Hunt identified 19 species on the property that 

are included in a listing of “nonnative, invasive and potentially invasive 

plants in New England” prepared by Dr. Leslie J. Mehrhoff of the 

University of Connecticut (UCONN 2000). No surveys have been 


Canada Geese: Photo by Paul Buckley 

- 32 - 


completed to determine the extent of occurrence for any of these species on 

the refuge (see Table 3-4). 

Table 3-4: Invasive Species at Assabet River NWR 

Scientific name Common name 

Acer platanoides Norway Maple 

Cyanchum nigrum (L.) Pers. Black Swallowwort 

Berberis thunbergii DC Japanese Barberry 

Catalpa speciosa (Warder ex Catawba Tree 

Barney) Warder ex Engelm 

Myosotis scorpioides L. True Forget-Me-Not 

Lonicera X bella Zabel Bella Honeysuckle 

Lonicera japonica Thunb. Japanese Honeysuckle 

Lonicera moorwii Gray Morrow Honeysuckle 

Celastrus orbiculata Thunb. Asiatic Bittersweet 

Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. 

Ex Steud. (= P. communis) 

Spotted Knapweed 

Iris pseudacorus L. Yellow Iris 

Robinia pseudo-acacia L. var. 

pseudo-acacia 

Black Locust 

Polygunum cuspidatum Siebold & Japanese Knotweed 

Zucar 

Rumex acetosella L. Sheep Sorrel 

Lysimachia nummalaria L. Moneywort 

Rhamnus frangula L. European Buckthorn 

Rosa multiflora Thunb. Multiflora Rose 

Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle Tree-of-Heaven 

Wildlife Resources 

Migratory Birds 

Comprehensive surveys for wintering, breeding, and migrating birds have 

not yet been completed on the refuge. However, refuge staff initiated 

breeding American woodcock (Scolopax minor), breeding land-bird, and 

breeding marsh bird surveys in 2000. The latter two surveys 

are following protocols of Service region-wide studies. The 

American woodcock surveys also follow standardized 

protocols, but it is not currently a part of a region-wide study. 

The Service Region 5 Landbird Breeding Survey conducted 

on Assabet River NWR is similar to the national breeding 

bird survey in which singing males are seen or heard at 

designated points along a route that traverses the refuge 

during the breeding season (May-July). This survey was 

initiated in the spring of 2000 and resulted in an initial species 

list of breeding land birds. The landbird survey is designed to 

continue for at least 5 years, at which time the data will be 



analyzed to determine the frequency at which the subsequent surveys need 

to be conducted to accurately monitor refuge populations. 

The Service Region 5 Marshbird Callback Survey was conducted at the 

Assabet River NWR for the first time in 2000. This survey follows a 

national protocol which will assist with the monitoring of marshbirds 

throughout the nation. The Marshbird Callback Survey specifically targets 

the secretive birds of wetlands that are generally missed during landbird 

surveys. 

In addition, several other series of migratory bird inventories have been 

conducted on the refuge. Aneptek surveyed the areas at and around the 

Army’s Capehart family housing area and the Taylor Drop Zone two to 

three times per week in June and July, 1991. They identified a total of 54 

species using the mix of habitat at the drop zone. Ron Lockwood, a 

volunteer master birder, has conducted extensive observations on the 

refuge since 1999. The refuge supports four state-listed species (Table 3-5). 

Additionally, an occasional federally-threatened bald eagle is sighted flying 

over the refuge. Additional observations are continuing. For a complete list 

of migratory birds see Appendix D. 

Table 3-5: State-listed Bird Species at Assabet River NWR 

Scientific name Common name Status 1 Reference 

Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned Hawk SC Lockwood, 1999 

Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s Hawk SC Lockwood, 1999 

Dendroica striata Blackpoll Warbler SC Lockwood, 1999 

Parula americana Northern Parula ST Lockwood, 1999 & 20000 

1 SE – state-listed endangered, ST – state-listed threatened, SC – state-listed species of 

special concern, WL – state watch list 

Mammals 

Comprehensive surveys for mammal species have not yet been conducted 

on the refuge. However, two surveys have been completed on portions of 

the refuge. Aneptek (1991) inventoried the Taylor Drop Zone and nearby 

habitat, identifying mammals by sight, vocalization, track and scat through 

the months of June and July, 1991. A number of pitfall traps and two 

overnight 15-set Sherman trap transects across a variety of habitats at the 

Drop Zone were also run. A total of 14 mammalian species were recorded 

from this portion of what is now the refuge. Thomas (1992) surveyed small 

mammal species at seven locations on the Sudbury Training Annex from 

April 14 to December 10, 1992. Meyer and Montemerlo, 1995, recorded 

mammals from the portion of the former Sudbury Training Annex south of 

Hudson Road in June and July, 1995. Additional observations have been 

recorded by refuge personnel over the years. Twenty five mammalian 

species have been recorded on the refuge to date (Appendix D). 


- 34 - 

Beaver activity at Assabet River NWR: Photo 

by Marijke Holtrop 


Species concentrated within the early successional open-land areas include 

northern short-tailed shrews (Blarina brevicauda), meadow voles 

(Microtus pennsylvanicus), and meadow jumping mice (Zapus hudsonius). 

Forested lands are likely to support such species as eastern gray squirrels 

(Sciurus carolinensis), red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), whitefooted 

mice (Peromyscus leucopus), southern red-backed 

voles (Clethrionomys gapperi), porcupine (Erethizon 

dorsatum) and fisher (Martes pennanti). Other species 

that occupy a variety of habitat types include whitetailed 

deer (Odocoileus virginianus), coyote (Canis latrans), 

red fox (Vulpes vulpes), raccoon (Procyon lotor), eastern 

cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), woodchuck (Marmota 

monax), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), striped 

skunk (Mephitis mephitis), several species of moles and 

bats. Other species present include flying squirrels 

(Glaucomys volens), bobcat (Lynx rufus), beaver (Castor 

canadensis), moose (Alces alces) and mink (Mustela 

vison). 

In December, 2002, The Friends of the Assabet River NWR received a 

grant from Sudbury Foundation for training 17 team members with 

researcher Sue Morse of Keeping Track VT. The Assabet Keeping Track 

(AKT) received training in identifying track and sign of nine focal species 

and in establishing and running a baseline wildlife monitoring program on 

the Assabet River NWR. 

The focal species of the AKT program are black bear (Ursus americanus), 

bobcat (Lynx rufus), fisher, mink, red and grey fox (Urocyon 

cinereoargenteus), moose, river otter (Lutra canadensis) and porcupine. 

Keeping Track VT's protocol was followed by starting with a thorough 

reconnaissance of the refuge resulting in four established transects for the 

collection of data. Data collection is follows specific guidelines and includes 

photographing tracks and signs when they are found. Each transect is 

approximately 60' wide and 2 miles long. The AKT team walks each 

transect four times a year corresponding to the various seasons of the year, 

with the first transect taking place in the spring of 2004. 

AKT provides data to the Service and Keeping Track VT where data from 

all Keeping Track teams is collected and analyzed. AKT has documented 

the presence of bobcat, fisher, mink, otter and red fox on the refuge with 

sightings of bear and moose in the area. AKT maintains a website 

(www.pbase.com/akt) with photos of monitoring activities. 


Painted Turtle: Photo by David Flint 

Reptiles and Amphibians 


Comprehensive surveys of amphibians and reptiles have not yet been 

completed at the refuge. However, the refuge staff initiated an annual callcount 

survey for anuran species (frogs and toads) in 2000. The survey is 

part of a standardized study being conducted on several refuges in the 

Service’s northeast region. The survey is planned to continue to detect 

population changes. Aneptek (1991) inventoried amphibians and 

reptiles within the habitats surrounding the former Taylor Drop 

Zone during June and July of that year. Three reptilian and seven 

amphibian species were recorded during their surveys. In addition, 

Meyer and Montemerlo (1995) surveyed the portion of the refuge 

south of Hudson Road for amphibian and reptilian species in June 

and July of that year. 

A complete listing of species recorded to date is included in 

Appendix D. One state-listed amphibian, the blue spotted 

salamander (Ambystoma laterale), and three state-listed reptilian 

species, one of which is state threatened, have been reported from 

the refuge to date. Table 3-6 identifies these state-listed species. 

Table 3-6: State-listed Amphibians and Reptiles at Assabet River NWR 

Scientific Name Common Name Status 1 

Ambystoma laterale Blue Spotted Salamander SC 

Clemmys guttata Spotted Turtle SC 

Terrapene carolina Eastern Box Turtle SC 

Emys blandingii Blanding’s Turtle ST 

1 SE – state-listed endangered, ST – state-listed threatened, SC – statelisted 

species of special concern, WL – state watch list 

Fisheries 

The aquatic resources at Assabet River NWR include the Assabet River, 

Taylor Brook, Puffer Pond, Willis Pond, Cutting Pond and several other 

smaller ponds. Approximately one mile of the Assabet River parallels the 

northwestern boundary of the refuge, although there is a strip of privately 

owned land between the refuge boundary and the river’s edge. Elizabeth 

Brook is the largest tributary of the Assabet River (Stow 1997), and flows 

into the Assabet on the opposite bank from the refuge. 

The Assabet is characterized by a warmwater fishery in the section below 

and above the stretch along the refuge. According to a Massachusetts 

Division of Fisheries and Wildlife survey done in July 1997, water 

temperatures of the Assabet River in the towns of Maynard, Stow and 

Acton ranged from 25 ° to 27.2 ° C. Bottom type consisted of gravel, rubble 

and boulder with some silt and sand in the pools. Gamefish species captured 

during the State of Massachusetts 1997 survey included largemouth bass 


- 36 - 


(Micropterus salmonoides) and chain pickerel (Esox niger). Other fish 

documented included yellow perch (Perca flavecens), pumpkinseed 

(Lepomis gibbosus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), redbreast sunfish 

(Lepomis auritus), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), white sucker 

(Catostomus commersoni), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), 

fallfish (Semotilus corporalis), creek chubsucker (Erimyzon oblongus), 

yellow and brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus) and American eel 

(Anquilla rostrata). See Appendix D for a complete listing of fish species. 

Fishing in the Assabet River is regulated by the State of Massachusetts 

fish and wildlife laws. 

The Massachusetts Department of Public Health Fish Consumption 

Advisory for this river is the statewide advisory “for pregnant women not 

to consume fish caught in freshwater due to elevated levels of mercury in 

fish flesh” (MDFW 1999). 

Puffer Pond is a natural pond, most likely of glacial origin. It is 

approximately 30 acres (OHM 1994), and lies wholly within the refuge 

boundary. The northern end of the pond is bounded by a scrub/shrub 

emergent wetland, with the remainder undeveloped and forested. It is a 

warmwater pond with a maximum depth of approximately 2.5 to 3 meters 

(OHM 1994). Taylor Brook is the outlet of Puffer Pond and flows into the 

Assabet River. Aquatic vegetation consists of yellow water lily (Nuphor 

varigatum), coontail (Ceratophyllum spp.), anacharis (Elodea spp.) and 

cattails (Typha latifolia). The pond bottom consists of sandy/silt muck 

containing coarse organic particulate matter along the shoreline, grading to 

a more silty muck towards the central, deeper portions of the pond (OHM 

1994). 

Fish species found in Puffer Pond include chain pickerel, yellow perch, 

brown bullhead, largemouth bass, golden shiner, black crappie, and bluegill 

(OHM 1994). A listing of fish species found in the Assabet River and on the 

refuge is provided in Appendix D. All the fish caught during the 1994 

bioaccumulation study generally appeared in good health and were 

relatively abundant due to the high quality habitat found in the pond. 

Relatively large numbers of forage fish were found in Puffer Pond (OHM 

1994). 

A portion of the northern shoreline of Willis Pond is on the refuge 

boundary. Willis Pond is approximately 68 acres (Ackerman 1989). It is 

shallow, averaging around five feet deep. Fish species found in Willis Pond 

include sunfish (Enneacanthus obesus), largemouth bass, rock bass 

(Amblophites rupestris), yellow perch and chain pickerel (Cutting 2000). 

There is a report of smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) being caught 

from Willis Pond (Ackerman 1989). 

Cutting Pond is privately owned; however, its western edge borders the 

Assabet River NWR. It is less than twenty acres, and averages 


Monarch Butterfly: Photo by 

Veronique Schejtman 


approximately three feet deep, although there are some springs in the pond 

(Cutting 2000). Cutting Pond is man-made, and has had no public access. 

Approval was given to purchase land around the pond at the April 2004 

Sudbury Town meeting, and public access will be provided in the future. 

Yellow perch, largemouth bass, chain pickerel, and sunfish inhabit the pond 

according to the current owner, Mr. John Cutting. 

Invertebrates 

Comprehensive surveys for invertebrate species across the entire refuge 

have not yet been conducted. Aneptek (1991) surveyed the Taylor Drop 

Zone and its surrounding habitat in June and July of that year for 

invertebrate species. One hundred and ten taxa of annelids, mollusks, 

crustaceans, arthropods, and insects were found. Identification was made 

to the family and, in some cases, to the genus level. 

Mello and Peters (1992) completed a survey of the lepidoptera in 

portions of what is now the northern portion of Assabet River NWR. 

Efforts were concentrated in the areas bordering Willis Pond and 

along Puffer Road, and included both deciduous upland habitat and 

the edges of a small wet meadow draining into Taylor Brook. Eighty 

five species of moths were recorded. No state-listed species were 

documented. The fact that night-light traps were not used and cool 

weather encountered during the survey period may have reduced the 

number of species observed (Mello and Peters 1992). Additional 

surveys were recommended, particularly within the Atlantic white 

cedar swamp area. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

With the exception of occasional (most likely wintering) bald eagles, 

no federally listed threatened or endangered species are currently 

known from the Assabet River NWR. A small number of New 

England blazing stars (a federal candidate species in 1992) were 

recorded in 1992, but were not found by the New England Wildflower 

Society during a 1999 re-survey for the Massachusetts Natural Heritage 

and Endangered Species Program (NHESP). 

Although surveys of the refuge are far from complete, 8 state-listed plant 

species, 4 state-listed birds, and 4 state-listed amphibian and reptilian 

species have been recorded to date (see Tables 3-3, 3-5 and 3-6). 

Special Designations 

Assabet River NWR is included in the Sudbury-Assabet-Concord (SuAsCo) 

inland river priority for protection focus area under the NAWMP. The 

refuge area is also included within the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act 

of 1986 and is included in the USEPA’s priority wetlands of New England 


- 38 - 


listing (1987). The refuge is identified as being high biodiversity focus areas 

in the SuAsCo watershed biodiversity protection and stewardship plan 

(Clark 2000). 

Assabet River NWR has been designated as a Massachusetts Important 

Bird Area (IBA) for its rare and unique habitat communities, including 

Atlantic white cedar swamp, a kettlehole pond, several dwarf shrub bogs, 

open canopy minerotrophic peatlands, and other sand communities. IBAs 

provide essential habitat for at least one or more species of breeding, 

wintering or migrating birds. The primary goals of the program are listed 

below. 

“To identify, nominate and designate key sites that contribute to the 

preservation of significant bird populations or communities. 

To provide information that will help land managers evaluate areas for 

habitat management or land acquisition. 

To activate public and private participation in bird conservation efforts. 

To provide education and community outreach opportunities.” 

(http://www.massaudubon.org/birds-&-beyond/iba/iba-intro.html) 

Cultural Resources 

Prehistoric Period 

The refuge is located within the southern Merrimack River Basin. The 

earliest settlement/land use patterns in this basin during the Paleoindian 

period were most likely a widely spaced network of site locations within a 

very large territory. By 7,500 to 6,000 years ago (Middle Archaic) 

populations were beginning to restrict settlement activities that appear to 

correspond with the boundaries of the larger drainages within the 

Merrimack Basin (Gallagher et. al. 1986). Perhaps due to an increase in 

population, or changes in natural resource distribution, a maximum 

concentration of settlement patterns within defined territories occurred 

between about 4,500 and 3,000 years ago (Late Archaic). A general period 

of environmental stress that affected the entire region occurred after 3,000 

years ago (Terminal Archaic and Early Woodland), had a profound affect 

on land use activities during that time. A noticeable restructuring of earlier 

settlement patterns during the period of 3,000 to 2,000 B.P. (Before 

present), is due to this event. Interior, upland environments appear to be 

less populated, perhaps because people may have been utilizing coastal 

resources more intensely (Gallagher et. al. 1986). 

Toward the end of the prehistoric period, it appears that interior river 

drainages and some upland settings were a vital part of settlement patterns 

by 1,600 to 1,000 years ago (Woodland Period). A return to well defined 

river basin territories and the final episode of the prehistoric period seems 

to have taken place, although settlement patterns within interior section of 

the Merrimack Basin remain unclear (Gallagher et. al. 1986). The move 



back into the interior sections may be the result of introduction of 

agriculture and the suitability of the inland soil to sustain the new 

subsistence mode. 

Within the Assabet River NWR, there are a variety of environmental zones 

that represent areas of both high and low natural resource potential. Puffer 

Pond and the complex of streams and wetlands associated with it is the 

most clear general zone of high natural resource potential (Hudson 1889; 

Ritchie 1980; Hoffman 1983). This pond, along with Willis Pond, is one of 

the few natural lakes or ponds in the western portion of the town of 

Sudbury (Gallagher et. al. 1986). It is directly connected to the Assabet 

River by Taylor brook. Large areas of marsh and wooded wetlands, 

extending the entire length of Taylor Brook form the outlet at the north 

end of Puffer Pond to the confluence with the Assabet River, would have 

been excellent habitat for a variety of waterfowl, fur-bearing mammals, and 

other species exploited by Native Americans. 

The central portion of the refuge contains several large areas of wooded 

wetlands covering several hundred acres. These wetlands will have 

provided seasonally concentrated natural resources suitable to winter 

camps for humans. One prehistoric site has been located in the central 

wetland portion of the refuge, and with further testing, several more will 

likely be found. 

The elevated, rocky hills within the refuge will have provided another type 

of environment for humans to utilize. This area will have sustained 

deciduous forest which will have provided habitat for deer, bear, raccoon 

and bobcat, as well as acorns, chestnuts and hickory nuts. Five prehistoric 

sites have been identified through limited archaeological testing (Gallagher 

et. al. 1986). Most likely more sites located in this environment 

representing all the major time periods within Native American history will 

be identified. Assabet River NWR offers a wide variety of environmental 

zones ideal for Native American settlement throughout history. This area 

was a cultural focus of the Merrimack River Basin. The limited 

archaeological studies completed, have revealed prehistoric archaeological 

sites in all of the various refuge environments (Gallagher et. al. 1986). The 

refuge should be considered highly sensitive for such cultural resources. 

The refuge has the potential to contribute information that is significant in 

understanding Native American settlement patterns and environmental 

uses for this region of Massachusetts. 

Historic Period 

Europeans began to settle the refuge area around 1650. In the beginning, 

there were conflicts with the existing Native American groups. These 

groups had been decimated by diseases and were beginning to become 

concentrated in Christian Indian settlements. All English settlements 

were affected by King Philip’s War in 1675, but after the War, with Native 


- 40 - 

Wild Mushroom: Photo by Marijke 

Holtrop 


American nations losing political strength, the English were able to develop 

and settle the refuge area (Gallagher et. al. 1986). 

The people that settled in the refuge area primarily were involved with 

farming activities. The community was mostly self sufficient and provided 

goods, such as grain, to Boston, which served as a core town for this region. 

By 1750, the settlement pattern of the refuge area was influenced by 

increasing development. The towns that lie within the refuge supplied 

Boston with timber and agricultural products. After the Revolutionary 

War, trade networks expanded on an international scale, local centers 

began to acquire more economic strength (Gallagher et. al. 1986). 

During the 19th century, mills developed which provided economic 

opportunities for immigrants. One of the largest mills in the area was 

American Woolen Company. This company became the largest wool 

manufacturer in the region until the end of World War I. Agriculture was 

also still thriving in this region (Gallagher et. al. 1986). 

Within the boundaries of the refuge, many farms and residences were built 

since the early 19th century. Some, such as the Rice/Vose Tavern and 

Puffer House, were 17th and 18th century in origin. The number of 

structures remained stable throughout the 19th century, with a settlement 

pattern oriented toward the few roadways that traversed the refuge. These 

roadways linked the homes to local and regional cores, and served as the 

sole transportation network in the peripheral economic zone of the 

region. Land use within the refuge was almost exclusively 

agricultural and pastoral, with some tracts of woodland. By the early 

20th century, many of the older farms were acquired and new houses 

were constructed by Finnish immigrants until 1942, when the military 

acquired the property (Gallagher et. al. 1986). 

With the help of Paul Boothroyd of the Maynard Historical 

Commission, the Service has been able to acquire information about 

some of the structures once located on the refuge. One of the most 

historically significant structures is the Rice/Vose Tavern which was 

constructed in the early 17th century. During the Revolutionary War, 

Captain Joshua Perry of Portsmouth, New Hampshire and his wagon 

train of ammunition and supplies, stayed at the tavern on the way to 

New York State. The tavern also served as the community meeting 

hall. It was in full operation until 1815. The Army dismantled the 

tavern at an unknown date, but the foundation remains (Boothroyd, 

personal communication). 

Several of the houses that were located on the refuge in the earlier part of 

the 20th century that were demolished by the Army, were associated with 

farming activities. The Hill Farm consisted of two homes that were 

demolished by the Army. More research is needed to establish when the 

homes were built; however, the homestead encompassed about 109 acres. 



The Lent Farm, located along Honey Brook was associated with a saw mill 

and a summer camp. This property contained about 92 acres. The Sarvela 

Farm, also known as the Haynes Place, earlier belonged to a Puffer and 

was known as an old farm. This farm, located both in Stow and Maynard, 

contained about 43 acres (Boothroyd personal communication). 

The two major roads going through the refuge, Puffer Road and New 

Lancaster Road, date back to early colonial times and predate the Great 

Road. Also, there are two cranberry bogs, one belonging to the Luarila and 

the other the Huikari farms. The bogs are associated with 19th century 

agriculture and landscape use (Boothroyd personal communication). 

The Paananen Farm, originally owned by the Hendrickson Family, 

contains the foundation remains of the barn, silo and two wells. The Olila 

farm was close to Puffer Road. Early Colonial history suggests that there 

may be small pox graves south of the Rice Tavern on this property. The 

Matson Farm was on the corner of Davis Lane. The Matson’s are said to 

have worked at Maynard Mills. The Nelson Farm was a dairy farm with a 

mill house, greenhouse, and was a very old farm; in the 1850’s it was a girls’ 

private boarding school run by Miss Hannah Blanchard Wood, youngest 

daughter of Dr. Jonathan Wood. At that time, the farm was owned by her 

sister married to Henry Brooks (Boothroyd, personal communication). 

Assabet River NWR provides a good opportunity to analyze early 

American farmsteads. Because the military allowed the land to regenerate 

after they acquired the property, soils have remained intact in areas that 

were not disturbed by military training. There are both prehistoric and 

historic resources that have the potential to add to our understanding of 

human history in this area. Further research is necessary to understand a 

comprehensive history of the refuge. The refuge has the potential to yield 

significant information about land use history and cultural landscapes for 

this part of Massachusetts because of the proximity to Boston and lack of 

modern development. 

Before the military acquired the refuge area, lots were also beginning to be 

developed as vacation homes next to Puffer Pond. Many of these lots were 

not yet developed at the time of the purchase. While occupied by the 

military, the land was used in several ways which included the construction 

of weapons storage areas, an elaborate railroad construction to transport 

ammunition between the weapons bunkers and Boston, weapons training 

areas, chemical testing areas, and other military activities. At times, 

portions of the Sudbury Annex (the refuge property) were leased out to 

private companies to develop items that will be useful to the military. The 

military also allowed the land to regenerate itself from pasture and farm 

land (Gallagher et. al. 1986). Most of the old farmstead houses were 

demolished by the military and the most of the fields were allowed to revert 

through natural succession to forest. 



The Army’s historic uses of the land area formerly known as the Sudbury 

Training Annex have been researched by the U.S. Army Environmental 

Center, and its contractors (U.S. Army 1995). The information was 

collected through various record searches, interviews, and map reviews. A 

summary of that information is presented in this section; a fuller 

description of the Army’s land-use history is provided in the U.S. Army’s 

1995 Draft Master Environmental Plan, Fort Devens Sudbury Training 

Annex, Middlesex County, Massachusetts (prepared by ABB 

Environmental Service, Inc., Portland, ME for the U.S. Army 

Environmental Center, Aberdeen, MD. December, 1995.) 

Prior to the formal formation of the Annex as a military facility in 1942, the 

land was privately owned and primarily used as farmland. According to a 

Goldberg Zoino and Associates (GZA) report some of the land “was owned 

by industrial companies (such as the Diamond Match Company or Maynard 

Woolen Mills).” The Annex itself consisted of land falling within the 

boundaries of the towns of Sudbury, Maynard, Marlboro, Hudson and Stow 

(GZA 1991). 

The Annex became government property in 1942, when a formal petition 

was filed by the United States to acquire the land by eminent domain 

(District Court of United States for District of Massachusetts, Misc. Civil 

no. 6507, March 25, 1942). The location was selected for strategic reasons -- 

it was well out of range of naval guns - and for its close proximity to four 

active railroad lines. On August 16, 1942, the area was 

designated Boston Backup Storage Facility under the 

Commanding General of Boston Port of Embarkation. 

Transfer of the then 3,100-acre property occurred on 

November 10, 1942 (U.S. Army 1995). 

The Annex was originally used to store surplus ammunition 

for the war effort. It was named the Maynard Ammunition 

Backup Storage Point (MABSP). Initially, the Annex served 

as part of the Boston Port of Embarkation system, and was 

specifically tied to Castle Island Port, the loading point for 

One of the U.S. Army’s buildings at the refuge: 

ammunition being transported overseas. When ships were 

Photo by Marijke Holtrop 

not available for loading, or a surplus of ammunition had 

been received, ordnance will be stored at the MABSP. Provision for the 

safe storage of ordnance was ensured by the construction of 50 earthcovered 

concrete bunkers located around the central section of the Annex. 

Railroad spurs were developed to provide access between bunkers and the 

existing main railroad lines (U.S. Army 1995). 

- 42 - 

In 1946, the facility became part of Watertown Arsenal and was referred to 

as Watertown Arsenal (Maynard). The facility was apparently used as a 

storage depot until 1950, when it was transferred to the first Army and 

became a subinstallation of Fort Devens from 1950 to 1952 for storage and 

training. In 1952, the facility was again transferred from Fort Devens 


Volunteers removing the former obstacle course: 

Photo by Marijke Holtrop 


management to the Chief of Ordnance, renamed the Maynard Ordnance 

Test Station (MOTS) and maintained that name through at least 1957. The 

principal use of the Annex from 1952 to 1957 was for ordnance research and 

development activities (U.S. Army 1995). 

In 1958, control of the Annex was transferred to the Quartermaster 

Research and Engineering Center at Natick; and while troop training 

activities continued, the Annex was now also available for field testing of 

experiments developed by the laboratories at Natick. Other agencies and or 

operators also were granted permission to use the Annex for a variety of 

activities, primarily related to materials testing and personnel training. The 

Capehart Family Housing Area was established by Natick Laboratories in 

1962 for its employees. The designation for the Quartermaster Research 

and Engineering Center was changed to Natick Laboratories in 1962 and to 

United States Army Natick Research and Development Command 

(NARADCOM) in 1976, but the same group maintained overall control of 

the Annex until 1982 (U.S. Army 1995). 

Custody of the entire Annex was transferred back to Fort Devens in 1982. 

(Fort Devens is located some 15 miles to the northwest of the Annex). Until 

the end of 1994, the mission of Fort Devens was to command and train its 

assigned duty units and to support the U.S. Army Security Agency 

Training Center and School, U.S. Army Reserves, Massachusetts National 

Guard, Reserve Officer Training Programs, and Air Defense sites in New 

England. The Annex was used primarily for personnel training activities 

for active duty Army units, for the Army Reserve, as well as for the Army 

and Air National Guard troops. 

The Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-510), and 

the subsequent decisions by the BRAC-1991 Commission and Congress 

required the closure and realignment of Fort Devens. The Army 

realignment action created the Devens Reserve Forces Training Area for 

use by Army Reserve and National Guard forces. 

The Sudbury Training Annex remained under the 

management of the Devens Reserve Forces 

Training Area while environmental investigations 

and remediation were being completed. On 

September 28, 2000, management of approximately 

2,230 acres of the property transferred to the 

Service for the formation of the Assabet River 

NWR. At the time of the transfer of management to 

the Service, the Sudbury Training Annex, exclusive 

of the Capehart Family Housing area under the 

control of the Natick Research and Development 

Center, was approximately 2,305 acres in size. The 

Army at the Devens Reserve Forces Training 


- 44 - 


Center retained administrative responsibility for approximately 75.67 

acres, of which 71.5+/- acres are planned to be transferred to the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency and 4.15+/- acres to the U.S. Air Force. 

Socio-economic Resources 

The group of towns in which the refuge is located is known as the Metro 

West section of greater metropolitan Boston. 

Population and Demographic Conditions 

Population trends vary considerably among the neighboring cities and 

towns of Maynard, Sudbury, Hudson and Stow (U.S. Census Bureau 2001). 

Overall population levels in the four towns increased from 47,244 to 51,289 

(an 8.6% percent increase) between 1990 and 2000. The majority of this 

increase occurred in Sudbury. The population of Sudbury increased from 

14,358 to 16,841 (a 17.3% increase). Maynard’s population increased from 

10,325 to 10,433 (1%), Stow’s increased from 5,328 to 5,902 (10.8%), and 

Hudson’s increased from 17,233 to 18,113 (5.1%) (U.S. Census 2001). 

The Boston-Worcester-Lawrence metropolitan area population increased 

by 363,697 people or 6.7% to a total of 5,819,100 in 2000. The greater 

Worcester metropolitan area grew by 33,005 people (nearly a 7% increase) 

to a population of 511,389 in the year 2000 (U.S. Census 2001). A more 

detailed set of the most recent available U.S. Census (1990) demographic 

descriptors for Hudson, Maynard and Sudbury is provided at the U.S. 

Census bureau’s web site for the Census 2000 data: 

http://factfinder.census.gov (comparable data for Stow was not available). 

Adjacent Communities and Land Uses 

Stow, Maynard, Hudson and Sudbury have zoned the refuge what is the 

equivalent of open-space/conservation. With the exception of the 

Massachusetts Fire Fighter Training Academy and a nursery, land use 

surrounding the refuge is nearly entirely low-density residential. 


Chapter 4: Management Direction 


The Service manages fish and wildlife habitats considering the needs of all 

resources in decision-making. A requirement of the Refuge Improvement 

Act is to maintain the ecological health, diversity, and integrity of refuges. 

The refuge is a vital link in the overall function of the ecosystem. To offset 

the historic and continuing loss of riparian and forested floodplain habitats 

within the ecosystem, the refuge helps to provide a biological "safety net" 

for migratory non-game birds and waterfowl, threatened and endangered 

species, and other species of concern. 

The vision and goals of the refuge translate the stated refuge purpose into 

management direction. To the extent practicable, each goal is supported by 

objectives with strategies needed to accomplish them. Objectives are 

intended to be accomplished within 15 years, although actual 

implementation may vary as a result of available funding and staff. 

Refuge Complex Vision 

The Complex will contribute to the mission of the Refuge System and 

support ecosystem–wide priority wildlife and natural communities. 

Management will maximize the diversity and abundance of fish and wildlife 

with emphasis on threatened and endangered species, migratory birds, and 

aquatic resources. The Complex will have a well-funded and communitysupported 

acquisition program which contributes to wildlife conservation. 

The refuges will be well known nationally and appreciated in their 

communities. They will be seen as active partners in their communities, 

school systems, and environmental organizations which will result in high 

levels of support for the refuges. The refuges will be a showcase for sound 

wildlife management techniques and will offer top-quality, compatible, 

wildlife dependent recreational activities. Refuges open to the public will 

provide staffed visitor contact facilities that are clean, attractive, and 

accessible, with effective environmental education and interpretation. 

Refuge Complex Goals 

The following goals were developed for the Complex to support the mission 

of the Refuge System and the Gulf of Maine Ecosystem Priorities. These 

goals provide a general management direction for the refuges. Not all of 

the goals are applicable to all eight of the Complex refuges. Each of the 

goals is followed by the management strategies that will help refuge staff to 

meet the appropriate goals. 

Goal 1: Recover threatened and endangered species of the Complex. 

There are no known federally listed threatened or endangered species at 

Assabet River NWR. A number of the strategies and objectives that are 


Mallard with ducklings: Photo by Joseph Rhatigan 

- 46 - 


listed under Goal 2 will benefit state listed species. If ongoing monitoring 

and surveys determine the presence of federally listed species, we will take 

any and all appropriate actions. 

Goal 2: Protect and enhance habitats that support self-sustaining 

populations of federal trust species and wildlife diversity. 

Objective 1: Collect and evaluate relevant baseline habitat and wildlife 

data to ensure future decisions are based on sound science. 

We are currently managing lands for wetland species, forest dwellers and 

those species requiring grassland, wetland and old field habitat. However, 

due to the relatively small land base we have, it is important for us to 

consider how we can best contribute to the overall picture of trust species 

of the Atlantic flyway. The Northeast Region of the Refuge System is 

currently working on a region-wide strategic plan to 

establish management goals for refuges which address 

landscape concerns and needs. We are currently gathering 

data to better understand the role of these refuges for these 

species and will begin additional surveying, monitoring and 

researching of our lands. This information is essential for 

determining our management focus. Using this information 

and guidance from the regional strategic plan, we will draft 

an HMP for the refuge which will outline the direction and 

details of refuge management. The HMP will include 

information required under the Service’s Biological 

Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy, 

including discussion of historic conditions and restoration of 

those conditions if possible (see http://policy.fws.gov/ 

601fw3.html to view this policy). 

In addition to current management activities, increased staff and funding 

resources associated with our management will enable us to take a number 

of actions that will lead to the completion of two key step-down plans under 

this CCP: the HMP and a Habitat and Wildlife Inventory and Monitoring 

Plan (HWIMP). 

Strategy 1: Continue to participate in several region-wide and Service-wide 

surveys and studies, including information on frogs, shorebirds, marsh 

birds, and American woodcock. Breeding bird surveys and participation in 

the national frog deformity project will continue as staff and funding allow. 

Strategy 2: Update and expand current wildlife inventories to close data 

gaps related, in part, to seasonality of use, habitat-type preferences, and, 

where practicable, estimates of population numbers. We will survey and 

inventory both the Service’s trust resources (migratory birds and federally 

listed threatened and endangered species) and resident wildlife, including 

state listed threatened and endangered species. We expect to accomplish 


Frog: Photo by Hanxing Yu 


these concurrently; however, if necessary, surveys and inventories related 

to the Service’s trust resources may receive priority. 

Strategy 3: Monitor water quality. We will rely on partners such as OAR 

and SVT to conduct this monitoring. We will 

participate in the SuAsCo Watershed Community 

Council and other venues and participate in the 

regulatory process to ensure that permits and 

projects are approved that will improve water 

quality. 

Strategy 4: Within 3 years, conduct a thorough 

survey on plants of the refuge. We will obtain 

aerial photography to develop a cover type map 

and ground truth the information in the field. The 

cover type map will show locations and acres for 

each habitat type. In addition, we will record 

locations of federally endangered and threatened 

species, other priority species, and invasive species 

using a global positioning system, and identified on the cover type map. We 

will update the map every ten years. 

Strategy 5: Within 5 years, conduct a comprehensive survey of 

invertebrates in the spring and summer, noting federal and state 

endangered and threatened species. We will use “sticky” sticks (paint 

stirrers dipped in Tanglefoot Insect Trap Coating and placed horizontally 

on and vertically in the substrate) to sample ground-based invertebrates 

throughout the refuge. We will utilize collecting nets to sample winged 

invertebrates. 

Strategy 6: Within 5 years, survey amphibians and reptiles using a 

combination of pitfall traps, fyke nets, and audio cues. We will survey 

aquatic turtles using fyke nets during the summer and fall. We will sample 

terrestrial turtles, snakes, and amphibians using pitfall traps. 

Strategy 7: Within 5 years we will census migrating raptors, and 

neotropical migrants for two seasons. We will conduct raptor surveys 

throughout the fall, using methods developed by the Hawk Migration 

Association of North America. We will work with local birders and 

organizations to determine the best method for censussing neotropical 

migrants. 

Strategy 8: Within 10 years, sample freshwater fish throughout the river 

and ponds on the refuge using passive and active capture gear and 

electrofishing. Passive gear includes, but is not limited to, gill nets, trammel 

nets, and fyke nets. Active gear includes, but is not limited to, seines, nets, 

and hooks. Depending on the diversity and abundance of fish that are found 

in the ponds, we may initiate mark/recapture studies. 



Strategy 9: Within 10 years, survey small mammals using small live box 

traps, snap traps, and pitfall traps. We will arrange traps in a grid 

throughout the refuge and trapping will be done during the spring, 

summer, or fall. If any threatened or endangered species are found, we 

may initiate mark/recapture studies to develop a population estimate. 

Objective 2: Manage aquatic and upland habitat to maintain habitat 

and species diversity. 

We will determine resources of concern, including focus species or speciesgroups 

and their habitat needs. Focus species and habitats are most likely 

to be selected based on a combination of factors such as: endangerment 

(federal and state-listed species); priority, national and regional Service 

plans (such as the NAWMP, the PIF, etc); Service policies/regulations such 

as those related to HMPs and maintenance of ecological integrity; the 

purpose for which the refuge was established (its value for the conservation 

of migratory bird species); current/historical species and habitat presence; 

and recommendations from MassWildlife or other partners. 

Strategy 1: Continue with the status quo of our old field, grassland, 

upland and wetland habitat management, until our management 

plans are completed. Some areas that are currently being mowed 

may eventually be allowed to revert to forest or may be managed as 

early successional habitat. Until final decisions are made about 

each parcel, based on the HMP, current management techniques 

will be allowed to continue. 

Strategy 2: Within 3 years, develop a long-range HMP. We will 

include information for all habitats and species on the refuge, with a 

focus on resources of regional and national concern (based on 

regional and Service plans). We will provide quantitative and 

measurable objectives and strategies for habitat management to 

enhance resources of concern. 

Strategy 3: Within 5 years, complete a HWIMP. We will include an 

on-going monitoring component designed to measure progress 

toward those objectives outlined in the HMP, and to allow mid- 

Wetland habitat: Photo by John Grabill course corrections or alterations as they may be needed. We will 

develop any additional step-down plans that may be required, 

depending on specific habitat management techniques or practices that 

may be recommended in the plans including chemical, mechanical or fire. 

We will develop protocol in this plan to be statistically sound and peer 

reviewed. 

- 48 - 

Strategy 4: Continue to seek opportunities to develop cooperative 

management agreements with neighboring conservation organizations and 

individuals. We will work with our conservation partners and, where our 


Japanese Knotweed: Photo by Marijke Holtrop 


mission, goals, and objectives are compatible, will work together to 

implement habitat management and biodiversity strategies. 

Objective 3: Limit the spread of invasive and overabundant species and 

minimize habitat degradation. 

Strategy 1: Document presence, acreage, and location of invasive and 

overabundant species in conjunction with vegetation surveys and 

development of a cover type map. We will take baseline measurements of 

key condition indices such as density, height, and percent cover. 

Strategy 2: Develop an Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP), which 

will provide a full range of potential and alternative mechanical, biological 

and chemical control strategies. We will include a monitoring program as a 

part of the plan, which will consist of plot sampling, estimates of cover, and 

responses of wildlife and other plants. We will use the 

IPMP in concert with habitat monitoring to assess 

progress and the effectiveness of different techniques, 

and identify additional problem species. We will 

research alternative methods of controlling certain 

species as appropriate, based on monitoring results. 

Control strategies will be species specific and may 

employ biological vectors, mechanical methods (hand 

pulling), fire, or herbicides. We will use the least 

intrusive, but most effective control practice. As 

previously discussed, use of herbicides would require 

action specific step down plans, and in some situations 

proposed control methodologies may also require 

wetland permitting review and approval. 

Strategy 3: We will also participate in appropriate, experimental invasive 

species control research programs. These programs must be reviewed and 

approved by Service regional or national biological staff and the 

Department of the Interior’s wildlife research arm, the Biological 

Resources Division, now located within the U.S. Geologic Survey, before 

any research is initiated. 

Strategy 4: Control invasive and overabundant animal species using the 

most effective means available. There are currently identified problems 

related to overabundant or invasive animal species on the refuge. Beaver 

have occasionally caused localized flooding of refuge trails and maintenance 

roads and are raising water levels, which is affecting a well on the refuge. 

Control of such situations includes manually clearing culverts, installing 

grates on culverts and water-control structures, and installing beaver 

deceivers in dams or on culverts. Devices range from a simple PVC pipe 

inserted into dams to reduce water levels, to fencing constructed in a 

semicircle around a culvert with drain pipes inserted through the fence. If 

more serious threats to habitat, refuge facilities, adjacent property or 


- 50 - 

One of the buildings that has been 

removed from Assabet NWR: Staff 

photo 


endangerment of health arise, we will work, in coordination with the 

MassWildlife, to either trap and relocate individual animals from problem 

sites, permit licensed sports trappers or hunters to reduce population 

numbers, remove individual beavers through trapping or shooting by 

refuge staff, or to permit a licensed animal damage control firm to reduce 

population numbers by trapping. If needed, we will issue a special use 

permit and complete a compatibility determination outlining specific 

requirements and conditions for beaver removal. 

We will monitor mute swans on the refuge. In an effort to keep this 

aggressive, non-native species from becoming a resident on the refuge, 

territorial or nesting swans on the refuge will be lethally removed after 

obtaining appropriate permits from our migratory bird office. 

Goal 3: Build a public that understands, appreciates, and supports 

refuge goals for wildlife. 

Objective 1: Mitigate existing physical safety hazards, complete 

necessary public use plans and regulations, and open 

portions of the refuge in phases. 

Strategy 1: Correct the currently known safety hazards. Prior to opening 

specific portions of the refuge, we will remove concertina wire, razor wire, 

unneeded barbed wire and old Army communications wire; secure the 

buildings either by boarding windows and doors or by demolishing and 

removing buildings (if architectural/ engineering condition and historical 

significance assessments indicate that to be appropriate); install refuge 

signs to deter entrance into or around sites, where needed; and secure the 

large diameter, open hand-dug wells by filling in accordance with MADEP 

requirements. Most or all of these wells pre-date the Army’s acquisition of 

the property in 1942. If any of the wells are determined to be of historical 

significance, we will coordinate with the State Historic Preservation Office 

to determine the appropriate closure method (filling, capping with concrete 

or wood closures, etc). 

Strategy 2: Within 3 years, develop a Visitor Services Plan. 

This document will include specific goals and strategies for the 

public use program. It will be available for public review and 

comment. 

Strategy 3: Open portions of the refuge in phases. The sequencing 

of the portions to be opened may vary depending on availability of 

funding, completion of building condition and historical 

assessments, and continuation of support from the Friends of the 

Assabet River NWR and volunteers who have been assisting with 

this work. All opened trails are existing roads and will not require 

clearing of additional land. Our current conceptual plan (Map 4-1) is 


Map 4-1: Public Uses to be Phased in at Assabet River NWR 



Trail: Photo by Stanley Klein 

- 52 - 


to clear the safety hazards and open portions of the refuge in the following 

sequence: 

(1) The portion of the refuge running along Patrol Road from the former 

Main Gate on Hudson Road, past the Air Force Weather Radar Facility 

and ending at the former North Gate on White Pond Road. White Pond 

Road will be opened for foot traffic from the former North Gate to its 

southerly juncture with Patrol Road. At least rudimentary parking areas 

will be provided at the North and Main Gate entry 

points. Access on the refuge will initially be limited to 

foot traffic use of the Patrol Road through this area. 

General use of areas of the refuge off Patrol Road will 

be limited to educational and interpretive programs, 

wildlife observation and photography opportunities and 

hunting season use. 

(2) The portion of the refuge running along Old 

Marlboro Road (also known as Craven Lane) running 

from the former Main Gate to the former East Gate at 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency Regional 

Center, and continuing along Patrol Road to the former 

North Gate. At least a rudimentary parking area will be 

provided at the East Gate entry point. Limited access to the easterly side of 

Puffer Pond could be provided in this phase. General use of areas of the 

refuge off these former roads will be limited to fishing at Puffer Pond, 

educational and interpretive programs and hunting season use. 

(3) A walking trail within the portion of the refuge located south of Hudson 

Road. A rudimentary parking area will be provided inside the refuge along 

the access road from Hudson Road. General use of areas of the refuge off 

the trail will be limited to educational and interpretive programs and 

hunting season use. 

(4) A trail along the former railroad bed road network through the old 

bunker complex beginning at Old Marlboro Road and running northerly 

along the westerly side of Puffer Pond to old Puffer Road, and then 

easterly to Patrol Road. General use of areas of the refuge off the trail will 

be limited to educational and interpretive programs and hunting season 

use. 

(5) Two additional foot trails through the former bunker complex will be 

opened for public use. These will begin near the former Main Gate, with the 

first running along the southerly and westerly edge of the complex to 

Puffer Road. The second will run northerly through the mid portion of the 

complex to Puffer Road. Puffer Road will be opened for foot traffic from 

White Pond Road and easterly to its junction with Patrol Road. General use 

of areas of the refuge off the trails will be limited to educational and 

interpretive programs and hunting season use. 


Environmental Education: Staff photo 


Strategy 4: Provide minimally intrusive parking areas as funding and staff 

allow. 

Objective 2: Provide opportunities for wildlife observation and 

photography where such opportunities can be safely 

provided while achieving refuge purposes. 

Strategy 1: Provide a total of approximately 15 miles of trails for public use 

as defined in the phased opening above. 

Strategy 2: Construct a wildlife observation platform and a photography 

blind. The current, proposed locations of these facilities are depicted on 

Map 4-1. 

Objective 3: Provide and enhance opportunities for environmental 

education, interpretation, and outreach where appropriate 

and compatible with refuge purposes. 

Strategy 1: Initiate a very active program in local and regional 

environmental education and interpretive programs. 

Strategy 2: Expand the Complex’s Urban Education 

Program to include the refuge and an additional 

elementary-middle-high school system within the area. 

Strategy 3: Endeavor to work with other school systems to 

provide instructional materials and presentations related to 

refuge resources and management programs that are 

occurring on the refuge. 

Strategy 4: Provide teacher workshops when requested, if 

staffing allows. 

Strategy 5: Construct three informational kiosks at entrances to refuge foot 

trails and a self guided interpretive trail with signage and explanatory 

pamphlets. 

Objective 4: Provide opportunities for hunting and fishing where 

appropriate and compatible with refuge purposes. 

Parts of the Assabet River NWR will be open for shotgun, primitive 

weapons, and archery hunting. Species that will be open for hunting on 

various portions of the refuge and the specific areas are identified below 

and are depicted on Map 4-1. 


- 54 - 


Before hunting is allowed on the refuge, the Code of Federal Regulations 

must be amended to authorize the hunting of upland game (ruffed grouse, 

rabbit and squirrel), migratory birds (American woodcock) and big game 

(white tailed deer and turkey) hunting on Assabet River NWR. There will 

be a public comment period announced in the Federal Register. We 

anticipate an early 2005 Federal Register notice. Refuge staff will prepare 

a Hunt Plan before hunting is allowed. No additional 

NEPA compliance is necessary. 

Providing hunting and fishing opportunities addresses 

the mandates of Executive Order 12996 and the Refuge 

Improvement Act by providing the public with an 

opportunity to engage in wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Hunting and fishing are recognized by the Service as 

traditional forms of wildlife dependent outdoor 

recreation. We anticipate a low to moderate degree of 

hunting and fishing pressure to occur as a result of 

opening the refuge for these activities. The plan to 

Water and pond lilies: Photo by Marijke Holtrop 

permit hunting and fishing on the refuge will not 

significantly affect the wildlife populations in Massachusetts, as the refuges 

represent only a very small portion of the overall habitat available in 

Eastern Massachusetts. 

The refuge weighs a number of factors in opening an area to hunting or 

fishing, including visitor safety considerations. The Refuge Manager may, 

upon annual review of the hunting program, impose further restrictions on 

hunting and fishing activity, recommend that the refuge be closed to 

hunting or fishing, or further liberalize hunting or fishing regulations 

within the limits of State law. Restrictions will occur if hunting or fishing 

becomes inconsistent with other higher priority refuge programs or 

endangers refuge resources or public safety. 

Annual permits will be required for hunting on the refuge. The permits will 

facilitate managing numbers of hunters and harvest. Fees charged for 

these permits will offset costs associated with managing hunting programs. 

For additional information on the fee program, see the section on fees 

beginning on page 59. 

Enforcement of federal and state hunting and fishing regulations will be 

accomplished through patrols by refuge law enforcement officers. 

Enforcement patrols may also be conducted by Massachusetts 

Environmental Police Officers. The frequency of patrols will be 

determined by hunter use, the level of compliance observed during patrols, 

and information obtained from participants, visitors and other sources. 



Refuge brochures and hunter orientation prior to the hunting seasons will 

emphasize refuge specific regulations, safety considerations and the 

protection of wildlife species found on the refuge. 

In addition to state hunting regulations, the refuge may impose additional 

regulations. Examples of refuge regulations that would apply to hunting on 

the refuge include: 

• hunters will be required to obtain permits from the refuge to hunt on 

the refuge; 

• hunters may enter the refuge two hours before legal sunrise and must 

leave within 1.5 hours after legal sunset, and hunting can occur no 

earlier than one-half hour before sunrise and one-half hour after sunset; 

• no night hunting will be allowed on the refuge; 

• pre-hunt scouting of the refuge is allowed by permit, during specific 

time periods; 

• carrying guns is not permissible during pre-hunt scouts; 

• permanent blinds are not permitted on the refuge; 

• all hunting materials, tree stands, and flagging must be removed at the 

end of each hunting day; 

• no one shall insert a nail, screw, spike, wire, or other ceramic, metal, or 

other tree-damaging object into a tree, or may hunt from a tree into 

which such an object has been inserted ; 

• the unauthorized distribution of bait and the hunting over bait is 

prohibited on wildlife refuge areas; 

• all firearms must be unloaded outside of legal state hunting hours; 

• the use of all terrain vehicles (ATV’s) and snowmobiles on refuge land is 

prohibited; 

• training of dogs on the refuge is not permitted; 

• open fires are not permitted; 

• the use or possession of alcoholic beverages while hunting is prohibited. 

Check stations will not be established on the refuge at this time but 

reporting requirements may be instituted. Refuge staff will provide 

information about reporting forms when permits are issued. 

The refuge will work with partners to provide increased hunter education 

through training, brochures, and news releases. 

As a part of the hunt plan we will determine exactly when hunting will be 

allowed. The maximum amount of time that the refuge will be open for 

hunting is the full state seasons for each type of hunting. It is possible that 

we will open for a shorter duration, limited hours, or limited days of the 

week. In Massachusetts there is no hunting on Sundays. To illustrate the 

maximum potential hunting period, Table 4-1 displays the 2004 

Massachusetts hunting seasons for each of the types of hunting proposed 

for Assabet River NWR. 


- 56 - 


Table 4-1: 2004 Massachusetts Hunting Seasons 

Season Start Date 1 End Date 1 Start Date 2 End Date 2 

Deer (Archery) 10/11/2004 11/20/2004 

Deer (Primitive 

Firearms) 12/13/2004 12/31/2004 

Deer (Shotgun) 11/29/2004 12/11/2004 

Wild Turkey 4/26/2004 5/22/2004 

Woodcock 10/14/2004 10/30/2004 11/1/2004 11/13/2004 

Ruffed Grouse 10/16/2004 11/27/2004 

Cottontail Rabbit 10/16/2004 2/28/2005 

Gray Squirrel 10/16/2004 1/1/2005 

Strategy 1: Provide opportunities for archery, shotgun and primitive 

firearm big and upland game hunting on the refuge in accordance with 

Massachusetts State regulations and requirements. Among other 

restrictions, these regulations prohibit the discharge of any firearm or 

arrow upon or across any state or hard-surfaced highway or within 150 feet 

of any such highway, and hunting within 500 feet of any dwelling or 

building in use, except as authorized by the owner of occupant thereof. 

A limited special season will be provided for physically handicapped 

hunters. Selected roads on the refuge will be open for vehicle traffic during 

this season. We believe the physical configuration of trails and roads on the 

refuge will allow us to provide handicapped accessible hunting 

opportunities from several of these access routes. 

Shotgun hunting of upland game (ruffed grouse, rabbit, and squirrel) and 

big game (white-tailed deer and turkey (spring season only per current 

state season restrictions)) will be allowed on the “North Section” of Assabet 

River NWR. All state regulations and restrictions will apply and be 

enforced, including the safety related restrictions discussed above. In 

addition, the use of non-toxic shot (non-lead) will be required for all upland 

game seasons (see Map 4-1). 

On the “South Section” of Assabet River NWR, hunting will be allowed by 

archery only for deer and turkey. 

Strategy 2: Provide opportunities for migratory bird hunting on the 

refuge. American woodcock hunting will be provided according to federal 

regulations, north of Hudson Road only. Waterfowl hunting on the refuge 

(or portions of the refuge) may be opened in the future, if the wildlife and 

habitat inventories and plans previously discussed indicate such action will 

not have detrimental effect on waterfowl habitat or use of such habitat by 

migrating or overwintering populations. We are particularly concerned 

since most of the waterfowl may be concentrated in areas that will be 

difficult for hunters to access without impacting vegetation, including some 

rare state-listed plant species. We will continue to gather information to 


USFWS photo 


assess waterfowl use on the refuge, specifically habitats being used and 

seasonality of that use. 

Strategy 3: Provide fishing opportunities at Puffer Pond. Fishing will be 

restricted to “catch-and-release” and “no live-bait” use. After additional 

fisheries surveys are completed and we assess sustainable harvest, we may 

consider eliminating the “catch-and-release” restriction. However, until 

that data is collected, only “catch-and-release” fishing will be allowed. We 

will provide limited shoreline fishing from up to four areas along the pond 

perimeter and fishing from canoes will be allowed. Ice fishing will not be 

permitted. The current, proposed locations of these facilities are depicted 

on Map 4-1. These shoreline fishing areas may need to receive stabilization 

or be provided with erosion control measures prior to being opened, and 

they may be closed as needed to prevent or repair bank erosion if such 

should develop. At least one of these locations will be made handicapped 

accessible. 

Objective 5: Improve the visibility of the refuge in the community and 

increase awareness of the Refuge System in general and the 

management activities and purpose of the refuge. 

As the Assabet River NWR continues to contribute to the quality of life in 

east-central Massachusetts, strong support in the community and the 

region will also continue to contribute to its success. Helping hands are 

needed for program development, data gathering, and other opportunities 

discussed in these alternatives. Only with this type of assistance can the 

refuge fully achieve its goals and objectives, support the missions of the 

Refuge System and the Service, and help meet the needs of the community. 

Volunteers participate in a wide variety of activities. These include wildlife 

and wildlands photography, assisting with or conducting educational and 

interpretive programs, providing information to visitors, conducting 

observations and surveys of wildlife species, botanical surveys, litter pickup, 

trail clearing and maintenance, sign rehabilitation, and other 

maintenance projects. 

The volunteer program at the Complex has been growing steadily. In 

1990, volunteers provided more than 3,435 hours of assistance to the 

Refuge Complex. In 2000, volunteers provided 20,675 hours of 

service. The total for 2001 was 25,432. Six thousand of those hours 

were at Assabet River, 5,870 at Oxbow and 2,641 at Great Meadows. 

Much of this volunteer work was done by core volunteers and active 

Friends Group members. Through 2004, we have received incredible 

support from volunteers. We are deeply indebted to all of our 

volunteers for their dedication and services rendered for the 

betterment of our nation’s natural resources. 


- 58 - 

Wood Frog Eggs: Photo by Marijke Holtrop 


Strategy 1: Organize and host one or more annual events (such as National 

Fishing Day, National Wildlife Refuge Week or Earth Day) designed to 

promote wildlife-dependent recreation and natural resource education. 

Strategy 2: Initiate programs to provide local communities and landowners 

educational and informational material and strategies related to natural 

resource protection and restoration. On-going refuge resource 

management practices and habitat restoration areas will be incorporated in 

all of these programs to serve as illustrations or demonstrations of resource 

management concepts and techniques. 

Strategy 3: Develop a refuge-specific informational brochure. 

Strategy 4: Work with partners and local communities to place 

informational kiosks related to the refuge and resource management at 

three off-refuge locations. 

Goal 4: Adequately protect cultural resources that occur in the 

complex. 

Strategy 1: Continue evaluations or surveys of cultural resources 

(archeological and historical) on a refuge project-specific basis. Soil 

disturbance requires resource evaluation and clearance. Federal cultural 

resource protection laws and regulations would be enforced. 

Strategy 2: Within 10 years, initiate and complete 

cultural and historical resource surveys and 

inventories on a refuge-wide basis. The 

archeological survey portion of this work will be 

designed to develop predictive models that could 

be applied refuge-wide in evaluating the potential 

of future projects to impact cultural resources. 

Strategy 3: Comply with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act before 

conducting any ground disturbing activities. 

Compliance may require any or all of the following: 

State Historic Preservation Records survey, 

literature survey, or field survey. The Service has a legal responsibility 

to 

consider the effects its actions have on archeological and historic resources. 

Goal 

5: Maintain a well-trained, diverse staff working productively 

toward a shared refuge vision. 

We 

will continue to utilize Service policy, training opportunities, and other 

appropriate means to meet the staffing goals. 


General Refuge Management 


The following management direction applies to various refuge goals and 

across program areas. Some of this direction is required by Service policy 

or legal mandates. Refuge management is organized by topic area. 

Refuge Access and Fees 

The Complex will charge an entrance fee at the Oxbow and Assabet River 

NWRs, and at the Concord impoundments of Great Meadows NWR, and a 

user fee for hunting on the Complex. Our fee program will be established 

under the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program (Fee Demo Program), 

a program which Congress initiated in 1997 to encourage Department of 

Interior agencies that provide recreational opportunities to recover costs 

for their public use facilities, improve visitor facilities, promote activities for 

visitors and address the maintenance backlog of visitor service projects 

(USFWS 1997a). Congress re-authorized the Fee Demo Program in 2004 

for 10 years. The Fee Demo Program requires at least 70% of revenue 

remain at the collection site. Currently, 80% of the funds raised from user 

fees on a particular refuge in this region stay at the refuge. The other 20% 

is sent to the region to be distributed to other refuges. No more than 15% 

of the fees collected can be used for fee collecting or fee collection systems. 

The Complex has received money from these regional funds in previous 

years for public use facilities. If the program does become permanent, the 

percent of revenue remaining on site could change, however it will never be 

less than 70% and could be as much as 100%. Visitors with a current duck 

stamp, Golden Eagle Pass, Golden Age Pass or Golden Access Pass do not 

have to pay entrance fees. 

The following entrance fee program will be initiated at the Complex. 

• A one day entrance fee will be charged per car or per group if arriving 

via foot or bicycle. Our proposed fee will be $4 per day. 

• An annual pass for three refuges in the Complex (Assabet River, Great 

Meadows and Oxbow) will be available for $12. 

• Daily entrance fees will be collected by refuge staff stationed on site or 

at self-service fee collection stations. 

• Self-service fee collection stations will likely consist of a secure box with 

envelopes to register and pay the daily or annual fee. 

• We will attempt to make purchase of the annual pass available by fax 

and on-line. The pass will also be available at the Refuge 

Headquarters. 

The following Hunting Permit Fee Program will be implemented in 

conjunction with the hunting program described earlier in this chapter. 

• We will charge an annual fee of $20 for a hunting permit. This permit 

will be valid for all unrestricted hunting seasons open on the Northern 

refuges (Assabet River, Great Meadows, and Oxbow NWRs). Hunters 


- 60 - 


with a valid hunt permit will not have to pay an entrance fee while 

scouting or hunting. 

• There may be a need to limit hunting during certain seasons to ensure a 

safe, high-quality hunt. Details of these restrictions and any application 

requirements will be outlined in the Hunting Management Plan. Based 

upon these restrictions, purchase of a permit does not guarantee the 

ability to hunt all seasons on all refuges. No additional fee would be 

required for hunting applications for restricted seasons. 

• At the time of purchase of the annual hunting permit, the individual 

may choose to purchase an annual entrance pass for an additional $5. 

The combined permit/pass must be purchased jointly. 

• Individuals that do not purchase the combination permit/pass will be 

subject to entrance fees on the refuge during times when they are not 

hunting or scouting. 

We realize that the new fee program will require an adjustment period. 

Our plan for instituting the fee includes: an educational period, a warning 

period, and finally a transition to full enforcement. 

We may adjust fees over the 15 year period addressed in this plan to reflect 

changes in administrative costs or management goals. 

Accessibility 

Each refuge will operate its programs or activities so that when viewed in 

its entirety, it is accessible and usable by disabled persons. The 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, requires that programs and 

facilities be, to the highest degree feasible, readily accessible to, and usable 

by, all persons who have a disability. 

Fire Management 

U. S. Department of the Interior and Service policy state that Refuge 

System lands with vegetation capable of sustaining fire will develop a Fire 

Management Plan (FMP) (620 DM 1.4B; 621 FW 1.1.1). The Complex 

FMP, which includes Assabet River NWR, provides direction and 

continuity in establishing operational procedures to guide all fire 

management objectives as identified in the plan. This plan was finalized in 

March 2003. The FMP includes descriptions of the refuges and addresses 

wildland and prescribed fire events. The FMP also defines levels of 

protection needed to ensure safety, protect facilities and resources, and 

restore and perpetuate natural processes, given current understanding of 

the complex relationships in natural ecosystems. 

The associated EA was prepared in compliance with NEPA and the Council 

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 CFR Parts1500 -1508). 

It provides a description of the purpose and need for the project, a brief 

background, the features of each alternative, the affected environment, and 


Wetland habitat: Photo by John Grabill 


resulting effects and consequences of each alternative. The selected 

alternative, “prescribed fire and wildland fire suppression” is discussed in 

detail in the EA. Alternatives which were considered, but not selected, 

include differing combinations of: allowing naturally ignited fires to burn in 

some instances; use of prescribed burning to achieve wildlife resource and 

habitat objectives; and, wildland fire suppression. A “no-action” alternative 

of allowing all fires to burn at all times was initially considered, but 

dismissed as not suitable for further consideration in the development of 

this proposal. The no-action alternative was rejected because it fails to 

meet Service policy in regards to potential liability for losses of life and 

property, as well as its unacceptable environmental, social, and economic 

costs. 

The mission of the Complex is to protect and provide quality habitat for fish 

and wildlife resources and for the development, advancement, 

management, and conservation thereof. By defining an appropriate level of 

wildland fire protection, and integrating a prescribed fire program based 

on biological needs, the FMP and EA are fully supportive and sensitive to 

the purpose of the Complex, and of benefit to the Service, in performing its 

activities and services. 

Land Protection 

The Service is currently working on a new national land 

conservation policy and strategic growth initiative. This policy 

will develop a vision and process for growth of the Refuge 

System, helping individual refuges better evaluate lands 

suitable for inclusion in the Refuge System. The process will 

help ensure that lands the Service protects are of national and 

regional importance and meet certain nationwide standards 

and goals. Also, some of the focus of reevaluating Refuge 

System growth has come from the need to address nationwide 

operations and maintenance (O&M) backlogs on existing 

properties. Many refuges, including Assabet River NWR, are 

not fully staffed under current budgets and have significant 

O&M backlogs. Expanding boundaries creates a need for 

additional staff, O&M funds, as well as additional dollars for 

the land protection itself. Our Director has asked that we 

focus, on acquiring inholdings within already approved 

boundaries. The Service may make slight modifications to a 

refuge boundary to acquire additional lands of high resource 

value adjacent to the refuge, if we have a willing seller. 

The Service’s land acquisition policy is to obtain the minimum interest 

necessary to satisfy refuge objectives. Conservation easements can 

sometimes be used in this context, when they can be shown to be a costeffective 

method of protection. In general, conservation easements must 

preclude destruction or degradation of habitat, and allow refuge staff to 


- 62 - 


adequately manage uses of the area for the benefit of wildlife. Because 

development rights must be included, the cost of purchasing conservation 

easements often approaches that of fee title purchase, thus rendering this 

method less practical. Donations of easements or voluntary deed 

restrictions prohibiting habitat destruction will be encouraged. In addition, 

the Service could negotiate management agreements with local and state 

agencies, and accept conservation easements on upland tracts. 

Funding for land acquisition comes from the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund and the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund under the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. 

In the future, we may look at wetland, upland and river systems near 

Assabet River NWR which are of interest for possible private-lands habitat 

improvement projects, easements, and/or acquisition. In particular, we 

believe protection of lands associated with the Sudbury, Assabet and 

Concord River watershed is important for the health of fish and wildlife on 

the refuge. All lands within the Assabet River NWR acquisition 

boundaries are already acquired. 

Resource Protection and Visitor Safety 

Protection of visitors and both natural and cultural resources will be 

improved. We propose to increase refuge staff by one additional, full-time 

Park Ranger, and provide the necessary, intensive federal law enforcement 

training required for dual function law enforcement responsibilities to two 

additional staff (e.g., an assistant manager, refuge operations specialist, or 

an outdoor recreation planner). 

Refuge staff will complete a fire suppression contract or 

agreement with state or local fire suppression agencies 

for wildfires occurring on the refuge (see section Fire 

Management at the beginning of this chapter). 

Special Use Permits and Memorandum of 

Understanding and Agreement 

Guided tours, by outside groups, are permitted on the 

refuges if the activity is determined to be appropriate 

and compatible with the refuge(s) purpose. Permitting 

Former Army drop zone: Photo by Marijke Holtrop will be divided into four categories by the type of use 

and the regularity of the activity requested. Where 

appropriate, one Permit or Agreement will be developed for all three 

northern refuges in the Complex including Oxbow, Assabet River and 

Great Meadows NWRs. 

Special Use Permits may be issued to user groups or individuals for annual 

or single events. These organizations or individuals are those who want to 



use the refuges for a special purpose (e.g. commercial photographer, 

special event or research study), or to gain access to an area otherwise 

closed to the public (e.g. one time entrance to closed areas to 

film/photograph special event or hold special wildlife celebration day on 

refuge). Groups will be given specific requirements and educational 

guidelines on materials to present to the public. The specific charge and 

specific requirements will be determined on a case by case basis. 

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) may be issued to user groups/individuals who want to use the 

refuges for a special purpose or gain access to an area otherwise closed to 

the public, on a regular basis or annually. Groups will be given specific 

requirements and educational guidelines on materials to present to the 

public. The specific charge and specific requirements will be determined on 

a case-by-case basis. 

A concession may be developed if a business operated by private enterprise 

is providing a public service (recreational, educational and interpretive 

enjoyment of our lands and waters for the visiting public), and generally 

requires some sort of capital investment. 

Concessionaires will generally gross a minimum of $1,000 and the 

concession will be charged either a fixed franchise fee or a percent of gross 

income. Groups will also be given specific requirements and educational 

guidelines on materials to present to the public. 

Research 

The Service encourages and supports research and management studies on 

refuge lands that improve and strengthen natural resource management 

decisions. The Refuge Manager encourages and seeks research relative to 

approved refuge objectives that clearly improves land management, 

promotes adaptive management, addresses important management issues 

or demonstrates techniques for management of species and/or habitats. 

Priority research addresses information that will better manage the 

Nation’s biological resources and is generally considered important to: 

Agencies of the Department of Interior; the Service; the Refuge System; 

and state fish and game agencies, or important management issues for the 

refuge. 

We will consider research for other purposes, which may not directly relate 

to refuge specific objectives, but may contribute to the broader 

enhancement, protection, use, preservation and management of native 

populations of fish, wildlife and plants, and their natural diversity within 

the region or flyway. These proposals must still pass the Service’s 

compatibility policy. 


- 64 - 


We will maintain a list of research needs that will be provided to 

prospective researchers or organizations upon request. Our support of 

research directly relates to refuge objectives and may take the form of: 

funding, in-kind services such as housing or use of other facilities, direct 

staff assistance with the project in the form of data collection, provision of 

historical records, conducting of management treatments, or other 

assistance as appropriate. 

All researchers on refuges, current and future, will be required to submit 

research proposals which include a detailed research proposal following 

Service Policy FWS Refuge Manual Chapter 4, Section 6. All proposals 

must be submitted at least three months prior to the requested initiation 

date of the project. Special Use Permits must also identify a schedule for 

annual progress reports. The Regional Refuge biologists, other Service 

Divisions and state agencies may be asked to review and comment on 

proposals. 


Chapter 5: Refuge Administration 

Refuge Staffing 


We will seek to fully staff the minimum requirement identified as a part of 

this CCP process. The Assabet River NWR will continue to share a refuge 

manager with Oxbow NWR, and fill the staffing needs as described in 

Appendix F. Those positions include: 

refuge operations specialist/manager 

outdoor recreation planner 

two maintenance workers 

park ranger (law enforcement) 

two refuge biologists 

forester (who will share responsibilities at several units of the Complex) 

administrative technician. 

The eight Eastern Massachusetts NWRs are managed as a Complex, with 

centrally stationed staff taking on duties at multiple refuges. The CCP 

examines the need for staff specific to the three refuges that were 

organized under the Draft CCP/EA that was released in July 2003. A total 

of 39 full time personnel and a seasonal Biotech are needed to fully 

implement all three refuge CCPs. Permanent staff serving all three refuges 

may be stationed at the Refuge Headquarters in Sudbury, MA. Appendix 

F identifies currently filled positions, recommended new positions, and the 

overall supervisory structure. The new positions identified will increase 

visitor services, biological expertise, and visibility of the Service on refuge 

lands. 

Refuge Funding 

Successful implementation of the CCPs for each refuge 

relies on our ability to secure funding, personnel, 

infrastructure, and other resources to accomplish the 

actions identified. Full implementation of the actions 

and strategies in this CCP will incur one-time costs of 

$2.6 million. This includes staffing, major construction 

projects, and individual resource program expansions. 

Most of these projects have been identified as Tier 1 or 

Tier 2 Projects in the Refuge System’s Refuge 

Operations Needs System database (RONS). Appendix 

E lists RONS projects and their recurring costs, such as 

Painted turtle: Photo by Mena Schmid salaries, following the first year. Also presented in 

Appendix E is a list of projects in the Service’s current 

Maintenance Management System (MMS) database for the Refuge 

Complex. Currently, the MMS database lists $3.23 million in maintenance 

needs for the refuge. 


- 66 - 


Refuge Buildings and Facilities 

We will complete our architectural/engineering condition assessment and 

historical significance review of the 9 structures remaining on the refuge. 

All buildings with historical significance will be appropriately documented. 

All 9 structures will be removed following review and documentation. 

We will work with state, private and other federal partners to obtain 

authorization and funding that will enable the construction of a visitor 

contact station at the Assabet River NWR. The siting of the facility will be 

determined at a later date, and will be based on the wildlife and habitat 

management plans to be developed as well as the historical and condition 

assessments of existing facilities. A location close to the former Main or 

North Gates will be the most likely to be chosen for the center. The visitor 

contact station will be no more than 4000 square feet 

in size. It will provide space for interpretive exhibits, a 

meeting room and administrative offices for refuge 

staff. The current, proposed locations of these facilities 

are depicted on Map 4-1. 

As part of the Centennial Celebration for the Refuge 

System, the Service identified ten refuges in the 

country for new visitor centers. The Complex ranked 

number three on the Service’s list. Refuges were 

ranked on a number of factors including their need for 

Redwing Blackbird chicks: USFWS photo 

a facility and potential to provide opportunities for a 

large audience. The site for the new facility is not identified in this 

document. However, below are the criteria we will use to identify potential 

sites. Sites chosen will be evaluated in a later Environmental Assessment. 

The new center might be located at Great Meadows, Oxbow, or Assabet 

River NWRs or off-site in the vicinity of one of these refuges. The new 

facility will house exhibits focusing on a variety of environmental themes as 

well as refuge management activities. We will implement recommendations 

for interior facility design from the Complex Project Identification 

Document, after it is finalized. We will evaluate each potential site with the 

following criteria: 

� Access from a major travel route (Route 2, 128, etc.) 

� Access from public transportation 

� Accessibility of utilities 

� Presence of trust species, habitats or other important resources 

� Opportunity for outdoor features associated with center, including 

interpretive trails 

� Topography 

� Potential disturbance to habitats 

� Presence of hazardous wastes 

� Potential impacts to neighbors 

� Buffer from current or predicted commercial activity 



After the new Visitor Center is built, the current headquarters on Weir Hill 

Road will be used for administrative purposes only by refuge staff. 

Step-Down Management Plans 

The Refuge Manual (Part 4, Chapter 3) lists a number of step-down 

management plans generally required on most refuges. These plans 

describe specific management actions refuges will follow to achieve 

objectives or implement management strategies. Some require annual 

revisions, such as hunt plans, while others are revised on a 5-to-10 year 

schedule. Some of these plans require NEPA analysis before they can be 

implemented. In the case of the Complex, some of the plans are developed 

for each refuge, while some plans are developed for the Complex with 

specific sections that pertain to individual refuges. In the following lists, we 

have identified those plans that are specific to the refuge and those that will 

be included in an overall Complex plan. 

The following plans are either up-to-date or in progress and will be 

completed within 1-year of issuance of the CCP. 

� Habitat Management Plan (Refuge) 

� Fire Management Plan (Complex) 

� Spill Prevention and Counter Measure Plan (Complex) 

� Law Enforcement Management Plan (Complex) 

The plans indicated in the following list either need to be initiated or are 

out-of-date and require complete revision. Additional management plans 

may be required as future Service policy dictates. 

� Habitat and Wildlife Inventory Plan (Refuge) 

� Integrated Pest Management Plan (Complex) 

� Visitor Services Plan (Complex) 

� Energy Contingency Plan (Complex) 

� Hunt Plan (Refuge) 

� Fishing Plan (Refuge) 

� Cultural Resources Management Plan (Complex) 

� Migratory Bird Disease Contingency Plan (Complex) 

� Safety Management Plan (Complex) 

� Continuity of Operations Plan (Complex) 

� Sign Plan (Complex) 

Maintaining Existing Facilities 

Periodic maintenance of existing facilities is critical to ensure safety and 

accessibility for Complex staff and visitors. There are no usable facilities 

that exist at the refuge for staff or visitors. Complex facilities that relate to 

Assabet River include the Great Meadows NWR visitor contact station and 


- 68 - 


offices, and the Complex maintenance compound. Many of these facilities 

are not currently Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant; 

upgrading is needed and in some cases, is underway. Appendix E displays 

the fiscal year (FY) 2004 Maintenance Management System (MMS) 

database list of backlogged maintenance entries 

for the Complex. 

Compatibility Determinations 

Federal law and Service policy provide the 

direction and planning framework to protect the 

Refuge System from incompatible or harmful 

human activities, and to ensure that Americans 

can enjoy Refuge System lands and waters. The 

Administration Act, as amended by the Refuge 

Winterberries frozen in winter: Photo by Marijke 

Improvement Act, is the key legislation regarding 

management of public uses and compatibility. The compatibility 

requirements of the Refuge Improvement Act were adopted in the 

Service’s Final Compatibility Regulations and Final Compatibility Policy 

published October 18, 2000 (Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 202, pp 62458- 

62496). This Compatibility Rule changed or modified Service Regulations 

contained in Chapter 50, Parts 25, 26 and 29 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (USFWS 2000c). To view the policy and regulations online, go 

to http://policy.fws.gov/library/00fr62483.pdf. 

The Act and Regulations require that an affirmative finding be made of an 

activity’s “compatibility” before such activity or use is allowed on a national 

wildlife refuge. A compatible use is one, “...that will not materially interfere 

with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or 

the purposes of the refuge” (Refuge Improvement Act). Not all uses that 

are determined compatible must be allowed. The refuge has the discretion 

to allow or disallow any use based on other considerations such as public 

safety, policy and available funding. However, all uses that are allowed 

must be determined compatible. Except for consideration of consistency 

with State laws and regulations as provided for in subsection (m) of the Act, 

no other determinations or findings are required to be made by the refuge 

official under this Act or the Refuge Recreation Act for wildlife-dependent 

recreation to occur (Refuge Improvement Act). 

We completed compatibility determinations (CDs) for the six priority 

public uses, activities that facilitate participation in the priority public uses, 

and research for Assabet River NWR under existing Service regulations 

and policy, the Act and the recent revisions of our Compatibility 

Regulations (Appendix G). Each (with some restrictions) was found to be 

compatible with both the mission of the Refuge System and the purposes 

for which the refuges were established. We are issuing these CDs, for these 

activities, as part of this CCP. 



We have also determined several modes of travel to be compatible. These 

are: walking or hiking, snowshoeing, canoeing, non-motorized boating, and 

cross-country skiing. All of these means of locomotion are subject to the 

stipulations outlined in the CDs for these activities as part of this CCP. 

In addition, we have evaluated several other methods of locomotion 

(specifically, use of motor-vehicles in general, all-terrain vehicles, dirt 

bikes, gasoline-powered motor boats, snowmobiles, dogsleds, 

bicycles, and horses). Each of these has been determined to be 

inconsistent with the purpose for which the refuges were 

established. 

Draft CDs were distributed (in the draft CCP/EA) for a 45 day 

public review in mid 2003. These CDs have since been approved, 

and will allow wildlife dependent recreation on the refuge. 

Subsequent to releasing the draft CCP/EA, we also distributed 

CDs for scientific research for a public review period. All 

comments were considered and utilized in the revision. These new 

CDs are now final and included in Appendix G. 

Additional CDs will be developed when appropriate new uses are 

proposed. CDs will be re-evaluated by the Refuge Manager when 

conditions under which the use is permitted change significantly; 

Osprey nest: Photo by Marijke Holtrop 

when there is significant new information on effects of the use; or 

at least every 10 years for non-priority public uses. Priority public use CDs 

will be re-evaluated under the conditions noted above, or at least every 15 

years with revision of the CCP. 

Additional detail on the compatibility determination process is in Parts 25, 

26, and 29 of Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, effective 

November 17, 2000. 

Monitoring and Evaluation 

This Final CCP covers a 15-year period. Periodic review of the CCP is 

required to ensure that established goals and objectives are being met, and 

that the plan is being implemented as scheduled. To assist this review 

process, a monitoring and evaluation program will be implemented, 

focusing on issues involving public use activities, and wildlife habitat and 

population management. 

Monitoring of public use programs will involve the continued collection and 

compilation of visitation figures and activity levels. In addition, research 

and monitoring programs will be established to assess the impacts of public 

use activities on wildlife and wildlife habitat, assess conflicts between types 

of refuge uses, and to identify compatible levels of public use activities. We 

will reduce these public use activities if we determine that incompatible 

levels are occurring. 


- 70 - 


We will collect baseline data on wildlife populations and habitats as outlined 

in Chapter 4. This data will update often limited existing records of wildlife 

species using the refuge, their habitat requirements, and seasonal use 

patterns. This data will also be used in the evaluation of the effects of public 

use and habitat management programs on wildlife populations. 

Evening Primrose at the refuge: Photo by Marijke 

Holtrop 

We will monitor refuge habitat management 

programs for positive and negative impacts on 

wildlife habitat and populations and the ecological 

integrity of the ecosystem. The monitoring will 

assist in determining if these management 

activities are helping to meet refuge goals. 

Information resulting from monitoring will allow 

staff to set more specific and better management 

objectives, more rigorously evaluate management 

objectives, and ultimately, make better 

management decisions. This process of evaluation, 

implementation and reevaluation is known simply 

as “adaptive resource management”. 

Monitoring and Evaluation for this CCP will occur at two levels. The first 

level, which we refer to as implementation monitoring, responds to the 

question, “Did we do what we said we will do, when we said we will do it?” 

The second level of monitoring, which we refer to as effectiveness 

monitoring, responds to the question, “Are the actions we proposed 

effective in achieving the results we had hoped for?” Or, in other words, 

“Are the actions leading us toward our vision, goals, and objectives?” 

Effectiveness monitoring evaluates an individual action, a suite of actions, 

or an entire resource program. This approach is more analytical in 

evaluating management effects on species, populations, habitats, refuge 

visitors, ecosystem integrity, or the socio-economic environment. More 

often, the criteria to monitor and evaluate these management effects will be 

established in step-down, individual project, or cooperator plans, or 

through the research program. The HWIMP, to be completed, will be 

based on the needs and priorities identified in the HMP. 

Adaptive Management 

This CCP is a dynamic document. A strategy of adaptive management will 

keep it relevant and current. Through scientific research, inventories and 

monitoring, and our management experiences, we will gain new information 

which may alter our course of action. We acknowledge that our information 

on species, habitats, and ecosystems is incomplete, provisional, and subject 

to change as our knowledge base improves. 

Objectives and strategies must be adaptable in responding to new 

information and spatial and temporal changes. We will continually evaluate 



management actions, through monitoring or research, to reconsider 

whether their original assumptions and predictions are still valid. In this 

way, management becomes an active process of learning “what really 

works”. It is important that the public understand and appreciate the 

adaptive nature of natural resource management. 

The Refuge Manager is responsible for changing management actions or 

objectives if they do not produce the desired conditions. Significant changes 

may warrant additional NEPA analysis; minor changes will not, but will be 

documented in annual monitoring, project evaluation reports, or the annual 

refuge narratives. 

Additional NEPA Analysis 

NEPA requires a site specific analysis of impacts for all federal actions. 

These impacts are to be disclosed in either an EA or EIS. 

Most of the actions and associated impacts in this plan were described in 

enough detail in the draft CCP/EA to comply with NEPA, and will not 

require additional environmental analysis. Although this is not an allinclusive 

list, the following programs are examples that fall into this 

category: protecting wildlife habitat, implementing priority wildlifedependent 

public use programs, acquiring land, and controlling invasive 

plants. 

Other actions are not described in enough detail to comply with the sitespecific 

analysis requirements of NEPA. Examples of actions that will 

require a separate EA include: construction of a new visitor center and 

headquarters, and future habitat restoration projects not fully developed or 

delineated in this document. Monitoring, evaluation, and research can 

generally be increased without additional NEPA analysis. 

Plan Amendment and Revision 

Periodic review of the CCP will be required to ensure that objectives are 

being met and management actions are being implemented. Ongoing 

monitoring and evaluation will be an important part of this process. 

Monitoring results or new information may indicate the need to change our 

strategies. 

The Service’s planning policy (FWS Manual, Part 602, Chapters 1, 3, and 4) 

states that CCPs should be reviewed at least annually to decide if they 

require any revisions (Chapter 3, part 3.4 (8)). Revisions will be necessary if 

significant new information becomes available, ecological conditions 

change, major refuge expansions occur, or when we identify the need to do 

so during a program review. At a minimum, CCPs will be fully revised 

every 15 years. We will modify the CCP documents and associated 

management activities as needed; following the procedures outlined in 


- 72 - 


Service policy and NEPA requirements. Minor revisions that meet the 

criteria for categorical exclusions (550 FW 3.3C) will only require an 

Environmental Action Statement. 


Literature Cited 


Ackerman, Michael T. 1989. Compilation of Lakes, Ponds, Reservoirs And Impoundments 

Relative to the Massachusetts Clean Lakes Program, April 1989 By Michael T. Ackerman, 

Environmental Analyst, Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control, Westborough, 

Ma. 

AEHA. 1991. Receiving Water Biological Study No. 32-24-H606-91, Environmental Sampling 

of Puffer Pond, Sudbury Annex, Fort Devens, Massachusetts, 29-30 April 1991. U.S. Army 

Environmental Hygiene Agency. 

Aneptek. 1991. Endangered Species Survey: Phase I, an Environmental Inventory of Wildlife 

Species And Their Habitats. Aneptek Corporation, Contract No. Daak6091p2517. December 

1991. 

ABB Environmental Services. 1993. Biological and Endangered Species Baseline Study Fort 

Devens, Massachusetts. ABB Environmental Services, Inc. 

Cutting, J. 2000. Personal Communication. Telephone Correspondence with John Cutting, 

Owner of Cutting Pond and Former Committee Member of Sudbury Conservation Committee. 

Dames and Moore. 1986. Remedial Investigation Report. November 26, 1986. Submitted to the 

US Army Toxic and Hazardous Material Agency, Aberdeen, MD. 

Dineen, Debbie. 2001. Personal Communication. Spring, 2001. 

E&E. 1994. Bioaccumulation Study at Puffer Pond, Fort Devens Sudbury Training Annex, 

Maynard, Massachusetts. Ecology & Environment, Inc. July, 1994. 

GZA, 1991. Site Investigation 100-Acre Parcel of Excessed Natick Laboratory Annex 

Property. Goldberg Zoino and Associates Geoenvironmental, Inc. March 1991. (As Discussed 

in US Army, 1995). 

Hoffman, C. 1983. A Dated Feature Complex from Charlestown Meadows and Its 

Implications for Regional Prehistory. Massachusetts Archaeological Society Bulletin 

44(2):43 

Hudson, A. 1889. History of the Town of Sudbury. Town of Sudbury, Ma. 

Hunt, D.M. 1991. Floristic Survey with Emphasis on Rare Species of Fort Devens, MA. 

Hunt, D.M. 1992. Floristic Survey with Emphasis on Rare Species of the Sudbury Annex of 

Fort Devens, Massachusetts. November 30, 1992. 

Lockwood, Ron. 1999. Spring Summer Bird Observations at Fort Devens Sudbury Training 

Annex. 

Comprehencive Conservation Plan - 73 -

- 74 - 


Lockwood, Ron. 2000. Bird and Other Observations By Ron Lockwood 2000 at Fort 

Devens Sudbury Training Annex. 

Massachusetts Audubon Society. 2003. http://www.massaudubon.org Birds-&-Beyond ibaintro.html 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. 1998a. Surface Water Quality 

Standards: 314 CMR 4.03. Division of Water Pollution Control. 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. 1999. Final Massachusetts Section 

303(D) List of Waters 1998. Division of Watershed Management. Worcester, MA 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. 2000. Massachusetts 1999 Annual 

Air Quality Report. Air Assessment Branch, Wall Experiment Station, 37 Shattuck Street, 

Lawrence, Massachusetts 01843. 

Massachusetts Department of Public Health. 1994. Public Health Interim Freshwater Fish 

Consumption Advisory. Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment. Boston, MA. 

Massachusetts Department of Public Health. 1999. Freshwater Fish Consumption Advisory 

List. Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment. Boston, MA. 

Massachusetts Department of Revenue. 2001: http://www.dls.state.ma.us/allfiles.htm 

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife. 1997 Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and 

Wildlife Assabet River Survey, July 1997. 

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Natural Heritage And Endangered Species 

Program and the Massachusetts Chapter of the Nature Conservancy. 1998. Our 

Irreplaceable Heritage: Protecting Biodiversity in Massachusetts. 83 pp. 

Massachusetts Division of Fish & Game. 2004. MassWildlife Abstract of the 2004 

Massachusetts Fish & Wildlife Laws. Westborough, MA 

Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. 1996. SUASCO River Watershed 

Resource Assessment Report (Draft). 84pp. 

Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. 1998. Massachusetts Section 303(D) 

List of Waters (Final). 131pp. 

Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. 2003 Air Quality Report. 88 pp. 

Mello, Mark J. and E. Peters. 1992. Survey of Lepidoptera at Fort Devens, with Notes on 

Sudbury Annex. Lloyd Center for Environmental Studies, South Dartmouth, MA. A Report to 

MA Natural Heritage And Endangered Species Program. Lloyd Center Report # 92-3. 

Mello, Mark J. and E. Peters. 1993. Survey of Lepidoptera at Fort Devens, with Notes on 



Sudbury Annex. A Report to the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species 

Program. The Lloyd Center for Environmental Studies, South Dartmouth, MA. 

Mello, Mark J. and E. Peters. 1994. The Lloyd Center for Environmental Studies, South 

Dartmouth, Ma. Unpublished Data. 

Miller, L.A., B.E. Johns, D.J. Elias, and G.J. Killian. 1999a. Oral Vaccination of White-Tailed 

Deer Using a Recombinant Bacillus Calmetteguerin Vaccine Expressing the Borrelia 

Burgdorferi Outer Surface Protein A: Prospects for Immunocontraception. American Journal 

of Reproductive Immunology. (41)4: 279-285. 

National Park Service. 2001. http://www.nps.gov/rivers/index.html. 

Natural Resources Conservation District. 1995. Middlesex County, Massachusetts Interim 

Soil Survey Report. Westford, Massachusetts. 4 th Edition, 123 pp. 

National Weather Service. 2001. 

National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. (16 U.S.C. § 668dd Et Seq.) 

Organization for the Assabet River. 2000. Assabet River Water Quality Monitoring Program, 

Final Report-1999. The Organization for the Assabet River. July, 2000. 

OHM Remediation Services. 1994. Puffer Pond Fish Study. Prepared By OHM Remediation 

Services, Inc. for the U.S. Army Environmental Center, Aberdeen, MD. 

Population Estimates Program, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC 

20233. Contact: Statistical Information Staff, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau (301) 

457-2422 

Ritchie, Duncan. 1980. Prehistoric Cultural Resources in the Suburban Fringe: A Preliminary 

Assessment of the Sudbury/Assabet Drainage. In Widening Horizons, Studies Presented to 

Maurice Robbins, Edited By C. Hoffman; Trustees of the Massachusetts Archaeological 

Society, Attleboro, MA. 

Sweet C.W. and E. Prestbo. 1999. Wet Deposition of Mercury in the U.S. and Canada. 

Presented at “Mercury In The Environment Specialty Conference”, September 15-17, 1999, 

Minneapolis, Mn. Proceedings Published by Air and Waste Management Association, 

Pittsburgh, PA 

Thomas, H.H. 1992. Small Mammal Survey of the Sudbury Training Annex, Sudbury, 

Middlesex County, Massachusetts and Fort Deven Military Reservation, Lancaster, 

Worcester County, and Shirley, Middlesex County, Massachusetts. Unpublished Report. 

Dept. of Bio. Fitchburg State College, Fitchburg, Ma. 1992. (Survey 4/14-12/10/92 Report 

Undated In Original). 

Town of Stow. 1997. Town of Stow Open Space And Recreation Plan 1997. 


- 76 - 


University of Connecticut. 2000. A Provisional List of Non-Native Invasive and Potentially 

Invasive Plants in New England. Leslie J. Merhoff, University of Connecticut. January 1, 

2000: http://www.eeb.uconn.edu/bioconctr/publications/publication-3.html 

U.S. Army. 1995. Draft Master Environmental Plan, Fort Devens Sudbury Training Annex, 

Middlesex County, Massachusetts. Prepared by ABB Environmental Service, Inc., Portland, 

ME for the U.S. Army Environmental Center, Aberdeen, MD. 

U.S. Army. 1998. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 1998 - 2002. Devens 

Reserve Forces Training Area, Massachusetts. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. Census 2000 Data: http://factfinder.census.gov 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1985. Soil Survey of Worcester County Massachusetts, 

Northeastern Part. Soil Conservation Service (Now the Natural Resource Conservation 

Service). 

U.S. Department of Interior. 2003. Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. 

http://www.ios.doi.gov/nrl/recfees/recfee.htm 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Final Close Out Report, Fort Devens- Sudbury 

Training Annex. Region 1, Office of Site Remediation. Boston, MA. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

“Airs Graphics” Web Site At http://www.epa.gov 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Refuge Manual. Wash., D.C. U.S. Gov’t Printing Office. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Fisheries USA. The Recreational Fisheries Policy of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Wash, D.C.,U.S. Gov’t Printing Office. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Survey and Evaluation of Wetlands and Wildlife Habitat, 

Fort Devens, Massachusetts. February 6, 1992. 

U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service. 1995. Survey and Evaluation of Wetlands and Wildlife Habitat, 

Fort Devens Sudbury Training Annex, Massachusetts. William Zinni, Region 5, 

USFWS, Hadley, Massachusetts. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997a. Recreation Fee Programs Frequently Asked Questions. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000b. Nongame Birds of Management Concern, 1995 List: 

http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/speccon 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000c. Final Compatibility Regulations and Final 

Compatibility Policy Pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997. 50 CFR Parts 25, 26 and 29 



U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Policy on Maintaining Biological Integrity, Diversity, and 

Environmental Health of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

http://policy.fws.gov/library/01FR3809. 

U.S. Geological Service. 1956. Geology and Mineral Resources of the Hudson and Maynard 

Quadrangles, Massachusetts. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1038. U.S. Government Printing 

Office. 

Wilson, J. 1988. Archaeological Survey for Three Small Projects: Sudbury Unit, Great 

Meadows National Wildlife Refuge. Prepared by Regional Archaeologist, Region 5, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 1 Gateway Center, Suite 700 Newton Corner, MA. 

Woytek, Bill. 2001. Masswildlife. Personal Communication. 


- 78 - 




Glossary 

accessibility- the state or quality of being easily 

approached or entered, particularly as it relates to 

the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

accessible facilities- structures accessible for 

most people with disabilities without assistance; 

ada-accessible (e.g., parking lots, trails, 

pathways, ramps, picnic and camping areas, 

restrooms, boating facilities (docks, piers, 

gangways), fishing facilities, playgrounds, 

amphitheaters, exhibits, audiovisual programs, 

and wayside sites.) 

adaptive management- responding to changing 

ecological condiditions so as to not exceed 

productivity limits of specific place. For 

example, when crop growth slows, a good farmer 

learns to recognize ecological signs that tell 

either to add more manure or to allow a field to 

lie fallow. Adaptive management becomes 

impossible when managers are forced to meet the 

demands of outsiders who are not under local 

ecological constraints (from Dodson et al., 1998) 

agricultural land- nonforested land (now or 

recently orchards, pastures, or crops) 

alternative- a reasonable way to fix an identified 

problem or satisfy a stated need (40 cfr 1500.2 

(cf. “management alternative”)) 

amphidromous fish- fish that can migrate from 

fresh water to the sea or the reverse, not only for 

breeding, but also regularly at other times during 

their life cycle 

anadromous fish- fish that spend a large portion 

of their life cycle in the ocean and return to 

freshwater to breed 

aquatic- growing in, living in, or dependent 

upon water 

aquatic barrier- any obstruction to fish passage 

appropriate use- a proposed or existing use of a 

national wildlife refuge that (1) supports the 

refuge system mission, the major purposes, goals 

or objectivies of the refuge; (2) is necessary for 

the safe and effective conduct of a priority 

general public use on the refuge; (3) is otherwise 

determined under service manual chapter 605 

Glossary 

FW 1 (draft), by the refuge manager and refuge 

supervisor to be appropriate 

area of biological significance- cf. “special 

focus area” 

best management practices- land management 

practices that produce desired results (n.b. 

usually describing forestry or agricultural 

practices effective in reducing non-point source 

pollution, like reseeding skidder trails or not 

storing manure in a flood plain. In its broader 

sense, practices that benefit target species.) 

biological or natural diversity- the variety of 

life in all its forms 

breeding habitat- habitat used by migratory 

birds or other animals during the breeding season 

buffer zones- land bordering and protecting 

critical habitats or water bodies by reducing 

runoff and nonpoint source pollution loading; 

areas created or sustained to lessen the negative 

effects of land development on animals, plants, 

and their habitats 

breeding habitat- habitat used by migratory 

birds or other animals during the breeding season 

candidate species- species for which we have 

sufficient information on file about their 

biological vulnerability and threats to propose 

listing them 

carrying capacity- the size of the population 

that can be sustained by a given environment 

catadromous fish- fish that spend most of their 

lives in fresh water, but migrate to sea to 

reproduce 

categorical exclusion- (CE, CX, CATEX, 

CATX) pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), a category of federal agency 

actions that do not individually or cumulatively 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment (40 CFR 1508.4) 

CFR- the Code of Federal Regulations 

Challenge Cost Share Program- a service 

administered grant program that provides 

matching funds for projects supporting natural 

resource education, management, restoration, or 


- 80 - 

Glossary 

protection on service lands, other public lands, 

and private lands 

community- the locality in which a group of 

people resides and shares the same government 

community type- a particular assemblage of 

plants and animals, named for its dominant 

characteristic 

compatible use- “a wildlife-dependent 

recreational use or any other use of a refuge that, 

in the sound professional judgment of the 

Director, will not materially interfere with or 

detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the 

system or the purposes of the refuge.”—National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997 (public law 105-57; 111 stat. 1253) 

compatibility determination- a required 

determination for wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or any other public uses of a refuge before a 

use is allowed 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan- a 

document mandated by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 that 

describes desired future conditions for a refuge 

unit, and provides long-range guidance for the 

unit leader to accomplish the mission of the 

system and the purpose(s) of the unit (p.l. 105- 

57; FWS manual 602 FW 1.4) 

concern- cf. “issue” 

conservation- managing natural resources to 

prevent loss or waste (n.b. management actions 

may include preservation, restoration, and 

enhancement.) 

conservation agreements - voluntary written 

agreements among two or more parties for the 

purpose of ensuring the survival and welfare of 

unlisted species of fish and wildlife or their 

habitats or to achieve other specified 

conservation goals. 

conservation easement- a legal agreement 

between a landowner and a land trust (e.g., a 

private, nonprofit conservation organization) or 

government agency that permanently limits uses 

of a property to protect its conservation values 

cool-season grass- introduced grass for crop and 

pastureland that grows in spring and fall and is 

dormant during hot summer months 

Assabet River NWR 

cooperative agreement- the legal instrument 

used when the principal purpose of a transaction 

is the transfer of money, property, services, or 

anything of value to a recipient in order to 

accomplish a public purpose authorized by 

federal statute, and substantial involvement 

between the service and the recipient is 

anticipated (cf. “grant agreement”) 

cultural resource inventory- a professional 

study to locate and evaluate evidence of cultural 

resources present within a defined geographic 

area (n.b. various levels of inventories may 

include background literature searches, 

comprehensive field examinations to identify all 

exposed physical manifestations of cultural 

resources, or sample inventories for projecting 

site distribution and density over a larger area. 

Evaluating identified cultural resources to 

determine their eligibility for the National 

Register of Historic Places follows the criteria in 

36 CFR 60.4 (cf. FWS manual 614 FW 1.7).) 

cultural resource overview- a comprehensive 

document prepared for a field office that 

discusses, among other things, project prehistory 

and cultural history, the nature and extent of 

known cultural resources, previous research, 

management objectives, resource management 

conflicts or issues, and a general statement of 

how program objectives should be met and 

conflicts resolved (an overview should reference 

or incorporate information from a field offices 

background or literature search described in 

section viii of the Cultural Resource 

Management Handbook (FWS manual 614 FW 

1.7).) 

dedicated open space- land to be held as open 

space forever 

designated wilderness area- an area designated 

by Congress as part of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System (FWS Manual 610 FW 1.5 

(draft)) 

diadromous- fish that migrate from freshwater 

to saltwater or the reverse; a generic term that 

includes anadromous, catadromous, and 

amphidromous fish 

easement- an agreement by which landowners 

give up or sell one of the rights on their property 

(e.g., landowners may donate rights-of-way 

across their properties to allow community

members access to a river (cf. “conservation 

easement”).) 

ecosystem- a natural community of organisms 

interacting with its physical environment, 

regarded as a unit 

ecotourism- visits to an area that maintains and 

preserves natural resources as a basis for 

promoting its economic growth and development 

ecosystem approach- a way of looking at 

socioeconomic and environmental information 

based on the boundaries of ecosystems like 

watersheds, rather than on geopolitical 

boundaries 

ecosystem-based management- an approach to 

making decisions based on the characteristics of 

the ecosystem in which a person or thing belongs 

(n.b. this concept considers interactions among 

the plants, animals, and physical characteristics 

of the environment in making decisions about 

land use or living resource issues.) 

emergent wetland- wetlands dominated by 

erect, rooted, herbaceous plants 

endangered species- a federal- or state-listed 

protected species that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range 

environmental education- “…education aimed 

at producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable 

about the biophysical environment and its 

associated problems, aware of how to help solve 

these problems, and motivated to work toward 

their solution.”—Stapp et al. 1969 

Environmental Assessment- (EA) a concise 

public document that briefly discusses the 

purpose and need for an action, its alternatives, 

and provides sufficient evidence and analysis of 

its impacts to determine whether to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement or Finding of 

No Significant Impact (q.v.) (cf. 40 CFR 1508.9) 

Environmental Impact Statement- (EIS) a 

detailed, written analysis of the environmental 

impacts of a proposed action, adverse effects of 

the project that cannot be avoided, alternative 

courses of action, short-term uses of the 

environment versus the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity, and any 

irreversible and irretrievable commitment of 

resources (cf. 40 CFR 1508.11) 

Glossary 

estuaries- deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent 

tidal wetlands that are usually semi-enclosed by 

land but have open, partly obstructed or sporadic 

access to the ocean, and in which ocean water is 

at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff 

from land 

estuarine wetlands- “the estuarine system 

consists of deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent 

tidal wetlands that are usually semi-enclosed by 

land but have open, partly obstructed, or sporadic 

access to the open ocean, and in which ocean 

water is at least occasionally diluted by 

freshwater runoff from the land.”—Cowardin et 

al. 1979 

exemplary community type- an outstanding 

example of a particular community type 

extirpated- no longer occurring in a given 

geographic area 

Federal land- public land owned by the Federal 

Government, including national forests, national 

parks, and national wildlife refuges 

Federal-listed species- a species listed either as 

endangered, threatened, or a species at risk 

(formerly, a “candidate species”) under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

Finding of No Significant Impact- (FONSI) 

supported by an Environmental Assessment, a 

document that briefly presents why a Federal 

action will have no significant effect on the 

human environment, and for which an 

Environmental Impact Statement, therefore, will 

not be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13) 

fish passage project- providing a safe passage 

for fish around a barrier in the upstream or 

downstream direction 

focus areas- cf. “special focus areas” 

forbs- flowering plants (excluding grasses, 

sedges, and rushes) that do not have a woody 

stem and die back to the ground at the end of the 

growing season 

forested land- land dominated by trees 

forested wetlands- wetlands dominated by trees 


- 82 - 

Glossary 

Geographic Information System- (GIS) a 

computerized system to compile, store, analyze 

and display geographically referenced 

information (e.g., GIS can overlay multiple sets 

of information on the distribution of a variety of 

biological and physical features.) 

grant agreement- the legal instrument used 

when the principal purpose of the transaction is 

the transfer of money, property, services, or 

anything of value to a recipient in order to 

accomplish a public purpose of support or 

stimulation authorized by federal statute and 

substantial involvement between the service and 

the recipient is not anticipated (cf. “cooperative 

agreement”) 

grassroots conservation organization- any 

group of concerned citizens who come together 

to actively address a conservation need 

habitat fragmentation- the breaking up of a 

specific habitat into smaller, unconnected areas 

(n.b. a habitat area that is too small may not 

provide enough space to maintain a breeding 

population of the species in question.) 

habitat conservation- protecting an animal or 

plant habitat to ensure that the use of that habitat 

by the animal or plant is not altered or reduced 

habitat- the place where a particular type of 

plant or animal lives 

hydrologic or flow regime- characteristic 

fluctuations in river flows 

important fish areas- the aquatic areas 

identified by private organizations, local, state, 

and federal agencies that meet the purposes of 

the Conte act 

informed consent- “…the grudging willingness 

of opponents to go along with a course of action 

that they actually oppose.”—Bleiker 

Intergrated Pest Management (IPM)- 

sustainable approach to managing pests by 

combining biological, cultural, physical, and 

chemical tools in a way that minimizes 

economic, health, and environmental risks 

interjurisdictional fish- populations of fish that 

are managed by two or more states or national or 

tribal governments because of the scope of their 

geographic distributions or migrations 


interpretive facilities- structures that provide 

information about an event, place, or thing by a 

variety of means, including printed, audiovisual, 

or multimedia materials (e.g., kiosks that offer 

printed materials and audiovisuals, signs, and 

trail heads.) 

interpretive materials- any tool used to provide 

or clarify information, explain events or things, 

or increase awareness and understanding of the 

events or things (e.g., printed materials like 

brochures, maps or curriculum materials; 

audio⁄visual materials like video and audio tapes, 

films, or slides; and, interactive multimedia 

materials, CD-Rom or other computer 

technology.) 

interpretive materials projects- any 

cooperative venture that combines financial and 

staff resources to design, develop, and use tools 

for increasing the awareness and understanding 

of events or things related to a refuge 

introduced invasive species- non-native species 

that have been introduced into an area and, 

because of their aggressive growth and lack of 

natural predators, displace native species 

issue- any unsettled matter that requires a 

management decision (e.g., a service initiative, 

an opportunity, a management problem, a threat 

to the resources of the unit, a conflict in uses, a 

public concern, or the presence of an undesirable 

resource condition.) 

Issues Workbook- a packet of questions 

distributed in order to solicit public comments on 

the Refuge Complex and the planning process. 

Basic information on the Refuge Complex was 

bundled with the Issues Workbooks. Workbooks 

were not randomly distributed, nor were 

questions intended to have statistical 

significance. 

lacustrine wetlands- “the lacustrine system 

includes wetlands and deepwater habitats with 

all of the following characteristics: (1) situated in 

a topographic depression or a dammed river 

channel; (2) lacking trees, shrubs, persistent 

emergents, emergent mosses or lichens with 

greater than 30% areal coverage; and (3) total 

area exceeds eight ha (20 acres).”—Cowardin et 

al. 1979

land trusts- organizations dedicated to 

conserving land by purchase, donation, or 

conservation easement from landowners 

limiting factor- an environmental limitation that 

prevents further population growth 

local land- public land owned by local 

governments, including community or county 

parks or municipal watersheds 

local agencies- generally, municipal 

governments, regional planning commissions, or 

conservation groups 

long-term protection- mechanisms like fee title 

acquisition, conservation easements, or binding 

agreements with landowners that ensure land use 

and land management practices will remain 

compatible with maintaining species populations 

over the long term 

management alternative- a set of objectives 

and the strategies needed to accomplish each 

objective (FWS Manual 602 FW 1.4) 

management concern- cf. “issue”; “migratory 

nongame birds of management concern” 

management opportunity- cf. “issue” 

management plan- a plan that guides future 

land management practices on a tract 

management strategy- a general approach to 

meeting unit objectives (n.b. a strategy may be 

broad, it may be detailed enough to guide 

implementation through specific actions, tasks, 

and projects (FWS Manual 602 FW 1.4).) 

mesic soil- sandy-to-clay loams containing 

moisture retentive organic matter, well drained 

(no standing matter) 

migratory nongame birds of management 

concern- species of nongame birds that (a) are 

believed to have undergone significant 

population declines; (b) have small or restricted 

populations; or (c) are dependent upon restricted 

or vulnerable habitats 

mission statement- a succinct statement of the 

purpose for which the unit was established; its 

reason for being 

Glossary 

mitigation- actions taken to compensate for the 

negative effects of a particular project (e.g., 

wetland mitigation usually restores or enhances a 

previously damaged wetland or creates a new 

wetland.) 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969- 

(NEPA) requires all Federal agencies to examine 

the environmental impacts of their actions, 

incorporate environmental information, and use 

public participation in planning and 

implementing environmental actions (Federal 

agencies must integrate NEPA with other 

planning requirements, and prepare appropriate 

NEPA documents to facilitate better 

environmental decisionmaking (cf. 40 CFR 

1500).) 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex- (Complex) 

an internal Service administrative linking of 

refuge units closely related by their purposes, 

goals, ecosystem, or geopolitical boundaries. 

National Wildlife Refuge System- (System) all 

lands and waters and interests therein 

administered by the Service as wildlife refuges, 

wildlife ranges, wildlife management areas, 

waterfowl production areas, and other areas for 

the protection and conservation of fish and 

wildlife, including those that are threatened with 

extinction 

native plant- a plant that has grown in the 

region since the last glaciation and occurred 

before European settlement 

non-consumptive, wildlife-oriented 

recreation- wildlife observation and 

photography and environmental education and 

interpretation (cf. “wildlife-oriented recreation”) 

non-point source pollution- nutrients or toxic 

substances that enter water from dispersed and 

uncontrolled sites 

nonforested wetlands wetlands dominated by 

shrubs or emergent vegetation 

Notice of Intent- (NOI) an announcement we 

publish in the Federal Register that we will 

prepare and review an Environmental Impact 

Statement (40 CFR 1508.22) 

objective- a concise statement of what we want 

to achieve, how much we want to achieve, when 

and where we want to achieve it, and who is 


- 84 - 

Glossary 

responsible for the work. Objectives derive from 

goals and provide the basis for determining 

strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, 

and evaluation the success of strategies. Make 

objectives attainable, time-specific, and 

measurable. 

occurrence site- a discrete area where a 

population of a rare species lives or a rare plant 

community type grows 

old fields - areas formerly cultivated or grazed, 

where woody vegetation has begun to invade 

(n.b. if left undisturbed, old fields will eventually 

succeed into forest. Many occur at sites 

originally suitable for crops or pasture. They 

vary markedly in the Northeast, depending on 

soil and land use and management history.) 

outdoor education project- any cooperative 

venture that combines financial and staff 

resources to develop outdoor education activities 

like labs, field trips, surveys, monitoring, or 

sampling 

outdoor education- educational activities that 

take place in an outdoor setting 

palustrine wetlands- “the palustrine system 

includes all nontidal wetlands dominated by 

trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent 

mosses or lichens, and all such wetlands that 

occur in tidal areas where salinity due to oceanderived 

salts is below 0$.”—Cowardin et 

al. 1979 

Partners for Wiildlife Program- a voluntary, 

cooperative habitat restoration program among 

the Service, other government agencies, public 

and private organizations, and private 

landowners to improve and protect fish and 

wildlife habitat on private land while leaving it 

in private ownership 

partnership- a contract or agreement among two 

or more individuals, groups of individuals, 

organizations, or agencies, in which each agrees 

to furnish a part of the capital or some service in 

kind (e.g., labor) for a mutually beneficial 

enterprise 

planning updates- newsletters distributed, 

primarily through mailing lists,m in order to 

update the interested public on the status of the 

CCP project. 


population monitoring- assessing the 

characteristics of populations to ascertain their 

status and establish trends on their abundance, 

condition, distribution, or other characteristics 

prescribed fire- the application of fire to 

wildland fuels, either by natural or intentional 

ignition, to achieve identified land use objectives 

(FWS Manual 621 FW 1.7) 

private land- land owned by a private individual 

or group or non-government organization 

private landowner- cf. “private land” 

private organization- any non-government 

organization 

proposed action (or alternative)- activies for 

which an Environmental Assessment is being 

written; the alternative containing the actions and 

strategies recommended by the planning team. 

The proposed action is, for all proactival 

purposes, the draft CCP for the refuge. 

protection- mechanisms like fee title 

acquisition, conservation easements, or binding 

agreements with landowners that ensure land use 

and land management practices will remain 

compatible with maintaining species populations 

at a site (cf. “long-term ~”) 

public- individuals, organizations, and nongovernment 

groups; officials of federal, state, 

and local government agencies; native american 

tribes, and foreign nations— includes anyone 

outside the core planning team, those who may 

or may not have indicated an interest in the 

issues and those who do or do not realize that our 

decisions may affect them 

public involvement- offering to interested 

individuals and organizations that our actions or 

policies may affect an opportunity to become 

informed; soliciting their opinions. 

public involvement plan- long-term guidance 

for involving the public in the comprehensive 

planning process 

public land- land owned by the local, state, or 

Federal government 

rare species- species identified for special 

management emphasis because of their 

uncommon occurrence

are community types- plant community types 

classified as rare by any state program (as used 

in CCP’s, includes exemplary community types.) 

recommended wilderness- areas studied and 

found suitable for wilderness designation by both 

the Director (FWS) and Secretary (DOI), and 

recommended by the President to Congress for 

inclusion in the National Wilderness System 

(FWS Manual 610 FW 1.5 (draft)) 

Record of Decision- (ROD) a concise public 

record of a decision by a Federal agency 

pursuant to NEPA (N.b. a ROD includes:•the 

decision; •all the alternatives considered; •the 

environmentally preferable alternative; •a 

summary of monitoring and enforcement, where 

applicable, for any mitigation ; and, •whether all 

practical means have been adopted to avoid or 

minimize environmental harm from the 

alternative selected (or if not, why not).) 

refuge goals- “…descriptive, open-ended, and 

often broad statements of desired future 

conditions that convey a purpose but do not 

define measurable units.”— Writing Refuge 

Management Goals and Objectives: A Handbook 

refuge mailing list- the “original” Great 

Meadows Refuge Complex mailling list which 

preceded the CCP process. This list contained 

names and addresses of people with an interest in 

the refuge. As part of the planning process, the 

list was continually updated to include 

conservation agencies, sporting clubs, 

Congressionals, workbook respondents, open 

house⁄focus group attendees, etc. 

refuge purposes- “the terms ‘purposes of the 

refuge’ and ‘purposes of each refuge’ mean the 

purposes specified in or derived from the law, 

proclamation, Executive Order, agreement, 

public land order, donation document, or 

administrative memorandum establishing, 

authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, 

or refuge subunit.”—National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 

refuge lands- lands in which the service holds 

full interest in fee title or partial interest like an 

easement 

restoration- the artificial manipulation of habitat 

to restore it to its former condition (e.g., 

restoration may involve planting native grasses 

Glossary 

and forbs, removing shrubs, prescribed burning, 

or reestablishing habitat for native plants and 

animals on degraded grassland.) 

riparian- of or relating to the banks of a stream 

or river 

riparian agricultural land- agricultural land 

along a stream or river 

riparian forested land- forested land along a 

stream or river (cf. note above) 

riparian habitat- habitat along the banks of a 

stream or river (cf. note above) 

riverine- within the active channel of a river or 

stream 

riverine wetlands- generally, all the wetlands 

and deepwater habitats occurring within a 

freshwater river channel not dominated by trees, 

shrubs, or persistent emergents 

runoff- water from rain, melted snow, or 

agricultural or landscape irrigation that flows 

over a land surface into a water body (cf. “urban 

runoff”) 

sandplain grassland- dry grassland that has 

resisted succession due to fire, wind, grazing, 

mowing, or salt spray (N.b. Characterized by 

thin, acidic, nutrient-poor soils over deep sand 

deposits, sandplains primarily occur on the coast 

and off-coast islands, or inland, where glaciers or 

rivers have deposited sands.) 

Service presence- service programs and 

facilities that it directs or shares with other 

organizations; public awareness of the service as 

a sole or cooperative provider of programs and 

facilities 

site improvement- any activity that changes the 

condition of an existing site to better interpret 

events, places, or things related to a refuge. (e.g., 

improving safety and access, replacing nonnative 

with native plants, refurbishing 

footbridges and trail ways, and renovating or 

expanding exhibits.) 

special focus area- an area of high biological 

value (N.b. fie normally direct most of our 

resources to SFA’s that were delineated because 

of: 1.the presence of federal-listed endangered 

and threatened species, species at risk (formerly, 


- 86 - 

Glossary 

“candidate species”), rare species, concentrations 

of migrating or wintering waterfowl, or 

shorebird stopover habitat; 2.their importance as 

migrant landbird stopover or breeding habitat; 

3.the presence of unique or rare communities; or 

4.the presence of important fish habitat.) 

special habitats- as used in CCP’s; wetlands, 

vernal pools, riparian habitat, and unfragmented 

rivers, forests and grasslands (N.b. many rare 

species are dependent on specialized habitats 

that, in many cases, are being lost within a 

watershed.) 

special riparian project- restoring, protecting, 

or enhancing an aquatic environment in a 

discrete riparian corridor within a special focus 

area 

species at risk- a species being considered for 

Federal listing as threatened or endangered 

(formerly, “candidate species”) 

species of concern- species not federal-listed as 

threatened or endangered, but about which we or 

our partners are concerned 

State agencies- generally, natural resource 

agencies of State governments 

State land- State-owned public land 

State-listed species- cf. “Federal-listed species” 

(N.b. this is how to write the phrase “Federal- 

and State-listed species”.) 

step-down management plan- a plan for 

dealing with specific refuge management 

subjects, strategies, and schedules, e.g., cropland, 

wilderness, and fire (FWS Manual 602 FW 1.4) 

stopover habitat- habitat where birds rest and 

feed during migration 

telecommunications- communicating via 

electronic technology 

telecommunications project- any cooperative 

venture that combines financial and staff 

resources to develop and use computer-based 

applications for exchanging information about a 

watershed with others 

threatened species- a federal-listed, protected 

species that is likely to become an endangered 

species in all or a significant portion of its range 


tiering- incorporating by reference the general 

discussions of broad topics in Environmental 

Impact Statements into narrower statements of 

environmental analysis by focusing on specific 

issues (40 CFR 1508.28) 

tributary- a stream or river that flows into a 

larger stream, river, or lake 

trust resource- a resource that the government 

holds in trust for the people through law or 

administrative act (N.b. a Federal trust resource 

is one for which responsibility is given wholly or 

in part to the Federal government by law or 

administrative act. Generally, Federal trust 

resources are nationally or internationally 

important no matter where they occur, like 

endangered species or migratory birds and fish 

that regularly move across state lines. They also 

include cultural resources protected by Federal 

historic preservation laws, and nationally 

important or threatened habitats, notably 

wetlands, navigable waters, and public lands like 

state parks and national wildlife refuges.) 

unfragmented habitat- large, unbroken blocks 

of a particular type of habitat 

unit objective- desired conditions that must be 

accomplished to achieve a desired outcome 

upland- dry ground (i.e., other than wetlands) 

upland meadow or pasture- areas maintained 

in grass for livestock grazing; hay production 

areas (N.b. meadows may occur naturally in tidal 

marshes and inland flooded river valleys or, 

more frequently, at upland sites where vegetation 

has been cleared and grasses planted. 

Eventually, meadows will revert to old fields and 

forest if they are not mowed, grazed, or burned. 

Grasses in both managed meadows and pastures 

usually are similar, but pasture herbs often differ 

because of selective grazing.) 

urban runoff water from rain, melted snow, or 

landscape irrigation flowing from city streets and 

domestic or commercial properties that may 

carry pollutants into a sewer system or water 

body 

vernal pool- depressions holding water for at 

least two months in the spring or early summer, 

is absent of fish, and is important for amphibians 

during the breeding season.

vision statement- a concise statement of what 

the unit could achieve in the next 10 to 15 years 

visitor center- a permanently staffed building 

offering exhibits and interpretive information to 

the visiting publc. Some visitor center are colocated 

with refuge offices, others include 

additional facilities such as classrooms or 

wildlife viewing areas 

visitor contact station- compared to a visitor 

center, a contact station is a smaller facility 

which may not be permanently staffed 

warm-season grass- native prairie grass that 

grows the most during summer, when coolseason 

grasses are dormant 

watchable wildlife- all wildlife is watchable 

(N.b. a watchable wildlife program is one that 

helps maintain viable populations of all native 

fish and wildlife species by building an active, 

well informed constituency for conservation. 

Watchable wildlife programs are tools for 

meeting wildlife conservation goals while at the 

same time fulfilling public demand for wildlifedependent 

recreational activities (other than sport 

hunting, sport fishing, or trapping).) 

watershed- the geographic area within which 

water drains into a particular river, stream, or 

body of water; land and the body of water into 

which the land drains 

well protected- a rare species or community 

type 75 percent or more of its occurrence sites 

are on dedicated open space 

wet meadows- meadows located in moist, lowlying 

areas, often dominated by large colonies of 

reeds or grasses (N.b. often they are created by 

collapsed beaver dams and exposed pond 

bottoms. Saltmarsh meadows are subject to daily 

coastal tides.) 

wetlands- “Wetlands are lands transitional 

between terrestrial and aquatic systems where 

the water table is usually at or near the surface or 

the land is covered by shallow water.”— 

Cowardin et al 1979 

wilderness- cf. “designated wilderness” 

wildfire- a free-burning fire requiring a 

suppression response; all fire other than 

Glossary 

prescribed fire that occurs on wildlands (FWS 

Manual 621 FW 1.7) 

wildland fire- every wildland fire is either a 

wildfire or a prescribed fire (FWS Manual 621 

FW 1.3) 

wildlife management- manipulating wildlife 

populations, either directly by regulating the 

numbers, ages, and sex ratios harvested, or 

indirectly by providing favorable habitat 

conditions and alleviating limiting factors 

wildlife-oriented recreation- recreational 

experiences in which wildlife is the focus (“the 

terms ‘wildlife dependent recreation’ and 

‘wildlife-dependent recreational use’ mean a use 

of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, or environmental 

education and interpretation.”— National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997) 

working landscape- the rural landscape created 

and used by traditional laborers (N.b. agriculture, 

forestry, and fishing all contribute to the working 

landscape of a watershed (e.g., keeping fields 

open by mowing or by grazing livestock).) 


- 88 - 

Glossary 



List of Preparers 

Members of the Planning Team and 

Contributers 

Elizabeth A. Herland 

Project Leader 

Eastern Massachusetts Complex 

Tim Prior 

Deputy Project Leader 


Stephanie Koch 

Wildlife Biologist 


Bill Perry 

Refuge Planner 


Debra Kimbrell-Anderson 

Refuge Manager 

Assabet and Oxbow NWRs 


Michael Dixon 

Outdoor Recreation Planner 


Sharon Fish Marino 

Former Refuge Manager 

Monomoy NWR 

Carl Melberg 

Land Acquisition Planner 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Northeast Regional Office 

Bud Oliveira 

Deputy Chief of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, Region 4 

Former Project Leader 


Pamela Hess 

Appalachian Mountain Club 

Former Deputy Project Leader 



Chuck Bell 

Former District Manager Northeast District 

Division of Fish and Game 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

Debbie Dineen, Natural Resources, Town of 

Sudbury 

Curt Laffin, Planning Consultant 

Jack Lash 

Planning and Ecology Director Department 

of Environmental Management, 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

Tom Poole 

Natural Resource Manager 

Army at Devens Reserve Forces Training 

Area 

Bill Woytek 

Division of Fish and Game, Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts 

Bruce Flaig and Marijke Holtrop 

Generously allowed the refuge to use their 

photographs, many of which were used in this 

plan 

Lindsay Krey 

Assistant Planner 

Former Team Leader 



Nicole Allison 

Former Wildlife Biologist 



William Archambault 

Fisheries Supervisor South 

Former Regional NEPA Coordinator 



Melissa Brewer 

Former Fisheries Biologist 


Norheast Regional Office 


- 90 - 


John Eaton, Cartographer 



Andrew French 

Former Realty Officer 



Thomas Bonetti 


Former Team Leader for this project. 



Victoria Barr 

Archeologist 



Rick Jorgensen 

Realty Specialist 



Wendy Lilly-Hanson 

Former Wildlife Biologist 


Janet Kennedy 

Refuge Manager Parker River NWR 

Former Deputy Project Leader for Eastern 

Massachusetts Complex 

Deborah Long 

Deputy Refuge Manager Forsythe NWR 

Former Monomoy NWR Refuge Manager 

Lisa Plagge 

Former Bio-technician 

Great Meadows, Oxbow, and Assabet NWRs 


Pamela Rooney 

Engineering Supervisor 

Former Planning Team Leader 



Rick Schauffler 

Wildlife Biologist and Cartographer 


New England Field Office 

Janith Taylor 

Regional Biologist 



Sharon Ware 

Refuge Manager Sachuest Point NWR 

Former Refuge Manager at Monomoy NWR 

Mike Amaral 

Senior Endangered Species Specialist 



Addresses 




National Wildlife Refuge System 

300 Westgate Center Dr. 

Hadley, MA 01035 

Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex Headquarters 

73 Weir Hill Road 

Sudbury, MA 01776 


70 Commercial St., Ste 300 

Concord, NH 03301-5087 

Monomoy NWR 

Wikis Way, Morris Island 

Chatham, MA 02633

Appendices 

Appendix A: Relevant Laws 

Appendix B: U.S. Forest Service Content Analysis Team Summary Report 

Appendix C: Responses to Substantive Comments 

Appendix D: Species Lists 

Appendix E: RONS and MMS 

Appendix F: Existing and Proposed Staffing Charts for Assabet River, Great Meadows, and 

Oxbow NWRs 

Appendix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 


- 92 - 

Appendices 


Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan


Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986 


This Act authorized the purchase of wetlands with Land and Water Conservation Fund 

moneys, removing a prior prohibition on such acquisitions. The Act also requires the 

Secretary to establish a National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan, requires the States 

to include wetlands in their Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans, and transfers to 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund amount equal to import duties on arms and 

ammunition. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884), as amended 

Public Law 93-205, approved December 28, 1973, repealed the Endangered Species 

Conservation Act of December 5, 1969 (P.L. 91-135, 83 Stat. 275). The 1969 Act had 

amended the Endangered Species Preservation Act of October 15, 1966 (P.L. 89-669, 80 

Stat. 926). The 1973 Endangered Species Act provided for the conservation of ecosystems 

upon which threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants depend, both 

through federal action and by encouraging the establishment of state programs. The act: 

• authorizes the determination and listing of species as endangered and threatened; 

• prohibits unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and transport of endangered 

species; 

• provides authority to acquire land for the conservation of listed species, using land 

and water conservation funds; 

• authorizes establishment of cooperative agreements and grants-in-aid to states 

that establish and maintain active and adequate programs for endangered and 

threatened wildlife and plants; 

• authorizes the assessment of civil and criminal penalties for violating the act or 

regulations; and 

• authorizes the payment of rewards to anyone furnishing information leading to 

arrest and conviction for any violation of the act of any regulation issued 

thereunder. 

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management 

The purpose of this Executive Order, signed May 24, 1977, is to prevent Federal agencies 

from contributing to the “adverse impacts associated with occupancy and modification of 

floodplains” and the “direct or indirect support of floodplain development.” in the course of 

fulfilling their respective authorities, Federal agencies “shall take action to reduce the risk 

of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to 

restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. 

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 

This Act was passed to improve the administration of fish and wildlife programs and 

amends several earlier laws, including the Refuge Recreation Act, the National Wildlife 

Refuge Administration Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It authorizes the 


- 94 - 


secretary to accept gifts and bequests of real and personal property on behalf of the 

United States. It also authorizes the use of volunteers on service projects and 

appropriations to carry out volunteer programs. 

Historic Preservation Acts 

There are various laws for the preservation of historic sites and objects. 

Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 431 - 433) – The Act of June 8, 1906, (34 Stat. 225) authorizes 

the President to designate as National Monuments objects or areas of historic or scientific 

interest on lands owned or controlled by the United States. The Act required that a permit 

be obtained for examination of ruins, excavation of archaeological sites and the gathering 

of objects of antiquity on lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretaries of Interior, 

Agriculture, and Army, and provided penalties for violations. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa - 470ll) -- Public Law 96-95, 

approved October 31, 1979, (93 Stat. 721) largely supplanted the resource protection 

provisions of the Antiquities Act for archaeological items. 

This Act established detailed requirements for issuance of permits for any excavation for 

or removal of archaeological resources from Federal or Indian lands. It also established 

civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized excavation, removal, or damage of any 

such resources; for any trafficking in such resources removed from Federal or Indian land 

in violation of any provision of Federal law; and for interstate and foreign commerce in 

such resources acquired, transported or received in violation of any state or local law. 

Public Law 100-588, approved November 3, 1988, (102 Stat. 2983) lowered the threshold 

value of artifacts triggering the felony provisions of the act from $5,000 to $500, made 

attempting to commit an action prohibited by the Act a violation, and required the land 

managing agencies to establish public awareness programs regarding the value of 

archaeological resources to the Nation. 

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 469-469c) -- Public Law 86-523, 

approved June 27, 1960, (74 Stat. 220) as amended by Public Law 93-291, approved May 

24, 1974, (88 Stat. 174) to carry out the policy established by the historic sites act (see 

below), directed Federal agencies to notify the Secretary of the Interior whenever they 

find a Federal or Federally assisted, licensed or permitted project may cause loss or 

destruction of significant scientific, prehistoric or archaeological data. The Act authorized 

use of appropriated, donated and/or transferred funds for the recovery, protection and 

preservation of such data. 

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C 461-462, 464-467) -- The Act of 

August 21, 1935, (49 Stat. 666) popularly known as the Historic Sites Act, as amended by 

Public Law 89-249, approved October 9, 1965, (79 Stat. 971) declared it a National policy to 

preserve historic sites and objects of national significance, including those located on 

refuges. It provided procedures for designation, acquisition, administration and protection 

of such sites. Among other things, National Historic and Natural Landmarks are 



designated under authority of this Act. As of January, 1989, 31 national wildlife refuges 

contained such sites. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470-470b, 470c-470n) -- Public Law 

89-665, approved October 15, 1966, (80 Stat. 915) and repeatedly amended, provided for 

preservation of significant historical features (buildings, objects and sites) through a 

grant-in-aid program to the states. It established a National Register of Historic Places 

and a program of matching grants under the existing National Trust for Historic 

Preservation (16 U.S.C. 468-468d). 

The Act established an Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which was made a 

permanent independent agency in Public Law 94-422, Approved September 28, 1976 (90 

Stat. 1319). That Act also created the Historic Preservation Fund. Federal agencies are 

directed to take into account the effects of their actions on items or sites listed or eligible 

for listing in the National Register. 

As of January, 1989, 91 historic sites on national wildlife refuges have been placed on the 

National Register. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1948 

This Act provides funding through receipts from the sale of surplus federal land, 

appropriations from oil and gas receipts from the outer continental shelf, and other 

sources for land acquisition under several authorities. Appropriations from the fund may 

be used for matching grants to states for outdoor recreation projects and for land 

acquisition by various federal agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715- 715d, 715e, 715f-715r) 

This Act established the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission which consists of the 

Secretaries of the Interior (chairman), Agriculture, and Transportation, two members 

from the House of Representatives, and an ex-officio member from the state in which a 

project is located. The Commission approves acquisition of land and water, or interests 

therein, and sets the priorities for acquisition of lands by the Secretary for sanctuaries or 

for other management purposes. Under this Act, to acquire lands, or interests therein, the 

state concerned must consent to such acquisition by legislation. Such legislation has been 

enacted by most states. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718-718j, 48 Stat. 452), 

as amended 

The “Duck Stamp Act,” as this March 16, 1934, authority is commonly called, requires each 

waterfowl hunter 16 years of age or older to possess a valid Federal hunting stamp. 

Receipts from the sale of the stamp are deposited in a special Treasury account known as 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and are not subject to appropriations. 


- 96 - 


National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12401; 104 Stat. 3127) 

Public Law 101-610, signed November 16, 1990, authorizes several programs to engage 

citizens of the U.S. in full- and/or part-time projects designed to combat illiteracy and 

poverty, provide job skills, enhance educational skills, and fulfill environmental needs. 

Several provisions are of particular interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

American Conservation and Youth Service Corps -- as a Federal grant program 

established under Subtitle C of the law, the Corps offers an opportunity for young adults 

between the ages of 16-25, or in the case of summer programs, 15-21, to engage in 

approved human and natural resources projects which benefit the public or are carried out 

on Federal or Indian lands. 

To be eligible for assistance, natural resources programs will focus on improvement of 

wildlife habitat and recreational areas, fish culture, fishery assistance, erosion, wetlands 

protection, pollution control and similar projects. A stipend of not more than 100 percent of 

the poverty level will be paid to participants. A Commission established to administer the 

Youth Service Corps will make grants to States, the Secretaries of Agriculture and 

Interior and the Director of ACTION to carry out these responsibilities. 

National and Community Service Act -- Will make grants to states for the creation of fulltime 

and/or part-time programs for citizens over 17 years of age. Programs must be 

designed to fill unmet educational, human, environmental, and public safety needs. 

Initially, participants will receive post-employment benefits of up to $1000 per year for 

part-time and $2500 for full-time participants. 

Thousand Points of Light -- Creates a nonprofit Points of Light Foundation to administer 

programs to encourage citizens and institutions to volunteer in order to solve critical social 

issues, and to discover new leaders and develop institutions committed to serving others. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 

1, 1970, 83 Stat. 852) as amended by P.L. 94-52, July 3, 1975, 89 Stat. 258, and P.L. 94-83, 

August 9, 1975, 89 Stat. 424). 

Title I of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that all Federal 

agencies prepare detailed environmental impact statements for “every recommendation or 

report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting 

the quality of the human environment.” 

The 1969 statute stipulated the factors to be considered in environmental impact 

statements, and required that Federal agencies employ an interdisciplinary approach in 

related decision-making and develop means to ensure that unquantified environmental 

values are given appropriate consideration, along with economic and technical 

considerations. 

Title II of this statute requires annual reports on environmental quality from the 

President to the Congress, and established a Council on environmental quality in the 

Executive Office of the President with specific duties and functions. 



National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) as 

amended 

This act defines the Refuge System as including wildlife refuges, areas for protection and 

conservation of fish and wildlife which are threatened with extinction, wildlife ranges, 

game ranges, wildlife management areas, and waterfowl production areas. The Secretary 

is authorized to permit any use of an area provided such use is compatible with the major 

purposes for which such area was established. The purchase considerations for rights-ofway 

go into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for the acquisition of lands. By 

regulation, up to 40% of an area acquired for a migratory bird sanctuary may be opened to 

migratory bird hunting unless the Secretary finds that the taking of any species of 

migratory game birds in more than 40% of such area would be beneficial to the species. 

The Act requires an Act of Congress for the divestiture of lands in the system, except (1) 

lands acquired with Migratory Bird Conservation Commission funds, and (2) lands can be 

removed from the system by land exchange, or if brought into the System by a cooperative 

agreement, then pursuant to the terms of the agreement. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

Public Law 105-57, amends the National Wildlife System Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee), 

providing guidance for management and public use of the refuge system. The Act 

mandates that the Refuge System be consistently directed and managed as a national 

system of lands and waters devoted to wildlife conservation and management. 

The Act establishes priorities for recreational uses of the Refuge System. Six wildlifedependent 

uses are specifically named in the act: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation. These activities are to be 

promoted on the Refuge System, while all non-wildlife dependant uses are subject to 

compatibility determinations. 

A compatible use is one which, in the sound professional judgment of the Refuge Manger, 

will not materially interfere with or detract from fulfillment of the Refuge System Mission 

or refuge purpose(s). 

As stated in the Act, “the mission of the System is 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.” 

The act also requires development of a comprehensive conservation plan for each refuge 

and management of each refuge consistent with the plan. When writing CCP, planning for 

expanded or new refuges, and when making management decisions, The Act requires 

effective coordination with other Federal agencies, state fish and wildlife or conservation 

agencies, and refuge neighbors. A refuge must also provide opportunities for public 

involvement when making a compatibility determination or developing a CCP. 


- 98 - 


North American Wetlands Conservation Act (103 Stat. 1968; 16 U.S.C. 4401-4412) 

Public Law 101-233, enacted December 13, 1989, provides funding and administrative 

direction for implementation of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the 

Tripartite Agreement on wetlands between Canada, U.S. and Mexico. 

The Act converts the Pittman-Robertson account into a trust fund, with the interest 

available without appropriation through the year 2006 to carry out the programs 

authorized by the Act, along with an authorization for annual appropriation of over $20 

million plus an amount equal to the fines and forfeitures collected under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act. 

Available funds may be expended, upon approval of the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Commission, for payment of not to exceed 50 percent of the United States share of the cost 

of wetlands conservation projects in Canada, Mexico, or the United States (or 100 percent 

of the cost of projects on Federal lands). At least 50 percent and no more than 70 percent 

of the funds received are to go to Canada and Mexico each year. 

A North American Wetlands Conservation Council is created to recommend projects to be 

funded under the Act to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. The Council is to 

be composed of the Director of the Service, the Secretary of the National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation, a State fish and game agency director from each flyway, and three 

representatives of different nonprofit organizations participating in projects under the 

Plan or the Act. The Chairman of the Council and one other member serve ex officio on the 

Commission for consideration of the Council’s recommendations. 

The Commission must justify in writing to the Council and, annually, to Congress, any 

decisions not to accept Council recommendations. 

Oil Pollution Act of 1990 

Public Law 101-380 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.; 104 Stat. 484) established new requirements 

and extensively amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1301 et. seq.) 

to provide enhanced capabilities for oil spill response and natural resource damage 

assessment by the Service. It required Service consultation on developing a fish and 

wildlife response plan for the National Contingency Plan, input to Area Contingency 

Plans, review of Facility and Tank Vessel Contingency Plans, and to conduct damage 

assessments associated with oil spills. 

One aspect of particular interest to the service involves the identification of ecologically 

sensitive areas and the preparation of scientific monitoring and evaluation plans. Research 

conducted by the Service is to be directed and coordinated by the National Wetland 

Research Center. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial Act of 2000 

This Act paves the way for a special, nationwide outreach campaign. The law calls for a 

Centennial Commission of distinguished individuals to work with partners in carrying out 



the outreach campaign. The law also calls for a long-term plan to address the major 

operations, maintenance, and construction needs of the Refuge System 

These centennial activities will help broaden visibility, strengthen partnerships, and fortify 

facilities and programs for wildlife and habitat conservation and recreation. They will build 

a stronghold of support for the National Wildlife Refuge System to sustain it in a new era 

of both challenge and opportunity. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 

This Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer refuges, hatcheries, and 

other conservation areas for recreational use, when such uses do not interfere with the 

area’s primary purposes. It authorizes construction and maintenance of recreational 

facilities and the acquisition of land for incidental fish and wildlife oriented recreational 

development or protection of natural resources. It also authorizes the charging of fees for 

public uses. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (16 U.S.C. 715s) 

Section 401 of the Act of June 15, 1935, (49 stat. 383) provided for payments to counties in 

lieu of taxes, using revenues derived from the sale of products from refuges. 

Public Law 93-509, approved December 3, 1974, (88 Stat. 1603) required that moneys 

remaining in the fund after payments be transferred to the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Fund for land acquisition under provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. 

Public Law 95-469, approved October 17, 1978, (92 Stat. 1319) expanded the revenue 

sharing system to include National Fish Hatcheries and service research stations. It also 

included in the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund receipts from the sale of salmonid 

carcasses. Payments to counties were established as: 

1) on acquired land, the greatest amount calculated on the basis of 75 cents per acre, threefourths 

of one percent of the appraised value, or 25 percent of the net receipts produced 

from the land; and 

2) on land withdrawn from the public domain, 25 percent of net receipts and basic 

payments under Public Law 94-565 (31 U.S.C. 1601-1607, 90 Stat. 2662), payment in lieu of 

taxes on public lands. 

This amendment also authorized appropriations to make up any difference between the 

amount in the Fund and the amount scheduled for payment in any year. The stipulation 

that payments be used for schools and roads was removed, but counties were required to 

pass payments along to other units of local government within the county which suffer 

losses in revenues due to the establishment of refuges. 


- 100 - 


Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act of 1948 

This Act provides that upon determination by the Administrator of the General Services 

Administration, real property no longer needed by a Federal agency can be transferred, 

without reimbursement, to the Secretary of the Interior if the land has particular value for 

migratory birds, or to a state agency for other wildlife conservation purposes. 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794 )as amended 

Title 5 of Public Law 93-112 (87 Stat. 355), signed October 1, 1973, prohibits discrimination 

on the basis of handicap under any program or activity receiving Federal financial 

assistance. 

The Volunteer and Community Partnership Act 

The Volunteer and Community Partnership Act of 1998 brings recognition and additional 

authorities to the volunteer program and community partnerships, as well as supports 

education programs. Under this Act, refuges can now more easily conduct business with 

community partners under the auspices of the newly authorized and streamlined 

administrative processes. Leveraging Federal dollars and staff, Refuge Managers can 

operate and construct services through cooperative agreements, deposit donations in 

individual accounts at the refuge, and match donations. 

Youth Conservation Corps Act (16 U.S.C. 1701-1706, 84 Stat. 794) 

Public Law 91-378, approved August 13, 1970, declares the YCC pilot program a success 

and establishes permanent programs within the Departments of Interior and Agriculture 

for young adults who have attained the age of 15, but not the age of 19, to perform specific 

tasks on lands and waters administered under jurisdiction of these Secretaries. Within the 

Fish and Wildlife Service, YCC participants perform various tasks on national wildlife 

refuges, national fish hatcheries, research stations, and other facilities. 

The legislation also authorizes the Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture 

to establish a joint grant program to assist states employing young adults on non-Federal 

public lands and waters throughout the U.S. 

Requires the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to prepare a joint report to the 

President and Congress prior to April 1 of each year. 

Wilderness Act of 1964 

Public Law 88-577, approved September 3, 1964, directed the Secretary of the Interior, 

within 10 years, to review every roadless area of 5,000 or more acres and every roadless 

island (regardless of size) within national wildlife refuges and national parks for inclusion 

in the National Wilderness Preservation System. 





CAT 

Content 

Analysis 

Team 

November 26 

2003 

200 E 

Broadway 

Room 301 

P.O. Box 7669 

Missoula, MT 

59807 

406-329-3038 

Analysis of Public Comment 

U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish & Wildlife 

Service 

The Eastern Massachusetts 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Assabet River, Great Meadows, 

Oxbow Wildlife Refuges 

Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all 

its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, 

religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family 

status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program 

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s 

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA 

is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Table of Contents 

Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1 

Summary of Comments........................................................................................... 2 

Synopsis............................................................................................................... 2 

Planning Processes.............................................................................................. 3 

General Planning ............................................................................................ 3 

Time frame for planning/length of comment period ......................................... 3 

Public Involvement .......................................................................................... 3 

Relationship to Regional Planning Efforts ....................................................... 4 

Statutory Authority........................................................................................... 4 

Trust and Integrity ........................................................................................... 4 

Clarity/Organization of Planning Documents................................................... 4 

Technical & Editorial ....................................................................................... 5 

Purpose and Need................................................................................................ 6 

Range of Issues .............................................................................................. 6 

Guiding Policy for Public Lands....................................................................... 6 

Alternatives........................................................................................................... 7 

Affected Environment ........................................................................................... 8 

General resources........................................................................................... 8 

Water quality ................................................................................................... 8 

Vegetation....................................................................................................... 8 

Invasives ......................................................................................................... 9 

Wildlife Management....................................................................................... 9 

Refuge Administration ........................................................................................ 11 

General Suggestions..................................................................................... 11 

Land Acquisition............................................................................................ 11 

Buildings and Facilities.................................................................................. 11 

Staffing and Funding ..................................................................................... 12 

Enforcement.................................................................................................. 12 

Wild and Scenic Rivers ................................................................................. 12 

Priority Public Uses ............................................................................................ 13 

Analysis of Existing Conditions and Need for Further Analysis ..................... 13 

Table of Contents i


General Management Direction.....................................................................13 

Refuge Access ..............................................................................................14 

Fees ..............................................................................................................15 

Hunting ..........................................................................................................16 

Dogs and Public Safety .................................................................................20 

Fishing...........................................................................................................21 

Environmental Education...............................................................................21 

Recreation ..........................................................................................................23 

Snowmobiling ................................................................................................23 

Jogging..........................................................................................................23 

Picnicking ......................................................................................................24 

Bicycling ........................................................................................................24 

Horseback Riding ..........................................................................................24 

Dog-Walking..................................................................................................25 

Birdwatching..................................................................................................25 

Trapping ........................................................................................................25 

Socioeconomic Concerns ...................................................................................26 

Appendix A Coding Structure and Demographic Codes.................................. A-1 

Appendix B Demographics.............................................................................. B-6 

Appendix C Early Attention Letters.................................................................. C-1 

Appendix D Information Requests................................................................... D-1 

Appendix E Organized Response Report........................................................ E-1 

Appendix F List of Preparers ............................................................................F-1 

Table of Contents ii


Introduction 

The contracted U.S. Forest Service Content Analysis Team report summarizes public 

comment submitted on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment (hereafter Draft CCP/EA) prepared to describe the alternatives for the Assabet 

River, Great Meadows, and Oxbow refuges in the Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex. This report provides a narrative review of concerns raised as well as 

appendices detailing the coding process for reviewing public comments, analyzing 

demographic information derived from responses, and listing individuals responsible for the 

analysis. The narrative summary provides an overview of pervasive themes in public 

sentiment rather than a comprehensive description of each public concern. 

Public input on the Draft CCP/EA is documented, analyzed, and summarized using a process 

called content analysis. This is a systematic method of compiling and categorizing the full 

range of public viewpoints and concerns regarding a plan or project. This process makes no 

attempt to treat comments as votes. In no way does content analysis attempt to sway decision 

makers toward the will of any majority. Content analysis ensures that every comment is 

considered at some point in the decision process. Content analysis is intended to facilitate 

good decision-making by helping the planning team to clarify, adjust, or incorporate 

technical information into the final guidelines. The process facilitates agency response to 

comment. 

All responses (i.e., letters, emails, faxes, oral testimony, and other types of input) are 

included in this analysis. In the content analysis process, each response is given a unique 

identifying number, which allows analysts to link specific comments to original letters. 

Respondents’ names and addresses are then entered into a project-specific database program, 

enabling creation of a complete mailing list of all respondents. The database is also used to 

track pertinent demographic information such as responses from special interest groups or 

federal, state, tribal, county, and local governments. 

All input is considered and reviewed by an analyst. Comments are then entered into the 

database. In preparing the final summary analysis, public statements are reviewed again 

using database printouts. These reports track all coded input and allow analysts to identify a 

wide range of public concerns and analyze the relationships between them in a narrative 

summary. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service solicited comments on the Draft CCP/EA from July 20, 

2003 to September 3, 2003. 

During the comment period, 1,907 responses, oral and written, were received. Twenty-five 

responses were duplicates; therefore 1882 responses were entered into the comment database. 

Organized response campaigns (forms) represented 70 percent (1,334 of 1,907) of the total 

responses. 

Introduction 1


Summary of Comments 

Synopsis 

The general tenor of comments is appreciative and laudatory. Typically, respondents endorse 

Alternative B. While there are many specific exceptions to these trends, the two most 

common are opposition to new or increased hunting on the refuge, and opposition to 

proposed limits on non-motorized recreation on the refuge, such as dog-walking and 

picnicking. Endorsement of Alterative B is often couched with provisos, such as that it 

eliminate hunting on the refuge. 

Where analysts were able to identify unit-specific comments (such as those about the Great 

Meadows), the database includes that identification; FWS may wish to review unit-specific 

comments. In general, however, analysts do not discern any appreciable difference in 

comments addressed to the various units. The overall themes of comments are the same, and 

most specific suggestions could apply equally to all three refuges. Where site-specific 

suggestions or concerns are relevant to this summary, they are identified. 

Summary of Comments 2


Planning Processes 

General Planning 

Although respondents are generally complimentary of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

staff and the CCP/EA, commentors provide some suggestions and various criticisms of the 

document. Respondents also request an opportunity to revisit the plan after its 

implementation and make any necessary changes. 

Time frame for planning/length of comment period 

Some respondents are disappointed in the comment period, arguing that holding the comment 

period during the summer months limits the informed input that communities and individuals 

can give. Specifically, the Suasco Watershed Community Council states, “The summer 

timing of this public review may have inadvertently and unfortunately limited public 

comment.” Also, some respondents want more time to review the “technical and 

voluminous” conservation plan so that they may submit more informed comments. 

Respondents are also disappointed that the agency failed to adequately inform the public of 

the comment period. One respondent from Concord, for example, wanted notice of the 

comment period posted on the bulletin board at the Great Meadows Refuge. The FWS, some 

argue, should extend the comment period and improve outreach efforts so that communities 

and individuals may provide well-informed and useful comments. 

Public Involvement 

Many respondents feel satisfied with the FWS’s level of public involvement and education; 

they praise the agencies past efforts and eagerly anticipate additional opportunities for 

interest groups and communities to stay involved in the refuge’s management. One Maynard 

respondent affirms, “Your efforts to involve the local communities are appreciated and 

should benefit us all.” There are, however, a significant number of respondents who believe 

the FWS could improve their public involvement and education efforts. One individual 

states, “Community members in the towns abutting the land appear to have very little 

knowledge about your proposal, and therefore have had very little input.” Respondents urge 

the FWS to hold more public meetings in schools, libraries, senior centers, and town offices, 

as well as take advantage of the media to improve public involvement and educate 

communities. “[Great Meadows Refuge] is a wonderful opportunity for public outreach—a 

place to engage dedicated environmentalists in a dialogue with U.S. Fish and Wildlife and to 

recruit new support for the service and its mission.” 

Civic and conservation organizations express interest in collaborating with the FWS on 

management issues. The City of Marlborough Conservation Commission, for example, 

would like to work cooperatively with the FWS in managing the Refuge Complex and the 

Memorial Forest and Desert Natural Area “to enhance biodiversity and wildlife while 

allowing public access where suitable.” Conservation commissions from other towns express 



interest in collaborative management as well. Similarly, respondents nominate the 

Massachusetts Audubon Society, the Trustee of Reservations, the Friends of Assabet River 

Wildlife Refuge, The Friends of the Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge, The Great Meadows 

Neighborhood Association, Bay State Trail Riders Association, and the Sudbury Valley 

Trustees as good candidates for public involvement. 

Relationship to Regional Planning Efforts 

Respondents ask for clarification of the CCP’s compatibility with other regional management 

efforts, such as: the Maynard Open Space by-law for the Maynard portion of the Sudbury 

Annex in 1987 and its hunting restrictions; the Freedom’s Way Association bill currently 

before congress to formally designate 43 communities as a national heritage area near the 

Great Meadows complex; wildlife management and conservation restrictions near Bolton 

Flats and Devens South Post; the goals of Wild and Scenic River designations; and the 

original intent of the O’Rourke farm “river reservation.” 

Statutory Authority 

Respondents sometimes address real or perceived conflicts between the CCP and federal or 

state law. Some respondents remind the FWS that projects proposed “within the Oxbow 

boundary are subject to the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act,” and that the National 

Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 permits hunting as “one of six priority wildlifedependent 

uses.” 

Trust and Integrity 

Some respondents question the intent of the agency, and are disappointed that the land 

management decisions proffered in the CCP do not reflect the historical uses of the land. “I 

know that I would not have voted for FWS to take the land if I had believed that I would 

never have access to that property for recreational use. You duped the residents of these 

towns so that you could get this property,” exclaims one respondent. 

Other respondents, however, praise the FWS staff and their efforts. These respondents trust 

the agency to make appropriate land management decisions based on expertise and 

dedication. 

Clarity/Organization of Planning Documents 

Many respondents approve of the CCP and commend the agency. “I would like to say that it 

is an impressive document [and] remarkably well-written,” comments one typical 

respondent. Commentors also support the document’s consideration of and compatibility 

with neighboring areas. 

Some respondents express disappointment, however, in the agency’s website performance 

and the size of the electronic document. 



Technical & Editorial 

Respondents suggest the agency provide clearer, more accurate maps. Respondents also 

provided editorial suggestions. For example, “Correction: The Commission would like to 

point out an error on the map on page 2-71. A parking lot is shown on Maple St. north of the 

service road. This site is in fact a private home. There is a parking lot across the street on 

Greenough Conservation Land existing there.” Another respondent wrote, “Please correct the 

capitalization on Sudbury section maps 2-6, 2-7, 2-16 to Sherman Bridge Road. It is two 

words. It’s a street in Wayland.” 



Purpose and Need 

Range of Issues 

Some respondents feel that FWS is making a mistake in classifying certain issues as beyond 

the scope of the EA. These respondents want the FWS to evaluate and mitigate noise and air 

pollution impacts on visitors and wildlife caused by Hanscom Field air traffic. One 

commentor states, “The CCP should include a plan to evaluate impacts to waterfowl, 

especially during nesting seasons, from air traffic at Hanscom Field. The CCP should 

identify noise from Hanscom Field as an issue with which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife staff 

should be more involved.” Respondents protest the expansion of Hanscom Field and its 

related impacts to the visitor experience; and ask that FWS partner with local communities 

and federal agencies—the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation 

Administration—to analyze the impacts of the expansion. One conservation organization 

asks the FWS to participate in the evaluation of jet ski impacts to recreation and wildlife on 

the Concord River. 

Guiding Policy for Public Lands 

Respondents repeatedly describe the agency’s mission as one of wildlife protection, and 

assert that human activities and development should be limited. “In establishing the 

permitted uses for the refuge, you must not bow to public pressure. You must follow the 

charter of a NWR. To do that, you need to establish what the sensitive species are in the 

refuge, and how they are best managed. You must define what additional resources should be 

involved to preserve habitat for the animals. This might include re-establishing topographical 

features, acquiring adjacent land, procuring easements on neighboring lands, or managing 

tourists.” Respondents emphasize the history of the land and its importance to local 

communities, and suggest that informed management decisions that benefit biodiversity 

would best preserve the refuge. To accomplish this, respondents suggest the agency 

“recognize areas in proximity to the refuge and consider such in managing refuge resources,” 

as wildlife and ecosystems do not recognize political boundaries. 

The land that makes up the Assabet River, Great Meadows, and Oxbow Wildlife Refuges is 

important to the people in the neighboring communities. Many respondents feel connected to 

the land, historically, spiritually, and personally. 



Alternatives 

Many respondents either support Alternative A or B, while little is said regarding Alternative 

C. Proponents of Alternative A are concerned about expanding or limiting specific activities 

such as hunting and dog-walking. Some of these respondents request not expanding or 

allowing hunting. Other respondents ask to retain, rather than prohibit, existing “nonwildlife” 

dependent activities. In general, these respondents desire Refuge Complex 

management to continue as is. 

Respondents support Alternative B more for its management approach than allowed 

activities. Many of these respondents favor active management for invasive species and 

wildlife habitat. Additionally, supporters of Alternative B approve of the levels of funding 

and staffing proposed. Respondents are divided about the benefits of the phased opening of 

the refuge. Other concerns stemming from Alternative B include additional fees, allowed 

uses, and land acquisitions. Repeatedly, respondents endorse Alternative B while asking that 

it permit non-motorized uses such as dog-walking, and prohibit hunting. 

Some respondents feel that no alternative considered is adequate. New alternatives suggested 

include: emphasizing non-consumptive, non-lethal approaches to population control; 

promoting the refuge as “open space,” not a hunting preserve; and providing more local level 

decision-making. 



Affected Environment 

General resources 

One respondent requests that the FWS include in its bibliography the respondent’s 

publication, “A Bibliography of the Biodiversity and the Natural History of the Sudbury 

River- Concord River Valley, including the Great Meadows, the Estabrook Woods, and 

Walden Woods.” 

One respondent avows support for “projects that deal with restoring the native ecology to the 

area.” 

Water quality 

One respondent requests protection of water quality and quantity in the Assabet River 

corridor and drainage. Related to the issue of quantity, one respondent raises the issue of 

connected aquifers: “Areas outside the scope of the CCP and town water supply wells (Pg. 1- 

24): Protecting the remaining base flow—the groundwater that supplies flow to the streams 

during dry times—in the tributaries and main stem of the Assabet River is critical to 

protecting water quality and aquatic habitat in the watershed . . . therefore, we suggest that 

any requests for access to the refuges for the purpose of drilling new water supply wells be 

reviewed for impacts to the wetlands and tributary streams on and off the refuges and suggest 

using the groundwater model of the Assabet River watershed currently being developed by 

the US Geological Survey (Northborough) to evaluate potential habitat impacts of proposed 

increased withdrawals.” 

One respondent argues that water quality degradation should be a critical part of the 

CCP/EA, rather than being considered out of scope: “I thought the water quality section was 

weak. Having raised the red flag that the rivers are heavily contaminated, I did not feel that 

the text clearly explained what that meant for the public and for wildlife in the refuge, and 

what the prospects for correction are. For example, I had thought that a major current issue 

was discharge of excessive nutrients from waste water treatment plants leading 

eutrophication and low-oxygen conditions.” 

Vegetation 

Respondents request that the FWS complete proposed cover-type maps to assess species 

occurrence and distribution. One respondent provides extensive advice: “Biological 

Inventories and Mapping Alternative B calls for a thorough inventory of all species on the 

refuges: It would be ideal to be that comprehensive. If priorities are needed, we suggest the 

following order of importance: Reptiles, especially turtles; Complete documentation of 

vernal pools; Invertebrates: Select representative habitats to inventory macro invertebrates in 

order to provide a representational picture of invertebrates in the different habitats on the 

refuge and to identify any rare species. Invertebrates can also serve as indicators of overall 



ecosystem health; Benthic macro invertebrates: select representative habitats for river, 

stream, pond and wetland surveys within the refuge; Field invertebrates: select a 

methodology that targets representative field types, such as wet meadow and upland field.” 

Several respondents suggest that the refuge should sustain and enhance grassland and 

shrubland habitat on all three units to promote early-successional species, many of which are 

in decline in the Northeast. One respondent suggests creation of a butterfly refuge on the 

south side of the patrol road running from the Hudson Road gate to the radar station. 

Invasives 

The need to inventory refuge resources is connected by one respondent to the need to control 

invasives: “The Service's proposal to complete a comprehensive invasive plant inventory by 

2007 will help guide species-specific management. Many exotic and invasive plant species in 

the watershed have become discouragingly pervasive. SVT recommends that the Service 

prioritize its efforts on species that are threatening rare habitats, out-competing rare or statelisted 

species, or are still in low density numbers. The need for exotic species control 

research is great and the Service's proposal to participate in experimental invasive species 

control could result in new innovative methods.” 

Many respondents support efforts to eliminate invasive non-native species. Indeed, a number 

urge the FWS to help catalyze a regional control effort in cooperation with abutters, state, 

federal, and town authorities, and non-profits, arguing that, “Without a systematic treatment 

of this issue, invasive plants will continue to be dispersed throughout the area by wildlife, 

people, and mechanical means.” 

Several respondents raise concerns about invasives at Puffer Pond, given new fishing access 

to Puffer. One respondent writes: “At present Puffer Pond is pristine and free from invasive 

species such as milfoil and water chestnut that have infected other waterways within 

Massachusetts, especially in local ponds including nearby Lake Boon. Allowing canoes 

previously used in these infected waterways increases the probability of infecting Puffer 

Pond with these invasives. Canoe portage presents still another problem in that Puffer Pond 

is a fair distance from the existing entrances. If auto canoe portage were allowed to the pond, 

temporary parking (allowing driving on the refuge proper) for canoe launch would have to be 

provided. This could (would) become permanent parking because of the undesirability of 

leaving the canoe and its contents to move the canoe carriers to an approved parking area 

after launch and then walking back to the canoe launch area.” 

Concerns about targeted species are raised in two cases: one respondent argues that cattails 

are native, and should not be removed; a number of respondents argue that mute swans are 

harmless and should be 

Wildlife Management 

The most commonly offered input regarding wildlife management reflects an overwhelming 

sense of community and a desire to harmonize refuge planning efforts with past, present, and 

future local and regional land management activities. As one respondent summarizes, “The 

physical configuration and multiple ownership (plus the unique natural history heritage) of 



the valley demands a common vision and a systems and team approach. If all the landowners 

will work together in supporting and adding to the enormous environmental, natural resource 

and knowledge base that has already been put in place by past generations, the resulting 

synergy will produce a ‘refuge’ of far greater proportions and impact than could ever occur if 

each property owner goes off on his/her own.” This sentiment is reflected over and over in 

comments. Often, people state, “our town” or “our organization” already has wildlife survey 

data, or “our town/community” wishes to expand its knowledge of natural resources in the 

area. These respondents encourage FWS to utilize existing data and established management 

practices when making decisions for the refuge, and frequently urge FWS to “coordinate,” 

“consult,” and “share information.” 

A related theme touched on by many respondents is the quality of wildlife species data 

provided in the CCP. Respondents request consistently high-quality data, and some 

respondents request that FWS provide the most up-to-date species information possible. 

Some respondents argue that the agency is drifting away from what they perceive to be its 

central mission: providing “refuge” for wildlife. A number of people assert that in a wildlife 

refuge, wildlife needs should take precedence over human needs. Echoing this view, many 

people request that FWS conduct thorough wildlife assessments to determine what kinds of 

human activities (if any) might be appropriate on the refuge. A number of respondents 

believe that hunting and trapping for wildlife population control are not appropriate. Some 

people encourage non-lethal—or at least humane—population control methods. 

All respondents who comment on wildlife monitoring support Alternative B; however, these 

people encourage FWS to provide more detail regarding how, when, and where monitoring 

will occur. 



Refuge Administration 

General Suggestions 

A number of respondents urge FWS to address refuge management from a regional 

perspective, encouraging the FWS to integrate refuge management with the management of 

surrounding lands through community partnerships. Several people ask the FWS to justify 

splitting the Great Meadows refuge into two units. They argue that this area is all part of one 

ecosystem and, accordingly, should be managed as one unit. 

The few people who address historical and archaeological sites simply ask the FWS to 

inventory these resources and to preserve and enhance them when possible. 

Land Acquisition 

Many respondents comment on the proposed land acquisition boundaries, with the majority 

of people in favor of expanding them. A typical respondent argues that, “In a plan that 

purports to run for the next 15 years, it seems shockingly shortsighted to limit land 

acquisition (including through donations) by the refuge.” Some respondents suggest that 

expansion is the best way to protect whole ecosystems and waterways, while others 

encourage an expanded refuge area to protect threatened and endangered species and wildlife 

corridors. Some people ask the FWS to include specific areas, such as the former Fort 

Devens South Post area and parts of the Assebet and Nashua rivers, in the land acquisition 

boundaries. 

Some respondents discourage the FWS from expanding the land acquisition boundaries. 

Typically these sentiments stem from disagreement with FWS management choices, such as 

limits on horseback use. 

Buildings and Facilities 

Respondents voice a myriad of opinions regarding what kinds of buildings and facilities 

should be provided at the refuge. Suggesting that visitor education is an important component 

of gaining public support for the refuge, a number of respondents encourage the FWS to 

build a visitor center or at the least, a contact station. Some of these respondents make more 

specific suggestions, such as using existing buildings for a contact station/visitor center or 

locating such a facility at Hudson Road or at Deven’s near Jackson Gate. A number of people 

support the idea of an administration building on the refuge. 

Citing the importance of public education, many people ask the FWS to locate kiosks at 

strategic locations throughout the refuge. Comments regarding refuge parking focus on lot 

location with many people discouraging parking at Heard Pond. These respondents contend 

that there has been too much garbage dumping and vandalism at the Heard Pond site to make 

it a desirable parking place. One respondent asks the FWS to place portable toilets at all 

parking facilities in the refuge. A number of people support development of an observation 

deck. A few other specific refuge management suggestions offered by respondents include: 



remove barbed wire from the refuge, use smaller information signs, establish a picnic area 

with a bear-proof garbage can, and construct fire hydrants on White Pond Road and along 

Sudbury Road. 

Staffing and Funding 

Although one respondent believes that the refuge should not have rangers because they 

merely “. . . harass old ladies . . .,” most people feel that adequate refuge staffing is essential. 

While many people assert that Alternative B will meet desired staffing levels, a number of 

other respondents contend that proposed staffing levels are too low. These people cite 

anticipated user conflicts, present refuge hazards, and the current downsizing trend in 

government as reasons to increase proposed staffing levels. Some respondents suggest 

utilizing community groups and/or to form partnerships with volunteer organizations to 

supplement staffing needs. 

With regard to refuge management funding, the only direction provided by respondents is a 

request that the FWS ensure its adequacy. 

Enforcement 

Respondents who comment on enforcement say that the level of enforcement on the refuge 

needs to increase. Some respondents suggest that implementation of some programs be 

delayed until adequate enforcement is in place. Others recommend developing a contingency 

plan in case proposed enforcement levels are not effective. An additional suggestion offered 

by some people is that the FWS have a backup force in place of either volunteers and/or 

community officers. 

The key areas identified by respondents as needing increased policing efforts are off-highway 

vehicle trespass, poaching, dumping, trespass, and vandalism. As a typical respondent writes, 

“Preventing illegal use by ATVs is a major enforcement challenge for properties with large 

borders surrounded by suburban landscapes and with many potential entry points.” 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The one concern regarding wild and scenic river designation expressed by several 

respondents is that hunting is incompatible with this designation and should be prohibited 

within these areas. 



Priority Public Uses 

Analysis of Existing Conditions and Need for Further 

Analysis 

Several respondents question CCP visitor estimates and request better calculations, one 

respondent suggesting that based on personal experience the estimate of 70,000 people per 

year visiting Oxbow is “wildly incorrect. It is probably more like 7,000.” 

Numerous respondents request that scientific analysis of wildlife populations take place prior 

to any hunting or trapping. One conservation organization suggests that the CCP be driven 

entirely by wildlife surveys: “We suggest three overarching management priorities when 

considering policies about public use activities: 1. Public uses allowed under the CCP should 

be based on the findings of wildlife inventory and habitat management step-down plans. 

Public use plans should be based on wildlife inventory and habitat management plans; 2. The 

Service should monitor and adjust allowed public uses based on impacts to wildlife and 

habitat during the drafting/revision of step-down plans; 3. Public use should be coordinated 

among partner organizations with land holdings in the vicinity of refuges.” 

Several respondents argue that ongoing monitoring will be critical to management of 

wildlife-dependent recreation, typically: “The proposed additional monitoring projects in 

Alternative B for all three refuges must include at least that level of detail about how the 

monitoring and evaluation will be carried out. For example: The CCP states on pages 2-29, 

2-68, and 2-95 that the Visitor Services Plans, to be completed by 2007, for Assabet River, 

Great Meadows, and Oxbow Refuges would include a monitoring program to evaluate the 

intensity and potential impacts of all the wildlife-dependent public uses on the refuges. What 

data have you collected to date on this issue and what has your analysis of the results shown? 

What steps are now being taken or will be taken until 2007 when the monitoring program is 

in place to ensure that current management of wildlife-dependent uses is not having an 

adverse effect on the resources?” 

General Management Direction 

Respondents offer a number of suggestions for general management direction of the Refuge 

Complex relating to priority public uses, typically defining the extent to which they believe 

various recreational activities should be permitted. Many respondents, for example, argue 

that the refuge should be “open to the public,” by which they typically mean members of the 

public who undertake non-motorized recreation such as picnicking and jogging. For many, 

this is their defining test of the value of the refuge and a natural consequence of it being 

public land, e.g., since we pay taxes we get to use it. 

For a few respondents, general access to the refuge is part payback for the original 

government acquisition of the land. For many more, there is a significant level of anger at the 

prospect of restriction of passive uses, e.g., “[Great Meadows] has been used with great 

respect and affection by the local public for well over the thirty years that we’ve lived here. I 



can’t imagine what reason or right the Federal Government might think it has to interfere 

with that use.” 

Some respondents acknowledge the mission of the refuge, and couch their suggestions in 

terms of “wildlife-dependent uses.” These respondents suggest that jogging, dog-walking, 

picnicking, and bicycling are dependent on wildlife. 

Many other respondents functionally argue that the purpose of the refuge should be 

redefined, making other arguments for permitting non-motorized recreation. For example, 

although few respondents articulate the thought as clearly and plainly, many implicitly 

advanced an argument in consonance with this comment: “The following suggestions are 

based upon the assumption that the primary purpose of the refuge is to preserve native 

species and habitat, but that other compatible uses are acceptable if they support and do not 

significantly interfere with the primary use.” 

Other respondents implicitly or explicitly question the priority attached to those activities 

defined as wildlife-dependent, e.g., “The boundary between wildlife-dependent and nonwildlife 

dependent activities is not always clear. The more important distinction, in our view, 

is between outdoor activities that have an adverse effect on the health and diversity of 

populations of natural organisms, and those that have little or no such impact.” 

Related to the assertion that only harmful public uses should be restricted, one respondent 

suggests that permitting only harmless uses would mean “hiking, skiing, snowshoeing, and 

not much else.” A significant number of respondents asserted that off-highway vehicle use— 

legal and illegal—results in harm, and should be prohibited. 

Some respondents offer support for the general direction of the FWS preferred alternative or 

general confidence in the agency’s ability to sort things out. Some respondents ask the 

agency to monitor use and make appropriate judgments down the line, saying that the agency 

should continually evaluate relationship between recreational uses, ensure that all legal uses 

receive fair consideration and access, and minimize conflict. 

Refuge Access 

Again, many respondents argue for “access” to the Refuge Complex, by which they usually 

mean easy entrance for non-motorized recreation. While some respondents assert that certain 

specific activities (dog-walking, jogging, etc.) may negatively impact the refuge, most argue 

that non-motorized uses are harmless. 

Regarding infrastructure, some respondents request that the FWS eliminate the maximum 

number of trails and roads to protect wildlife. Some respondents assert that off-trail access 

should be by permit only. One respondent asks that access be limited where it may impact 

state-listed rare species, such as Blanding’s turtles, and argues that the FWS should survey 

for rare reptiles and amphibians before opening areas or new infrastructure for recreation 

access. 

According to one respondent, “It would be nice if one long trail could be paved for 

handicapped people in wheelchairs.” 



Respondents provide many suggestions for specific access points and trails they would like 

to see developed. 

Fees 

A considerable number of respondents support fees for use of the Refuge Complex. As one 

respondent said at a public meeting, “They are great areas; I enjoy walking them a lot. I’d be 

happy to give somebody twenty bucks tonight to walk in them the rest of the year.” Some of 

those who support user fees hinge continued support on clear and appropriate local 

application of funds, or on fee levels remaining stable. 

A considerable number of respondents also oppose user fees at the refuge. Some respondents 

oppose fees based on their perception that the FWS is effectively double-dipping; quote one 

respondent, “We’ve already paid through taxes.” 

Respondents oppose user fees for a number of other reasons, arguing variously that fees will 

deter use (especially by low-income individuals) or alienate local residents and collaborators. 

Some perceive fees as a barrier, e.g.: “I am very much opposed to the plans for Great 

Meadows. This land has been use and enjoyed for many years, and I cannot fathom that 

access may be impeded by restricted hours and fees. The community benefits greatly from a 

refuge that is easily and freely accessible to all.” “It belongs to all of us,” another respondent 

writes, “not the few who are able to pay admission costs.” A number of respondents argue 

that fees change the nature of a recreational experience, e.g., “It destroys the soul of the 

experience.” 

With regard to both opposition to fees and concern about the proposed fee schedule, it is 

worth noting that a number of respondents appear unaware of or uninterested in the 

possibility of purchasing an annual pass instead of paying upon each entrance to the park. For 

some respondents, then, fees may appear deceptively exorbitant. 

With regard to fee schedules, several suggestions are advanced. Several respondents propose 

that local residents be exempted from fees. Some respondents suggest that volunteers receive 

free passes. A number of respondents suggest that hunting fees be higher than other entrance 

fees. Some respondents complain that a car full of hunters (for example) would be charged 

less for entrance than a family of bicyclists, and argue that non-motorized arrivals are less 

intrusive and solve parking problems, and should be admitted for lower charges than motor 

vehicles. One respondent suggests charging a parking fee, rather than an entrance fee. 

Several respondents request clarification of fee schedules, in one case asking whether there 

are any fee differences between Alternatives B and C, and in another asking whether a $15 

annual duck stamp wouldn’t obviate the need to pay $20 for an annual permit. 

Respondents also offer suggestions and concerns regarding the mechanics of fee collection 

and enforcement. A number of respondents argue that enforcement will be impractical and 

expensive, arguing that self-service doesn’t work and that all refuge entrances will have to be 

staffed. Likewise, a number of respondents question whether entrance gates will work in a 

refuge with as many porous boundaries between local residences and conservation land as 

the refuge has. Several respondents ask whether fee income will be outweighed by financial 

and goodwill costs, and ask the FWS to provide a detailed analysis of costs and benefits. 



Hunting 

Hunting was the issue most frequently addressed in comments on the EMNWR CCP. The 

hunting issue most frequently raised by respondents was safety—many residents and 

recreationists fear that hunting will put them in danger. These responses merit close scrutiny, 

which follows in a section on public safety. However, many other issues were raised vis-à-vis 

hunting, and they will be discussed here. 

Hunting advocates 

Although lesser in number than those opposed to hunting, a number of both area residents 

and others voiced support for hunting on the Refuge. Some respondents assert that the 

purpose of refuges is conservation—not preservation—and that hunting should be allowed on 

all wildlife refuges. Others argue that hunting is plainly a wildlife-dependent activity, and 

one with important cultural and educational values. One respondent writes, “Hunting should 

also be recognized and allowed as a legitimate wildlife-dependent recreational activity. 

Pursuing wild game for sport and table fare is an American tradition as old as our country 

itself. Family bonds are forged and strengthened as parents pass on to their children valuable 

lessons in conservation and outdoor ethics. Hunting is a total wildlife-dependent experience 

that fosters an intimate knowledge of game and habitat and teaches a wide variety of 

wilderness skills.” 

Other respondents argue that sportsmen and women have “been the primary source of 

funding” for many conservation efforts, provide money to FWS, and therefore deserve entry 

to the refuge complex. Some respondents assert that hunters have been losing territory to 

development in northeast Massachusetts for decades, and argue that the refuge complex 

should, in fairness, and to relieve hunting pressure on other areas, be available. 

Addressing the issue of displacement, several respondents indicate that hunting does not 

impact other recreationists. As a typical respondent states, “If you're worried about 

compatibility issues on the river as to being able to share, I hunt the Sudbury River, and 

people go by in their kayaks, I don't shoot when they’re paddling by. I wave to them. They 

don't wave back, but I wave to them. I'm sitting there with my dog just, you know, letting 

them go on by.” 

Some hunting advocates also seek to allay safety concerns, arguing that hunting is an 

extremely safe sport. “Some local people have concerns about the opening of these areas to 

hunting. It is important to inform the public of the safeguards, rules and restrictions that will 

be associated with the harvest of resident wildlife. . . . If practiced safely hunting is no more 

dangerous than many other daily activities.” 

Some respondents (hunters and non-hunters alike) suggest that the Refuge permit bow 

hunting only, .e.g., “Once the abutters have an understanding of how close one must be to 

their quarry to execute a lethal shot, they will also understand that before a shot is made, and 

there is no question about what it is the archer is taking aim at. So there will be no mistaking 

a human or household pet for a deer. . . . It is not some beer-guzzling bubba sitting in wait for 

the first thing that moves but rather responsible people who have been through statemandated 

training in the sport of bow hunting and who are dedicated to the sport who wish 



every hunt to be a safe incident free experience for themselves and anybody they share the 

woods with.” 

Respondents also offer suggestions for ensuring safe hunts, such as banning buckshot and 

limiting magazine capacity. Some respondents suggest using testing, expense, and the 

willingness of hunters to assist with Refuge goals to ensure that only a safe and ethical subset 

of hunters have access to the Refuge. 

Advocates of hunting also claim that hunting provides effective population control for 

nuisance species, arguing that waterfowl befoul water and recreation areas, and that deer 

cause traffic accidents, browse crops and ornamentals, and carry lyme disease-infected ticks. 

Hunters also assert that their activities are humane, asserting that overpopulation will be 

addressed either through lingering, painful deaths by starvation or disease, or through quick 

and painless execution. 

Some respondents support hunting but are concerned that access to Oxbow may be being 

increased too much, and ask that use be monitored and adjusted as necessary. Some 

respondents ask the agency to limit expansion to what can be handled by existing 

enforcement capability. Some respondents ask that waterfowl hunting at Oxbow include “the 

marshes and potholes,” as well as Hop Brook near the train tracks. One respondent urges that 

there be no limits on waterfowling. 

One respondent suggests that pheasant stocking continue at Oxbow, but not be expanded to 

Assabet. 

Opposition to hunting 

Opposition to hunting at the EMNWR is intense and widespread, at least within the subset of 

individuals who provided comment on the CCP. When respondents differentiate between 

game species, opposition to hunting turkey and grouse is common, but support for a limited 

deer hunt is more common. Leaving aside public safety, and the associated question of 

displacement, comments which question the wisdom of permitting (or expanding existing) 

fall into four broad categories: requests for additional analysis; concern over impacts; moral 

outrage; and concerns about iniquitous treatment of recreationists. 

Additional Analysis 

Some respondents don’t plainly oppose hunting, but ask for additional analysis to justify and 

focus hunting. For example, one respondent says, “I am not in favor of hunting in that area 

unless it is required to control species that have no natural means of control, and justified by 

appropriate studies.” Some respondents suggest that hunting not be regarded as recreation, 

but as wildlife population management, and that therefore it should be utilized only where 

comprehensive biological surveys and analysis indicate it would be of value for biodiversity 

or habitat protection. These respondents argue that only species with real overpopulations 

should be hunted (and ask for hard evidence, rather than anecdotes of browsed ornamentals), 

excluding species—such as woodcocks—that appear to be in decline. Some respondents 

question whether scientific analysis will indicate that hunting in such a limited area will have 

real impacts on area populations. 



Some respondents assert that the CCP inadequately analyzes the impact of hunting. 

Respondents request more data on the cost of ministering to hunters, on impacts on public 

safety, habitat, and species, and on methods of implementation. Some respondents ask the 

FWS to evaluate the economic impacts of hunting, positing that displacement of other 

recreationists’ results in negative impacts. Respondents ask for boundary clarifications and 

improved maps of available hunting areas. Respondents ask whether the agency has assessed 

its liability for hunting accidents. 

Connected with the sense that analysis is inadequate is the argument that the “cure” is 

inappropriate to the problem. Respondents suggest that beavers be controlled through nonlethal 

means, which they argue have been proven more effective than trapping. 

Impacts 

Several respondents oppose hunting based on perceived impacts to other resources. As one 

respondent writes, “A great number of migratory birds rely on this sanctuary for breeding, as 

do many amphibians, reptiles, fish and mammals. Loud noise such as gun shot is known to 

interfere with breeding. Such interference seems in direct conflict with the intent of this land 

as sanctuary.” Numerous area residents complain that the sound of gun shots is aesthetically 

disturbing as well as frightening. 

Several respondents express concern about the impact of lead shot on wildlife and water 

quality. Several respondents argue that hunting off-trail with or without dogs will cause 

damage, and suggest that off-trail use be as limited for hunters as it is for other recreationists. 

Several respondents argue that many migratory birds are in decline, and ask that none be 

hunted. 

Moral objections 

Comments from both area residents and apparent respondents to a campaign by animal rights 

organizations indicate revulsion at the idea of hunting, particularly on a national wildlife 

refuge. For example: “Of all the violent, destructive activities in the world, hunting is right 

up at the top of the list. I am really disgusted at these proposed changes, as is the rest of my 

family. We live very close to Great Meadows, and I'm sure that the last thing we want to hear 

in the middle of a peaceful Saturday afternoon is gunfire ripping though the air followed by 

the squeal of a helpless animal gasping its last breath.” Or: “Hunting, especially trapping, is 

an unnecessary and cruel attack on nature's innocent creatures. To permit people to entertain 

themselves by cruelly destroying the lives of other beings is unconscionable. Hatred, 

selfishness, and violence tear the world we live in today. Encouraging people to hunt and to 

kill does nothing to heal our wounds and move us toward a better world.” 

Respondents argue that hunting should not be permitted, because, they allege: it benefits a 

small constituency; fees for sportsmen and women are a minor part of overall conservation 

funding; hunters kill two animals for each they harvest, leaving the others to die suffering, 

lingering deaths; hunters present a danger to non-game species; in terms of population 

control, predators better select prey; hunting stresses wildlife. 



Respondents are particularly angered by the idea of hunting on a refuge, which they perceive 

to be directly in conflict with the purpose and definition of a refuge. One typical respondent 

describes shooting wildlife on a wildlife refuge as “oxymoronic.” 

Iniquity 

A strong sentiment running through the comments is a sense that there is something 

inconsistent, unfair, and hypocritical about permitting hunting on the EMNWR while 

prohibiting activities such as dog-walking, jogging, and picnicking on the basis of their 

wildlife impacts. As one respondent writes, “It makes absolutely no sense to me that hunting 

will be allowed in the refuge, but dogs on leashes and bike riding will not be allowed. How in 

the world are dogs on leashes and people on bicycles considered dangerous to wildlife, yet 

people with guns are okay?” Or as a conservation group writes, “Inconsistent or arbitrary 

management of public use could lead to confusion and resentment. Why could someone who 

is hunting grouse have a dog (unleashed!) whereas non-hunters must leave their canine 

friends at home? Can a birdwatcher take along a sandwich, or is that considered picnicking? 

If the pace of a jogger spooks wildlife, then why can someone cross-country ski?” 

Many respondents assert that quiet recreation opportunities are rare, but that adequate 

hunting is already available. 

Hunting and Public Safety 

Many respondents argue that expanded hunting will threaten the safety of area residents and 

other recreationists. It is easiest to consider these comments in two categories: threats to 

people, and displacement of recreationists. 

Threats to people 

Many respondents, including many local residents, argue that a) they will feel unsafe if 

hunting is permitted on the Refuge, and b) that people or animals will be injured or killed by 

friendly fire. A typical comment: “I was brought up learning how to handle a gun, including 

shotguns, and remember going deer hunting with my father in Lincoln, Lexington and other 

towns west of Boston—albeit over 50 years ago. . . . Without prejudice one way or the other 

about the justification for hunting, I think the CCP fails to address the important issue of 

public safety and the dangers resulting to adjacent schools, roadways and homes in the 

Refuge area. Clearly, MetroWest is already too overbuilt to allow for the extended hunting 

proposed in the CCP.” Or: “I do not want to be shot hanging clothes in my back yard.” 

To protect visitors to other conservation lands, some respondents suggest that hunters be 

prohibited from using public access points to other lands (such as Foss Farm and Greenough 

Conservation lands). Local abutters and area residents are particularly concerned about stray 

or mistargeted bullets, and raise concerns regarding a number of specific sites such as the 

Maynard public school campus and the southern portion of the Sudbury unit. 

One respondent raises concerns regarding the resources local law enforcement will expend as 

a result of increased hunting: “As the Chief of Police in the Town of Billerica I am concerned 

about proposed hunting on and around the Concord River. This has been a safety and noise 

concern for residents of west Billerica for many years. I feel that this proposed change will 

increase these problems. Please take into consideration that this end of the refuge is a 



populated area and hunting can pose safety risks. Additionally this will cause an influx of 

Police calls to the area to determine if hunters are on private property or refuge land. Does 

the plan have any contingency to compensate the town for this added use of resources?” 

Displacement 

Many respondents aver that they will be unable to use the Refuge during hunting season. One 

respondent asks that the FWS “Expand the Compatibility Determination analysis to include 

an assessment of recreational compatibility. This should include a determination that the 

conditions that motivated the past Refuge Manager to ban hunting have been alleviated.” 

Respondents argue that creating an exclusive use for significant portions of the year is unfair 

and unwise. Some respondents express significant concern for area recreationists over 

unmarked and porous boundaries between the Refuge, conservation land, and residences, 

particularly where hunters might go off-trail. A typical respondent writes, “I am also opposed 

to hunting, not for moral reasons, but for safety reasons. I and my dogs were the target of a 

hunter at Great Meadows several years ago. I had to hit the ground and crawl behind a tree 

for safety. He didn't see me, though when he heard me, he took off in a hurry.” 

Some respondents complain that hunting season occupies optimal use times for the Refuge, 

one respondent stating that no one uses refuges in summer because “the deer flies will kill 

you.” Several respondents think along similar lines, suggesting reduced hunting opportunities 

to permit other recreation: “Maybe hunting could be limited to a few weekends per season,” 

writes one, while another suggests a couple days of hunting per week. Another respondent 

suggests things would be better “if you had one or two hunting days where experienced 

hunters signed up to do a ‘cull’ if you could actually get them to kill sick, old and slow 

individuals instead of the healthiest, biggest and most impressive animals—and those days be 

highly publicized so innocent people wouldn't be hurt.” 

Some respondents suggest that the only safe course of action is to close the Refuge to other 

uses during hunting season. 

To alleviate these concerns, some respondents argue that hunting should only be done by 

professionals paid by the refuge for wildlife management: “If the refuge needs to use deadly 

force to carry out the mission, have that applied by trained professionals and not by anyone 

with ten bucks and a shotgun.” 

Several respondents mention the need to educate both hunters and area residents on the 

schedule and placement of legal hunting. Several respondents talk about the need to increase 

law enforcement to deal with increased hunting, and some assert that the Refuge’s record of 

successful interdiction of motorized trespass and vandalism indicates a current inability to 

enforce laws, and little confidence that hunting can be safely policed. 

Dogs and Public Safety 

A number of respondents offer intensely felt comments advocating continued use of dogs on 

the refuge as a matter of personal safety. These respondents, all women, state that prohibiting 

dogs effectively prohibits their use of the refuge, e.g., “I am a woman and very aware that 

when I am in the woods—I am an easy prey object for defective human types. I would never 

walk alone in the woods without my dog—a 120 pound dog at my side is a huge deterrent to 



even trying something. I have been approached in the past by questionable behavior and my 

dog at that time did place himself between me and the man creeping up behind me. The man 

turned and left. By banning dogs on-leashes at Great Meadows you effectively ban all 

women.” 

Fishing 

With the exception of the occasional “let us fish anywhere we want,” most fishing comments 

are restricted to Puffer Pond on the Assabet River. There is considerable support for fishing 

on Puffer Pond, and for the proposal to do so, and some respondents argue that anglers 

infrequently transport invasives. 

There are also a number of respondents who request that fishing be prohibited on Puffer 

Pond. Respondents argue that anglers will disturb nesting birds, erode the shore, trample 

vegetation, bring in invasives, and drag boats through the refuge. As one respondent writes, 

“Little consideration has been given to the effect [fishing] would have upon Puffer Pond's 

habitat. The shoreline risking areas would gradually be expanded by use, destroying 

additional shoreline habitat and pond plants. Trash that is left behind such as beverage 

containers, fishing gear wrappers, tangled fish line in trees, on the ground and in the water, 

are a danger to birds, waterfowl, and other wildlife. How a shoreline fishing area would be 

made handicapped accessible is not discussed. Catch and release is an ideal fishing concept. 

However, it can prove to be fatal to many fish due to hook swallowing and extraction. 

Enforcement of catch and release will be difficult. Due to the small size of the pond, the 

popularity of fishing, and the high density of the area, the pond would soon be in danger of 

being greatly depleted. This rapid removal of fish would affect other wildlife populations that 

depend upon the pond for food. These would include the colony of great blue herons 

currently residing in the refuge near the pond, raccoon, and other water and fish dependent 

animals.” 

Respondents concerned about impacts to Puffer Pond, but not categorically opposed to 

fishing, suggest very limited shoreline access to the Pond, to reduce impacts, and in one case 

a prohibition on the use of treble hooks. One respondent offers extensive recommendations 

for minimizing the threat of invasives. 

Several respondents ask how the agency intends to adequately enforce restrictions and 

monitor impacts at Puffer Pond. 

Environmental Education 

A large majority of respondents who chose to address this section of the CCP support the 

environmental efforts and facilities proposed in Alternative B, advocating more 

environmental education for people of all ages. Several respondents encourage completion of 

the proposed Sudbury River interpretive canoe trail. Several respondents encourage the FWS 

to think bigger, and develop its educational plan in concert with other regional entities and 

efforts, such as a Sudbury-Concord River valley regional conservation study and education 

effort. One respondent urges that “a full-scale information/education center is included as 

part of the future considerations for the Oxbow. . . . The Oxbow is also significant because it 



offers the additional opportunity for linkages with other state, private and town owned lands. 

And it is also situated in the center of the proposed Freedom's Way National Heritage Area.” 

One respondent urges the FWS to use the refuge principally for biological studies. 

With regard to facilities, one respondent is “very interested in the potential development of a 

visitor center in the area of Great Meadows NWR. We would like to explore any 

opportunities to increase the public understanding of the Sudbury, Assabet River and 

Concord Wild and Scenic Rivers within the educational materials and displays presented at 

the visitor center.” One respondent urges the FWS to continue historical tours: “These have 

been very popular and have provided a way by which some of Maynard's older residents can 

view the refuge. Several such tours a year would provide access to history and wildlife 

through use of a motorized van or bus.” 

One organization requests clarification on facilities development “The proposed management 

of public outreach is unclear. The only designated public outreach position is slotted for 

Great Meadows. Does this position support all three refuges, or Great Meadows, or the 

complex as a whole? Does this individual coordinate volunteer efforts and recruit volunteers 

for all three refuges, or Great Meadows, or the complex as a whole?” 

Some respondents complain that recreational restrictions undermine opportunities for 

education at the refuge, and urge that leashed dogs and off-trail nature study and photography 

be permitted. Several respondents urge the FWS to close some areas to hunting to permit 

educational tours in spring and fall. 



Recreation 

Due to the refuge’s proximity to heavily populated areas, and an already existing recreational 

trail system, accessing the refuge for recreation is a major concern of many respondents. 

Some respondents even see the refuge as a sort of town park. Many local residents that 

responded did not expect restrictions on recreation when they supported FWS’s offer to buy 

the property. Others support the concept that wildlife sanctuary should be the priority, and 

use limitations should be imposed. 

Some respondents see access for recreation at the refuge as a means to an end: “Through 

controlled access to refuges you can create and sustain a community of citizens who will not 

only care for the refuges but also support the Fish and Wildlife Service in its struggle to 

maintain them.” 

Some respondents want the refuge to be used for quiet sports only, and ask that motors be 

prohibited to reduce noise, air and water pollution, erosion of soil, and to increase safety. As 

one respondent states, “I urge you to support making the refuge into a place where passive 

recreation can take place. By that I mean prohibiting motorized vehicles and hunting. The 

land is a treasure for hikers, bikers, runners, birdwatchers, nature lovers and, as such, should 

be preserved for this and future generations.” 

Snowmobiling 

Snowmobilers describe themselves as law-abiding recreationists that are respectful of others 

and wildlife. One local snowmobile club would like to establish a trail through the refuge, 

maintained by the club, for the club’s enjoyment. This club goes on to point out that 

snowmobiling will not harm the terrain or wildlife because snowmobiling usually occurs 

from the beginning of January to the beginning of April (at the latest) and only when there is 

a minimum of four inches of snow. Further, snowmobiling is already governed by 

Massachusetts laws requiring, among other things, that snowmobiles stay on the trail. 

Snowmobiling, the club concludes, is a traditional use in the area and ask the FWS to let 

snowmobilers use traditional trails. 

Jogging 

Joggers view the refuge as a safe, peaceful place to pursue their activity, and are confused as 

to why jogging would be banned. One respondent states that the refuge “. . . is a beautiful 

place to jog, particularly because it is one of the few off-road places with no early morning 

traffic. It would be shame if joggers were not allowed to use the paths of the Wildlife 

refuge.” Another respondent asserts that, “The joggers I’ve seen are respectful of walkers, 

seems inconsistent when hiking, snowshoeing, and cross-country skiing are allowed.” 

Another respondent writes: “If anyone ever asks, I guess I’ll just tell folks, ‘Oh no, I’m not 

running, I’m just hiking real fast.’” 



Picnicking 

Picnicking is viewed by many respondents as a harmless past time that allows people to 

enjoy the refuge’s beauty. As one respondent puts it, “Is this really such a huge problem? On 

my daily walks I never see any trash along the trails. . . . What is so bad about taking a 

family, a lunch basket, and enjoying a couple of hours surrounded by nature?” These 

respondents ask the FWS to allow picnicking within the refuge. 

Bicycling 

Similar to jogging, many respondents assert that the refuge offers a safe, traffic-free 

environment for bicycling. These respondents also point out that bicycling is already an 

important component of the surrounding towns, and that many local residents have moved 

into the area because of its extensive town trail system. By not allowing bicycling in the 

refuge, FWS will be creating a gap in the local trail systems. For example, the nearby areas 

of the Stow Town Forest, the Sudbury State Forest, the Memorial Forest Reservation, and 

Desert Natural Area allow bicyclists on the trails. The addition of the refuge to this 

significant resource would yield excellent opportunities for exercise and enjoyment of the 

natural setting, by allowing cyclists to connect with other available areas. Therefore, 

respondents ask that the refuge acknowledge the local trail systems’ benefits by allowing 

responsible cyclists to use the refuge’s roads. Some cyclists are willing to be flexible as to 

when and where they can pursue their sport. One respondent suggests FWS provide signage 

to indicate allowed routes and speed limits to help restrict bicycling that may conflict with 

wildlife activities. Another proposes that the FWS set aside periods during the day when 

bicycling would be permitted. Others suggest allowing cycling on paved roads only. 

Other respondents aren’t as sympathetic to cyclists, and would like to see bicycles kept off 

the refuge. One respondent asserts that riding a bike is a poor way to observe wildlife, and 

that if the refuge allows cycling, many cyclists would speed through or venture off 

designated paths. 

Horseback Riding 

As with the cyclists, equestrians are concerned that not allowing horseback riding in the 

refuge will compromise access to other conservation/state/local forest trails immediately 

surrounding the refuge, such as the Stow Town Forest, Sudbury State Forest, Marlboro State 

Forest, Sudbury Conservation Land, and the Desert Memorial Forest. The refuge is located 

directly in the middle these properties, and presently corridors allow horseback riders to 

travel from one conservation land to another. Further, this group asserts that horseback riding 

has not impacted other uses in the aforementioned areas. These trail riders ask that the refuge 

be open to horseback riding, and that consideration be given to an access trail so riders may 

traverse the refuge to access other conservation areas. Another respondent asks FWS to work 

with various trail riding and breed organizations in Massachusetts, to establish a horseback 

riding plan that serves the needs of wildlife and those who enjoy nature from horseback. 

Further, the Bay State Trail Riders offer to help with the maintenance of any connector trails 

with volunteer work days and funds if necessary. 



Some respondents point out the economic benefits of horseback riding, stating that equine 

activities are engaged in by a large number of Massachusetts citizens and also make a 

significant contribution to the Massachusetts economy. For example, they assert that equine 

agriculture provides over $200 million per year in direct spending into the Massachusetts 

economy, over 5,000 jobs and more than $13.2 million in state and local tax revenues. 

Limiting horseback riding would harm the economy. 

Equestrians state that they oppose expansion of the refuge’s boundaries as long as it limits 

horseback riding. 

Dog-Walking 

Many respondents assert that given the popularity and demand for areas to walk dogs, and 

the fact that parts of the refuge have been used responsibly for decades by dog-walkers; FWS 

should make part of the refuge available for this pastime. These dog walking enthusiasts 

request that leashed dog-walking be allowed on refuge trails in appropriate areas, and that 

strict fines are in place for anyone releasing a dog or failing to pick up after their animal. 

Others are willing to allow an exclusion of dogs during the most sensitive times, when 

wildlife surveys identify an impact on nesting birds or other animal life. Many of these 

respondents view dog-walking as meditative and a way of connecting to the natural beauty of 

the earth, something that is consistent with refuge goals. These respondents assert that 

without substantial evidence that dog-walkers are threatening the integrity of the refuge it is 

unjust and an act of discrimination to prohibit dog-walking. On the other hand, one 

respondent would like to see dogs banned from the refuge, stating that many dog owners 

don’t obey leash rules to the detriment of wildlife, and further, even on a leash dogs frighten 

animals. 

Birdwatching 

Birdwatchers and nature photographers are concerned that they will be confined strictly to 

trails when observing wildlife, while hunters would not. If hunters are allowed off trail, they 

assert, birders should be allowed off trail as well. 

Trapping 

Some respondents ask that the Refuge be open to beaver and muskrat trapping, asserting that 

modern traps are instant and humane, and arguing that small game threatens children, pets, 

and livestock, and that beavers “cause extensive property damage.” 

Some respondents ask whether and under what circumstances which furbearers could be 

trapped, and what constitutes an invasive species and appropriate control methods. 

Some respondents oppose trapping on the grounds that it is inhumane; other respondents 

perceive trapping as ham-fisted interference in natural systems that function best on their 

own. 



Socioeconomic Concerns 

Several respondents applaud Alternative B for helping to make Maynard a “destination.” One 

respondent requests permission to graze in the Oxbow unit, and one requests continued 

cooperative farming. 

Several area residents request development of an “abutter policy,” without clearly 

articulating what the components of such a policy would be. 

Several respondents urge consideration of impacts to area parking, specifically at Monsen 

Road at Great Meadows, and at the east gate of Assabet River off Old Marlborough Road. 

Some respondents are concerned about refuse at entry points. 



Appendix A 

Coding Structure and Demographic Codes 


Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA 

Header Information 

Coders will identify organization type, number of signatures, response type and delivery type 

on all letters by filling in the proper box. Use CIC (Common Interest Class) field only if this 

information is requested by the Administration. Fill in additional fields when necessary. 

Header Order: MID, OT, S, and RT, and DT fields are required. IA, UT, LG, F, CIC, RI, 

and CE fields are optional fields and used only where necessary. The TS (Total Signatures) 

field will tally automatically in Oracle. A stamp containing these fields will be placed on the 

working copy. 

MID OT S RT DT IA UT LG F CIC RI CE TS 

Mail Identification (MID) 

The Mail Identification number is a unique respondent number assigned in the CAET Oracle 

Program. The Oracle form contains mailing information needed to create mailing labels and 

obtain project specific demographic information about a respondent. 

Organization Types (OT) 

The Organization Type code identifies a specific type of organization, association, 

government agency, elected official, or individual. 

Government Agencies and Elected Officials 

F Federal Agency 

N International Government/International Government Association 

S State Government Agency/Elected Official/Association 

C County Government Agency/Elected Official /Association 

T Town/City Government Agency/Elected Official/Association 

Q Tribal Government/Elected Official/Tribal Member/Association 

E Government Employees Organizations/Unions 

Appendix B: Coding Structure and Demographic Codes A-1


FW Fish Wildlife Service Employee 

XX Regional/other governmental agency (multi-jurisdictional) 

Business and Industry 

A Agriculture Industry or Associations (Farm Bureaus, Animal Feeding) 

B Business (my/our, Chamber of Commerce) 

G Range/Grazing Orgs and Permittees 

HT Hunting/trapping Industry or Org 

M Mining Industry/Assn (locatable) 

O Energy Industry (Oil, Gas, Coal, Pipeline) 

U Utility Group or Org (water, electrical, gas) 

L Timber or Wood Products Industry/Assn 

Other Organizations 

AD Academic 

AR Animal Rights 

CH Church/Religious Groups 

D Placed Based Groups (Multi-issue, focused on a specific region—i.e., QLG) 

H Consultants/legal representatives 

J Civic Organizations (Kiwanis, Elks, Community Councils) 

K Special Use Permittees (Outfitters, Concessions, Ski Areas) 

P Preservation/Conservation Organization 

PA Professional Association/Society 

QQ Tribal Non-Governmental Organization/Member 

RB Mechanized Recreation (bicycling) 

RC Recreational/Conservation (Trout Unlimited, Elk Foundation, Ducks Unlimited) 

RM Recreational - Motorized 

RN Recreational - Non-Motorized (hiking, biking, horseback riding) 

SC All Schools 

X Conservation Districts 

Y Other (Organization with an indecipherable focus—i.e., Ice Cream Socialist Party) 

Z Multiple Use/Wise Use 

Unaffiliated 

I Unaffiliated Individual or Unidentifiable Respondent 

Number of Signatures (S) 

The number of signatures is the total count of names associated with a mail identification 

(Mail ID) number. The procedure for determining the number of signatures for a Mail ID 

number is consistent across all response types. In other words, letters, forms, and other types 

will be treated the same for determining the number of signatures. Each individual name 

associated with one Mail ID is counted as one signature. When a Mail ID has an incomplete 

name associated with it, such as an anonymous letter or an email address, it is counted as one 

signature. Mr. and Mrs. X are counted as two signatures. 



Response Type (RT) 

The Response Type identifies the specific format of correspondence. 

1 Letter 

2 Form or Letter Generator 

3 Resolution 

4 Action Alert 

5 Transcript (dictated Audio, Video, Telephone response) 

Delivery Types and Descriptions (DT) 

The Delivery Type identifies the method of delivery for the correspondence. 

E Email 

F Fax 

H Hand-delivered/oral testimony (personally delivered) 

M Mail or commercial carrier (includes video, audio, letter format) 

T Telephone 

U Unknown 

User Type (UT) 

The User Type identifies the purpose for which an individual, organization, or agency uses 

public lands/refuge. 

A Area Residents 

B Businesses and Services 

D Dog Walkers 

E Environmental Educational 

K Bikers 

F Anglers 

H Hikers 

P Photographers 

W Non-motorized Recreation 

M Motorized Recreation 

S Horseback Riding 

T Hunters 

X Non-identifiable 

Early Attention (IA) 

Early Attention codes are applied only to those documents requiring an early response from 

the ID team. The Early Attention codes are listed in order of priority. If more than one code 

applies to a single document, the code with the highest priority is attached. 

1 Threat of harm – Any response that threatens physical harm to administration, 

agency, or project personnel. 

2 Notice of appeal or litigation – Any response that describes the respondents' intent 

to appeal an action or bring legal suit against the agency. 



3 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests – Any response that officially 

requests information and documentation under the FOIA. 

4 Provides proposals for new alternatives – Any response that suggests a new 

alternative to the proposed action. These do not include critiques of alternatives or 

partial changes of existing alternatives. 

5 Requires detailed review – Any response that requires detailed review. These 

responses may include detailed scientific or technical analysis, or significant 

enclosures. 

5A Provides extensive technical edits – includes extensive use of lined out text, 

suggestions to delete text, and/or replace text. 

5M Provides maps – Any response that includes map enclosures. 

6 Government entities – Any response from an elected official, writing in his/her 

official capacity, representing a Federal, State, county, or municipal government. 

Also includes official correspondence from any government agency. 

6A Requests for cooperating agency status from a government entity. 

7 Public hearing – Any response that requests a public hearing. 

Information Request (RI) 

Information Request codes are applied only to those documents with specific requests for 

information pertaining to the proposal. 

A Mailing List Only/Nothing to Code 

B Request to be Removed from the Mailing List 

C Request for Copy of Federal Register Notice 

D General Request for Other Information 

E Request for Confirmation of Receipt of Letter 

Comment Extension Request (CE) 

Comment Extension codes are used when a respondent has a specific request for extending 

the comment period. 

0 Request to Extend the Comment Period 


Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November, 2003 


Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA 

The coding structure is a topical outline with alpha and numeric codes attached. It is a tool to 

identify public comments and sort them into recognizable topic categories. Once comments 

are assigned codes, they are then entered into a database from which they can be reported and 

sorted in any combination needed for analysis. 

The coding structure is organized into required fields called subject and category codes. 

Subject codes are five-character alpha codes that represent broad themes associated with a 

project. Category codes are five-digit numeric codes that define specific subtopics within 

each subject code, and they are generally arranged from the general to specific with 

subcategories nested within categories. 

PLANN (Subject Code) - Introduction - Chapter 1 and 

Coordination with Others - Chapter 5 

10000 (Category Code) Planning Process and Policy 

10100 Timeframes for planning/Length of comment period (adequacy of, timing) 

10200 Public Involvement (General strategies, methods & techniques, collaborative 

efforts, pre-EIS/CCP consultation) 

10300 Scoping (General comments, planning before the EIS) 

10400 Relationship to other planning processes (Conflicts with other area projects, 

general planning) 

10500 Statutory Authority (Compliance with laws and regulations; general references to/ 

violations of NEPA, APA, NFMA, Planning Regs. For resource-specific regulations, 

code to resource) 

10600 Science/Resource-Based Decision-Making (Use of science in Decisionmaking; 

general references to use of science and scientific documents) 

10700 Budgetary Ramifications (References to the cost of implementing the proposed 

rule, project funding) 

10800 Agency Organization, Structure and Staffing (General comments not specific 

to project, includes trust and integrity issues) 

10810 Trust and Integrity 

10900 Coordination & Consultation (Interagency, State, Private, Tribal) 

11100 Clarity/organization of planning documents 

11200 Technical and Editorial Comments 

12000 Purpose and Need (General references to the purpose and need of the CCP/EA and needs for 

further analysis; if specific, code to the resource). 

12100 Project Area (Scope of project) 

12200 Proposed Action/ Decision to be Made (What it should/should not include) 

Appendix C: Demographics A-1


12300 Range of Issues Identified through Public Scoping (General; Comments 

specific to resource areas go to AFFEC) 

12400 Issues and Concerns Considered Outside the Scope of This Analysis 

12500 Permits and Agency Approvals Required 

12600 Guiding Policy for Public Lands (General land management philosophies) 

ALTER - Alternatives - Chapter 2 

13000 Alternatives (Comments that simply vote, without rationale) 

13100 Alternative A: Current Management (General comments not specific to a 

resource; Assumptions made in the analysis) 

13200 Alternative B: Proposed Action 

13300 Alternative C 

13400 Formulating Alternatives (Issues used, Design criteria, Development, etc.) 

13500 Features common to all Alternatives 

13600 Features common to Action Alternatives only (B & C) 

13700 Alternatives Considered But Not Given Detailed Study (Same as eliminated 

alternatives) 

13800 Range/Comparison of Alternatives (General comments, adequacy of range; I 

like A &C better than B) 

13900 New Alternatives (Support for or recommendation for a new one) 

13910 Alternative Matrices (Including Map comments and references) 

AFFEC - Affected Environment - Chapter 3, and 

Environmental Consequences - Chapter 4 

14000 Physical, Biological, and Socio-Economic Resources (general 

Climate comments, extensive lists) 

15000 Geology/Topography 

16000 Soils 

15100 Analysis of Existing Conditions and Need for Further Analysis 

15200 General Management Direction (including other Management Impacts on this 

Resource) 

15300 Cumulative Impacts 

15400 Mitigation and Monitoring 



Resource) 





17000 Hydrology 

18000 Air Quality 

19000 Water Quality 



Resource) 





Resource) 





Resource) 



20000 Vegetation and Habitat Types 



Resource) 

20300 Forested and Shrub Dominated Wetlands 

20400 Vernal Pools and Ponds 

20500 Bordering Communities (Uplands, Marshes, Swamps) 

20600 Invasive or Overabundant Species 



21000 Wildlife and Fisheries 


(Fencing) 


Resource; general habitat comments. 

21300 Migratory Birds 

21400 Mammals 

21500 Reptiles and Amphibians 

21600 Fisheries 

21700 Invertebrates 





22000 Cultural Resources and Special Designations (focus areas) 



Resource) 

22210 Land Acquisitions 

22300 Refuge Buildings and Facilities 

22400 Refuge Administration and Staffing 

22410 Volunteers 

22420 Enforcement 

22500 Wild & Scenic River Plan / Designation 



23000 Priority Public Uses 



Resource) 

23210 Access 

23220 Fees 

23230 Passes and Permits 

23240 Visitor Safety 

23241 Hunting 

23242 Dog Walking 

23300 Hunting (If safety concern, code to 23241) 

23310 Big and Upland Game Hunting 

23320 Migratory Bird Hunting 

23400 Fishing 

23500 Wildlife Observation and Photography 

23600 Environmental Education and Interpretation 

23610 Natural and Cultural History Tours 

23620 Outreach for Public Awareness 



24000 Recreation and Other Opportunities 



Resource) 



24300 Motorized Recreation 

24310 Snowmobiling 

24400 Non-Motorized Recreation 

24410 Snowshoeing / X-Country Skiing 

24420 Walking/Jogging 

24430 Picnicking 

24440 Biking 

24450 Horseback Riding 

24460 Dog-Walking, general (if safety concern, code to 23242) 

24470 Bird Watching 



25000 Socio-Economic Resources 



Resource) 

25300 Population and Demographic Conditions 

25400 Schools 

25500 Neighboring Communities 

25510 Infrastructure (Roads, Plazas, Utility Corridors, etc.) 

25520 Revenue Sharing 



26000 Appendices (General Comments and Technical/Editorial) 

ATTMT – Attachments 

27000 [Attachment No., Title, Author’s name] 

Site Specific 1 

The Site Specific 1 code is an up to four digit alpha/numeric comment specific code. For this 

project, the alpha-code is used to indicate which refuge the comment addresses. 

A Assabet River NWR 

G Great Meadows NWR 

O Oxbow NWR 

X Multiple NWRs/Null 



Appendix B 

Demographics 

Demographic coding allows managers to form an overall picture of who is submitting 

comments, where they live, their general affiliation with various organizations or government 

agencies, and the manner in which they respond. The database can be used to isolate specific 

combinations of information about public comment. For example, a report can include public 

comment only from people in Massachusetts or a report can identify specific types of land 

users such as recreational groups, agricultural organizations, or businesses. Demographic 

coding allows managers to focus on specific areas of concern linked to respondent categories, 

geographic areas, and response types. 

Although demographic information is captured and tracked, it is important to note that the 

consideration of public comment is not a vote-counting process. Every comment and 

suggestion has value, whether expressed by one or a thousand respondents. All input is 

considered, and the analysis team attempts to capture all relevant public concerns in the 

analysis process. The Content Analysis Team processed 1,907 responses. Because 28 

responses are duplicates, the team entered 1,882 responses into the database representing 

1,959 signatures, for the Draft CCP/EA. 

In the tables displayed below, please note that demographic figures are given for number of 

responses, respondents, and signatures. For the purposes of this analysis, the following 

definitions apply: “response” refers to a discrete piece of correspondence; “respondent” 

refers to each individual or organization to whom a mail identification number is assigned 

(e.g., a single response may represent several organizations without one primary author); and 

“signature” simply refers to each individual who adds his or her name to a response, 

endorsing the view of the primary respondent(s). 

Geographic Representation 

Geographic representation is tracked for each response during the course of content analysis. 

Letters and emails were received from 49 of the United States, the District of Columbia, and 

one foreign country. The response format did not reveal geographic origin for 102 

respondents. 

Table C1 - Geographic Representation of Respondents by Country and State 

Country State Number of 

Respondents 

Number of 

Signatures 

Costa Rica 1 1 

United States Alabama 9 9 

Alaska 2 2 

Arizona 22 22 

Arkansas 6 6 

Appendix C: Demographics B-6



Respondents 

Number of 

Signatures 

California 201 208 

Colorado 16 16 

Connecticut 19 19 

Delaware 1 1 

District of Columbia 4 6 

Florida 63 65 

Georgia 16 16 

Hawaii 4 4 

Idaho 2 2 

Illinois 45 45 

Indiana 16 16 

Iowa 3 3 

Kansas 10 10 

Kentucky 4 4 

Lousiana 7 7 

Maine 8 9 

Maryland 36 39 

Massachusetts 710 752 

Michigan 30 32 

Minnesota 21 21 

Mississippi 2 2 

Missouri 17 17 

Montana 2 2 

Nebraska 2 3 

Nevada 12 12 

New Hampshire 16 16 

New Jersey 35 38 

New Mexico 6 6 

New York 110 111 

North Carolina 28 29 

Ohio 30 31 

Oklahoma 6 6 

Oregon 14 14 

Pennsylvania 58 60 

Rhode Island 10 10 

South Carolina 13 14 




Respondents 

Organizational Affiliation 

Number of 

Signatures 

South Dakota 1 1 

Tennessee 8 8 

Texas 68 69 

Utah 6 6 

Vermont 6 6 

Virginia 19 20 

Washington 29 29 

West Virginia 5 5 

Wisconsin 21 21 

Wyoming 2 2 

Unidentified 102 106 

Total 1,884 1,959 

Responses were received from various organizations and unaffiliated individuals. 

Respondents include conservation organizations, wood products associations, as well as 

unaffiliated individuals and others. Organization types were tracked for each response. 

Organization 

Field 

Table C2 - Number of Respondents/Signatures by Organizational Affiliation 

Organization Type Number of 

Respondents 

Number of 

Signatures 

AR Animal Rights 5 7 

B Business 1 1 

D Place-Based Group 6 6 

F Federal Agency/Elected Official 2 2 

HT Hunting/Trapping Organization 8 8 

I Unaffiliated Individual or Unidentifiable Respondent 1,820 1,885 

J Civic Organization 2 2 

P Preservation/Conservation Organization 14 14 

RB Recreational – Mechanized 1 1 

RC Recreational – Conservation Organization 2 2 

RM Recreational - Motorized 2 2 

RN Recreational – Non-motorized/Non-mechanized 2 2 



Organization 

Field 

Organization Type Number of 

Respondents 

Number of 

Signatures 

S State Government Agency 6 6 

SC Schools 1 1 

T Town/City Government Agency/Elected Official 12 20 

Total 1,884 1,959 

Response Type 

Response types were tracked for each response received on the project. Responses were 

received as letters and public meeting transcripts. 

Table C3 - Number of Responses/Signatures by Response Type 

Response Type # Response Type Number of 

Responses 

Number of Signatures 

1 Letter 497 543 

2 Form 1,334 1,365 

5 Transcript 51 51 

Total 1,882 1,959 

Delivery Type 

Delivery types were tracked for each response received on the project. Responses were 

received as email, fax, hand-delivered, standard mail, and one telephone call. Delivery type 

was not revealed for 11 responses. 

Table C4 - Number of Responses/Signatures by Delivery Type 

Delivery Type Code Delivery Type Number of 

Responses 


E Email 1,630 1,677 

F Fax 1 1 

H Hand-delivered 67 67 

M Mail or commercial carrier 172 202 

T Telephone 1 1 

U Unknown 11 11 

Total 1,882 1,959 



User Type 

User type was tracked for each response received on the project. User types include anglers, 

bikers, area residents, dog walkers, photographers and others. 

Table C5 - Number of Responses/Signatures by User Type 

User Type Code User Type Number of 

Responses 


A Area Residents 202 220 

B Businesses and Services 1 2 

D Dog Walkers 14 15 

E Environmental Education 2 2 

F Anglers 2 2 

H Hikers 19 23 

K Bikers 7 7 

M Motorized Recreation 3 3 

P Photographers 2 2 

S Horseback Riding 25 26 

T Hunters 39 39 

W Non-motorized Recreation 8 8 

X No Identifiable Type 1,558 1,610 

Total 1,882 1,959 



Appendix C 

Early Attention Letters 

The early attention designation is attached to public responses in the content analysis 

database for a variety of reasons. Our intent is to identify responses that fall into certain key 

categories, such as threats of litigation or comments from government officials, etc. These 

designations alert the project team members to public concerns or inquiries that may require 

an agency response or may necessitate detailed project team review for policy, political, or 

legal reasons. 

The early attention designated responses are primarily intended for an internal audience. The 

categories of responses selected are designed to meet project team needs. This report is not 

intended to, nor should it be construed to, obviate the need to review all responses. 

CAT identified seven early attention categories. The relevant designations are outlined below 

and followed by report tables. 

1 Threat of harm – Any response that threatens physical harm to administration, 

agency, or project personnel. 

2 Notice of appeal or litigation – Any response that describes the respondents' intent 

to appeal an action or bring legal suit against the agency. 

3 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests – Any response that officially 

requests information and documentation under the FOIA. 

4 Provides proposals for new alternatives – Any response that suggests a new 

alternative to the proposed action. These do not include critiques of alternatives or 

partial changes of existing alternatives. 

5 Requires detailed review – Any response that requires detailed review. These 

responses may include detailed scientific or technical analysis, or significant 

enclosures. 

5A Provides extensive technical edits – includes extensive use of lined out text, 

suggestions to delete text, and/or replace text. 

5M Provides maps – Any response that includes map enclosures. 

6 Government entities – Any response from an elected official, writing in his/her 

official capacity, representing a Federal, State, county, or municipal government. 

Also includes official correspondence from any government agency. 

6A Request for cooperating agency status from a government entity. 

7 Public hearing – Any response that requests a public hearing. 

Appendix D: Early Attention Letters C-1


Letter 

Number 

Name and 

Address 

41 Bette Stallman, Wildlife Scientist 

Linda Huebner, Program Coordinator 

Humane Society of the United States 

New England Regional Office 

2100 L St. NW 

Washington, DC 20037 

Letter 

Number 


Address 

97 Brenda Kelly 

Conservation Commission 

Chair 

10 Mudge Way 

Bedford, MA 01730-2144 

98 Tricia Smith 

Carlisle Conservation Commission 

Chair 

P.O. Box 827 

66 Westford Street 

Carlisle, MA 01741 

99 Ann Thompson 

Maynard Board of Selectmen 

Chair 

Municipal Building 

195 Main Street 

Maynard, MA 01754 

100 Maureen Valente 

Town Manager 

288 Old Sudbury Road 

Sudbury, MA 10776-1843 

101 Brian Monahan 

Wayland Conservation Commission 

Conservation Administrator 

Town Building 

41 Cochituate Road 

Wayland MA 01778 

Table D1 – (4) Proposes a New Alternative 

Remarks 

Respondent requests that the USFWS prohibit hunting 

and trapping in wildlife refuges. Respondent requests 

the inclusion of an alternative that emphasizes nonconsumptive 

land uses. 

Table D2 – (6) Government Entities 

Remarks 

Respondent expresses concern for resident safety with 

regard to nearby hunting and asks the USFWS to 

address this issue. 

Respondent expresses concern for public safety from 

proposed hunting on USFWS land. Also, respondent 

expresses concern regarding access for hunters across 

private land. 

Respondent requests additional allowed uses of the 

refuge and encourages consistency with local planning 

processes. 

Respondent encourages increased refuge use for passive 

recreation activities; no hunting with firearms; and 

additional law enforcement. 

Respondent requests no, or strictly regulated hunting in 

the refuge. Respondent also encourages the USFWS to 

increase its number of staff. 



Letter 

Number 


Address 

102 John Dwyer 

Maynard Conservation Commission 

4 Durant Ave 


103 Pamela Resor 

Massachusetts Senate 

State Senator 

District Office 

P.O. Box 1110 

Marlborough, MA 01752 

104 Susan Pope 

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

House of Representatives 

State Representative 

State House, Boston 02133-1020 

106 Kathleen Farrell 

Board of Selectmen 

Chair 

380 Great Road 

Stow, MA 01775 

108 Priscilla Ryder 


Conservation Officer 

140 Main Street 

Marlborough, MA 01752 

109 William Galvin 

Massachusetts Historical Commission 

Secretary of the Commonwealth 

Massachusetts Archives Building 

220 Morrissey Boulevard 

Boston, MA 02125 

110 Wayne MacCallum 

Division of Fisheries and Wildlife 

Director 

111 Anne Gagnon 


Conservation Administrator 

105 Charlie Gorss 


Chair 

Remarks 

Respondent expresses concern regarding hunting 

impacts on public safety, wildlife populations, and other 

recreation activities. 

Respondent discourages hunting and trapping in the 

refuge. 

Respondent requests that hunting not be allowed in the 

refuge for safety and environmental reasons. Also, 

respondent discourages the USFWS from charging user 

fees. 

Respondent requests expansion of the proposed refuge 

acquisition boundary. Respondent also requests 

limitations on hunting as well as increased law 

enforcement for hunting activities. 

Respondent encourages expansion of the proposed 

refuge acquisition boundary, increased law enforcement 

for unauthorized land use, and public education 

regarding the proposed introduction of hunting to the 

refuge. 

Respondent commends the proposed Draft CCP’s 

compliance with Section 6 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966. 

Respondent expresses concern for rare, threatened, and 

endangered species in the refuge, and encourages the 

USFWS to update species information. 


refuge acquisition boundary, and increased staffing to 

decrease user conflicts. 

Respondent supports proposed Alternative B. 



Letter 

Number 


Address 

407 Patricia Perry 


Administrative Assistant 

380 Great Road 


Remarks 


refuge acquisition boundary, discourages hunting within 

the refuge, and encourages coordination of refuge 

management with local communities. 



Appendix D 

Information Requests 

Requests for additional information, excluding Freedom of Information Act requests, are 

presented in this appendix. CAT identified five information request categories. The relevant 

designations are outlined below and followed by report tables. In addition, requests for 

extension of the comment period are displayed below. 

A Mailing List Only/Nothing to Code 

B Request to be Removed from the Mailing List 

C Request for Copy of Federal Register Notice 

D General Request for Other Information 

E Request for Confirmation of Receipt of Letter 

Letter 

Number 


Address 

4 Kate Wheeler 

Maynard Open Space Planning Committee 

Chair 

31 Harrison St 


18 Bonnie and John Chandler 

183 Prospect Hill Road 

Harvard, MA 01451 

117 Daniel Cassidy 

danc@arguscl.com 

132 Edmund Schofield 

P.O. Box 598 

Boylston, MA 01505-0598 

200 John Dwyer 

mjohn.dwyer@verizon.net 

307 Jason Hetherington 

hetherjw@yahoo.com 

342 David Stepp 

69 Peabody Dr. 


353 Sally Hewitt 

Sarah.Hewitt@Simonandschuster.com 

Table E1 – (D) General Requests for Information 

Remarks 

Respondent requests specific agency response to the 

Committee’s concerns and notification of the final 

documents release. 

Respondents request information on leasing part of the 

cow field across from their house for sheep and goat 

grazing. 

Respondent requests a copy of the Draft CCP and EA, 

and would like to be notified of any public hearings on 

the subject. 

Respondent requests hard copy of the Draft CCP and 

EA. 

Respondent requests Lindsay Krey’s email address. 

Respondent requests online links to information 

regarding the proposed project. 

Respondent requests information regarding proposed 

types of hunting and seasons for the refuge. 

Respondent requests notification regarding meetings or 

plans about bicycling in the Assabet River NWR. 

Appendix E: Information Requests D-1


Letter 

Number 


Address 

374 Steve Parker 

109 Moore Road 

Sudbury, MA 01776 

Letter 

Number 


Address 

Table E2 – (E) Request for Confirmation of Receipt 

Remarks 

Table E3 – Requests for Comment Period Extension 

13 Michael Ojemann 

Great Meadows Neighborhood Association 

153 Monsen Road 

Concord, MA 01742 

69 Hope Luder 

5 Edgehill Road 

Billercia, MA 01862 

138 Kathleen Farrell 

267 Sudbury Road 


121 Louise Berliner 

Strongwhitepine@aol.com 

232 Rob Aldape 

Joropab1@mac.com 

Respondent requests confirmation of receipt 

of letter. 

Remarks 

Respondent requests extension of comment 

period, no specific length of time specified. 









Appendix E: Information Requests D-2


Appendix E 

Organized Response Report 

Organized response campaigns (forms) represent 70 percent (1,334 of 1,907) of the total 

responses received during the public comment period for the proposal. 

Forms are defined as five or more responses, received separately, but containing nearly 

identical text. Once a form is identified, a “form master” is entered into the database with all 

of the content information. All responses with matching text are then linked to this master 

form within the database with a designated “form number.” If a response does not contain all 

of the text presented in a given form, it is entered as an individual letter. Duplicate responses 

from four or fewer respondents are also entered as individual letters. 

Number of 

Form 

Table F1 – Description and Number of Signatures for Each Form 

Number of 

Signatures 

Description of Form 

1 11 FWS should reconsider the determination that horseback riding is not 

compatible with the purpose of the refuge. Opposes acquisition boundaries 

expansion. 

2 1,104 FWS should not increase hunting/trapping in Oxbow National Wildlife 

Refuge, and prohibit hunting/trapping in the Assabet River and Great 

Meadows National Wildlife Refuges. 

3 250 FWS should not increase hunting/trapping in Oxbow National Wildlife 

Refuge, and prohibit hunting/trapping in the Assabet River and Great 

Meadows National Wildlife Refuges. FWS should focus on habitat 

improvement and non-lethal methods of wildlife management. 

Total: 1,365 

Appendix F: Organized Response Report E-1


Appendix F 


Content Analysis Team 

Project Coordination 

Shari Kappel, Team Leader 

John Adams, Assistant Team Leader 

Program Coordination 

Jody Sutton, Coordinator 

James MacMillen, Contracting 

Content Analysts 

John Adams, Editor/Analyst 

Angela Concepcion, Writer/Analyst 

Theodore Hughes, Writer/Analyst 

Database Administration 

Buell Whitehead, Technical Support 

Information Systems 

Lori Warnell, Project Lead/Response Processing/Data Technician 

Julie Easton, Data Technician 

Kay Flink, Data Technician 

Jon Hardes, Data Technician 

Geraldine Hill, Data Technician 

Linda Kenaston, Data Technician 

Shanna Robison, Data Technician 

Barbie Gibson, CD Production 

Anne Jensen, Writer/Analyst 

Holly Schneider, Writer/Analyst 

Karl Vester, Coder/Analyst 

Appendix G: List of Preparers F-1

- 154 - 





Planning Process 

Length of comment period 


Some commentors were unhappy with the timing and length of the comment period. 

The comment period was 45 days long, which is a standard period for a document such as a 

CCP. Unfortunately, the timing of the draft CCP release came during the summer 

months. We knew that there were many people eagerly anticipating its release and 

focused on releasing the plan to the public as quickly as we could. While, there were 

requests to extend the comment period, they came at the very end of the comment period. 

The notification process to ensure that all individuals and groups were aware of an 

extension could not have been completed before the scheduled end of the comment period. 

Despite the concerns of some commentors, we did receive nearly 2,000 comments and we 

feel confident that we heard from all viewpoints. 

Public Involvement 

Many respondents feel satisfied with the FWS’s level of public involvement and 

education; they praise the agencies past efforts and eagerly anticipate additional 

opportunities for interest groups and communities to stay involved in the refuge’s 

management. Civic and conservation organizations express interest in collaborating 

with the FWS on management issues. 

We look forward to continued involvement and collaboration as we implement the 

provisions of the CCP, continue day-to-day operations, and develop necessary step-down 

plans. 

Planning Vision 

Relationship to Regional Planning Efforts and Legislation 

Some respondents ask for clarification of the CCP’s compatibility with other regional 

management efforts and role in an ecosystem context. 

We realize that we are one of several conservation partners in a regional ecosystem. 

Where appropriate, we have worked with surrounding landowners and communities to 

ensure management that complements adjacent lands. Unfortunately, the missions of 

adjacent landowners do not always match the mission and purposes of the refuge. Because 

of these differences, there will be times when activities that are allowed in one area are 

prohibited in another, or vice versa. 

We look forward to continuing to work with our various conservation partners. Our 

management actions are focused on the NWRs by design. Our jurisdiction and planning 

efforts include only these lands. We will continue to consider the effects our management 


- 158 - 


actions have on the surrounding landscape. The patchwork of lands that create these 

refuges creates unique challenges and partnerships. The Service mission and refuge 

purposes must be our first priority. We understand that this priority does not always 

mesh with adjacent landowners’ wishes and concerns. We are a part of the larger Refuge 

System and must consider not only our role in the surrounding ecosystem, but our role in 

the Refuge System, as well. 

Priority Public Uses 

Hunting – General 

Hunting was the issue most frequently addressed in comments on the draft CCP. General 

hunting comments include advocates for hunting on public lands and individuals that 

are opposed to hunting in any form. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Refuge Improvement 

Act) lists hunting as one of six priority, wildlife-dependent public uses to receive enhanced 

and preferential consideration in refuge planning and management. In addition to hunting, 

other priority uses include fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental 

education and interpretation. Our mandate is to provide high-quality opportunities for 

these priority uses where they are compatible with respective refuge purposes, goals, and 

other management priorities. 

Regardless of individual opinions about the appropriateness of hunting on the refuges, the 

Refuge Improvement Act requires that we give preferential consideration to the six 

priority, wildlife-dependent uses. We are also concerned about the potential for hunting to 

impact other priority uses. There appears to have been some confusion about where we 

are proposing to allow hunting. We have outlined the areas where hunting is to be allowed 

on the maps that are included as a part of the CCP. 

We have included some of the additional details in regard to hunting in the Final CCPs. In 

order to open the refuges to additional hunting opportunities, Federal regulations will 

need to be changed. There will be an additional public comment period when proposed 

hunting regulations are released in the Federal Register. This will likely occur during the 

winter/spring of 2005. 

Additionally, we will be developing a Hunt Management Plan for each Refuge that will 

outline all of the details for each specific hunting program. 

Each plan will be completed in cooperation with the Massachusetts Department of Fish 

and Game (MA DFG), Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Refuge areas that meet certain 

criteria have been evaluated to determine tracts of land that have the ability to support a 

high quality public hunt. We have determined that certain areas are appropriate for 

certain types of hunting and not others. The criteria used included: 1) an area of sufficient 

size to insure public safety; 2) an area more than 500 feet from occupied dwellings 

(Massachusetts state law); and 3) an area that provides reasonable opportunities for a 

successful hunt. An additional consideration that was considered in some instances is 



whether hunting of an area of the refuge is consistent with or complements other hunted 

areas in surrounding towns. 

Hunting – Safety and Conflicts with Other Users 

There were a large number of individuals that expressed concerns about safety and 

hunting. Some individuals expressed concerns about safety while using the refuge 

during hunting season and the assertion that the non-hunting public will not participate 

in other wildlife dependent activities during the hunting seasons. Other people indicated 

their concerns about the proximity to the refuge boundary of homes, schools, and 

conservation areas. Additionally, individuals raised the possibility of hunters accessing 

non-refuge lands or misguided arrows, shotgun slugs, or pellets injuring someone not on 

the refuge. 

There will be areas on the refuges where no hunting will be allowed. In some cases, these 

are highly used areas, such as the Concord Impoundments at Great Meadows NWR. In 

others, we have restricted hunting because of the mandated safety zones. We realize that 

there may be people that will not visit the refuges during specific seasons. As mentioned 

previously, we have a responsibility to facilitate all forms of wildlife-dependent public use 

on the refuges, when possible, and there may be days when people engaged in hunting will 

have preferential access to parts of the refuges. National policy encourages refuges to 

follow state hunting regulations, but we do have the authority to set our own dates and 

times if needed and we can limit the number of hunting permits issued. We will evaluate 

these options in the development of the Hunt Management Plan for each refuge, but do 

not anticipate a need to include such restrictions at this time. 

We strive to achieve a balance between consumptive and non-consumptive uses on the 

refuges. Because Massachusetts does not allow hunting on Sunday, at a minimum nonhunters 

will be free to enjoy our nature trails with no concern about possible hunting 

conflicts on those days during the hunting seasons. In addition, experience managing 

hunts both at Oxbow Refuge and at other refuges within the system shows that many 

areas can safely support both hunting and non-consumptive uses, such as wildlife 

observation, at the same time. We are confident that we can develop a hunting program 

that will safely provide opportunities for wildlife-dependent public use to a majority of our 

refuge visitors. 

We contacted the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife to obtain hunting 

accident statistics. We considered investigating such statistics in other states, but decided 

that Massachusetts has a higher population density than the majority of other states with 

readily available accident statistics such as Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Texas. 

According to Massachusetts Law, any person involved in a hunting accident or any person 

with knowledge of a hunting accident must file a report with the state or local police, who, 

in turn, must file a report with the Division of Law Enforcement. The Massachusetts 

Environmental Police, Hunter Education Program reports hunting accidents in the 

Hunting Accident Report: 1995 – 2002. During the reporting period, there were 38 

hunting accidents. None of the accidents were fatal and none involved any individuals who 

were not hunting at the time of the accident. According to the 2001 National Survey of 

Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, there were 1.58 million days of 


- 160 - 


hunting that occurred in Massachusetts in 2001. During that year there were 3 hunting 

accidents, the corresponding accident rate is extremely low. 

Specific areas were mentioned by local residents as being of concern. Some commentors 

indicated distances that bullets travel when fired from a rifle (effective range). The areas 

that were mentioned by commentors as being potential safety areas were: 

Great Meadows NWR 

Concord Impoundments 

O’Rourke, Greenough, and Foss Properties in Carlisle 

Dudley Road area in Bedford 

Area along the Concord River in Billerica 

Areas adjacent to Wayland Conservation Property 

Heard Pond 


Stearns Lane and Hudson Road in Sudbury 

The Maynard School Complex 

Firecut Lane area in Sudbury 

Based upon the concerns expressed in response to the draft, we reviewed the most up-todate 

aerial photographs available. We analyzed the locations of the 500-foot safety zones 

around existing homes to determine whether or not a reasonable hunting area could be 

provided given the constraints associated with the safety zones. In addition to the aerial 

photo analysis, we went to the refuges to determine how visible the homes near the refuge 

are from inside the refuge. We would like to remind individuals that by state regulation 

there is a 500 foot zone around any inhabited structure. Hunting, whether by gun or bow, 

is not allowed in this area unless the hunter received permission from the owner of the 

building. It is the hunter’s responsibility to ensure that he/she is more than 500 feet from 

any such buildings. There are times in which the safety zone extends into the refuge. 

Hunting will not be allowed within these areas. 

However, the Service will assist hunters in delineating any areas where there may be 

confusion as to the actual location of the safety zone. The information that we gathered 

enabled us to make informed decisions about the appropriateness of areas for different 

hunting activities. We will require hunters to obtain an annual hunting permit. We may 

prepare maps showing the hunt areas in detail. Areas with adjacent homes can be 

depicted on the maps as a further guide to inform hunters of safety zones adjacent or 

within the refuge. 

Also, there is some confusion as to whether or not hunting is being proposed in certain 

locations. We would like to clarify our original proposal and highlight the following 

changes: 

o Hunting is not proposed for the Concord Impoundments. 

o The waterfowl hunting area on the Concord River and associated wetlands starts 

at the Route 225 Bridge and extends upstream to the area where refuge ownership 



ends on the west side of the Concord River in the town of Carlisle. This is the area 

at the northern end of the O’Rourke property. The area along the Concord River in 

Billerica has been removed from consideration for waterfowl hunting. The entire 

river in that area is within the 500 foot safety zone required by state hunting 

regulations. Hunting on the river in that area is illegal. 

o We understand the concern regarding hunting on the Greenough property. We 

will ensure that the boundary is clearly marked. The deer hunting opportunities 

on the property will be limited to archery only. 

o The area adjacent to private and conservation property in the vicinity of Dudley 

Road in Bedford is proposed as archery only for deer hunting. 

o In the Sudbury Division of the refuge, the proposed waterfowl hunting area south 

to Route 20 has been reduced. The waterfowl hunting opportunities adjacent to 

refuge lands out to the center line of the Sudbury River south of Route 20 have 

been reduced from 193 acres to 77. Additionally, no waterfowl hunting will be 

allowed between Route 20 and the Wayland School Complex. Waterfowl hunting 

will be allowed in a limited area upstream of the school along the Sudbury River 

south of Heard Pond. The revised hunting area will be a minimum of 1,000 feet 

from the school playing fields. Please see the maps in the Great Meadows NWR 

CCP for a depiction of this area. 

o In the South section of the Assabet River NWR, we have changed the designation 

to Archery Only. 

o Based upon the comments that we received regarding Hudson Road and Stearns 

Lane, we made a revision to the hunting areas on the North section of the Assabet 

River NWR. The area outside of the entire Patrol Road has been designated 

Archery Only. 

Hunting – Various Species 

Commentors indicated that it was necessary for the Service to conduct detailed surveys of 

wildlife populations before implementing a hunt program. 

The hunting of migratory bird species is managed from a national point of view. The 

Service monitors the population status of all migratory bird game species and works with 

the States to set season lengths and harvest limits. Hunting is managed in a way that does 

not contribute to a decline in waterfowl and other migratory game bird populations. 

The hunting of resident species, such as deer, rabbits, and squirrels, falls within the 

responsibility of state fish and wildlife agencies, which also monitor and manage 

populations to ensure healthy ecosystems, sustainable populations, and a certain level of 

hunter success. We work in partnership with the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and 

Wildlife and rely on their knowledge and expertise to determine the appropriateness of 

hunting seasons. Any decisions we make to limit or prevent the harvest of resident species 

on any refuge is based on other management concerns and not on a concern about the 


- 162 - 


population of a given species. State fish and wildlife agencies have an excellent record of 

sound, professional wildlife management, and this is true in Massachusetts as well. 

Fishing 

Most fishing comments are directed toward the proposal to allow fishing at Puffer Pond 

on the Assabet River NWR. There is considerable support for fishing on Puffer Pond. 

There are also a number of respondents who request that fishing be prohibited on Puffer 

Pond. These individuals argue that anglers will disturb nesting birds, erode the shoreline, 

trample vegetation, contribute to the spread of invasives, and drag boats through the 

refuge. 

Fishing is one of the priority wildlife dependent uses for national wildlife refuges, where 

compatible. As such, the staff has determined that fishing is compatible with refuge 

purposes. Staff from Assabet River NWR will finalize the details of fishing on Puffer Pond 

as a part of the Fishing Management Plan. Staff will ensure that impacts to the resources 

in and surrounding the pond are minimized. This is evidenced by the stipulations already 

included in the draft plan. No motorized boats will be allowed, greatly reducing the 

likelihood of invasive species being brought to the pond. Public use in general causes some 

disturbance of vegetation and wildlife. We will manage all public uses, including fishing, to 

minimize the disturbance and ensure that the level of disturbance does not materially 

interfere with the purposes of the refuges. We share the concern about the potential 

introduction of invasive species, as well as other types of disturbance. We will continue to 

monitor disturbance caused by public uses of the refuges and take any action that we deem 

necessary or appropriate. 

Environmental Education 

A majority of commentors who chose to address environmental education support the 

efforts and facilities proposed in Alternative B, advocating more environmental 

education for people of all ages. Several respondents encourage completion of the 

proposed Sudbury River interpretive canoe trail. Some of the commentors encourage the 

FWS to think bigger, and develop its educational plan in concert with other regional 

entities and efforts. 

Environmental education is one of the priority wildlife dependent uses for national wildlife 

refuges. As such, the staff has determined that it is compatible with refuge purposes and 

will continue to work to provide these opportunities. The staff is encouraged by the 

support that individuals and groups have shown for environmental education. We look 

forward to continuing and expanding educational opportunities associated with the 

refuges. 

Wildlife Observation Trails 

Some of the organizations and towns that commented on the CCP included requests for 

trails to be developed in specific areas that would connect to adjacent trail systems. In 

some cases, the requests are for formalizing trails that have been created by individuals 



for unauthorized access. In other cases, the requests are for new trails that would provide 

access to new areas. 

Refuge staff will develop a system for evaluating such requests. This review system will 

provide refuge staff with the necessary tools to evaluate the need for and effects of 

recommended trails. 

Non-wildlife Dependent Public Uses 

Dog Walking 

A large number of commentors assert that given the popularity and demand for areas to 

walk dogs, and the fact that parts of the refuge have been used responsibly for decades by 

dog-walkers, FWS should continue to allow dog walking and should authorize it at 

Assabet River NWR. Some commentors express support for a ban of dogs from the refuge; 

they cited safety concerns, conflicts between dog walkers and bird watchers, and owners 

that do not clean up after their dogs. 

All of the refuges in the Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex were 

created with purposes related to protecting, managing, and conserving native wildlife. The 

1997 Refuge Improvement Act establishes the mission of the Refuge System as “to 

preserve a national network of lands and waters for the conservation and management of 

fish, wildlife, and plant resources of the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations.” The Refuge Improvement Act further stipulates that all activities occurring 

on refuges must be compatible with wildlife conservation and the specific purposes for 

which a refuge was established. This is an important distinction from other public lands 

and recreation areas; refuges have a narrow management focus and are not multi-purpose 

lands. Six public uses were identified by the Refuge Improvement Act as the priorities for 

receiving enhanced consideration on refuges. Dog walking is not one of the six priority 

public uses, nor are dogs (except hunting, seeing or hearing dogs) necessary to support the 

safe, practical, and effective conduct of the priority public use programs we would be 

implementing on the refuge. 

Dogs running off leash and piles of dog waste left on trails or tossed in the bushes are 

consistent problems, not isolated incidences. Several circumstances prompted the 

elimination of this activity on the refuges, including 

• Dogs can intimidate other refuge visitors, and deprive them of the peace that 

refuges provide. Visitation to the National Wildlife Refuges is expanding, 

potentially aggravating user conflicts; 

• Dog feces left on trails are an unhealthy and unsightly nuisance to refuge visitors 

and impact refuge vegetation. The presence of dog feces on public trails is one of 

the most common complaints we receive; 

• Dogs, whether leashed or unleashed, conflict with refuge efforts to provide 

recreational opportunities for a diversity of visitors, including those limited to 

handicapped accessible trails, and the many school groups which visit the refuges 

for environmental education; 

• Dog walking has resulted in user conflicts with persons engaged in priority public 

uses (bird watching, photography, see below); 


- 164 - 


• Instinctively, dogs want to chase wildlife. Unleashed dogs commonly chase nesting 

wildlife, which can result in destruction of ground nests and young. Dogs may step 

on nests or young chicks, as they “freeze” in response to danger; 

• Many dog owners consistently remove their dogs from leashes when they are away 

from the parking lots and believe they are unlikely to be observed by a refuge 

ranger; 

• Wildlife can’t distinguish between dogs on leashes and unleashed dogs. In the 

presence of a dog, many species will abandon their nests or young, leaving them 

vulnerable to be killed by predators, or die from starvation or exposure. 

We realize that many dog owners are responsible owners and have a strong emotional 

connection to the refuge and to walking their dog on the refuge. We realize that many 

people will not be happy with this decision. Nevertheless, we firmly believe that the 

overall adverse impacts from dog walking on wildlife and other visitors engaged in wildlifedependent 

public use justify this prohibition. Our decision is also consistent with land 

managers throughout the State who manage lands specifically for wildlife. Massachusetts 

Audubon Society and State of Massachusetts wildlife sanctuary lands also do not allow 

pets. 

Horseback Riding 

A large number of commentors are opposed to a prohibition on horseback riding on any 

of the refuges. They are concerned that not allowing horseback riding in the refuge will 

compromise access to other conservation/state/local forest trails immediately 

surrounding the refuge. In addition, they point to the economic benefits of horseback 

riding. 

We have decided to maintain our prohibition of horseback riding on refuge trails. This 

activity does not promote wildlife conservation, is not one of our six priority public uses, 

nor is it necessary to support the safe, practical, and effective conduct of a priority public 

use on the refuges. 

While we appreciate the desire for horseback riding opportunities on Assabet River, Great 

Meadows, and Oxbow National Wildlife Refuges, we do not believe that these relatively 

small refuges are appropriate places for horseback riding. Existing refuge trails are not 

designed to accommodate horses. Most of our trails are not wide enough for riders and 

walkers to avoid each other, nor are trails designed to withstand the impact of horses. 

This is especially true in wetter areas. Another issue with horse use is the waste left on 

trails. It is well-documented that horse waste introduces seeds from non-native and 

invasive vegetation. Further, the horse waste is unsightly and detracts from other visitors’ 

experiences when they have to watch for and avoid stepping in it. We are supporting an 

appropriate level and type of public use on our refuges by maintaining our focus on 

wildlife-dependent public uses. 

Jogging 

Joggers view the refuge as a safe, peaceful place to pursue their activity, and would like 

more information as to why jogging would be banned. 



As indicated in the draft CCP/EA, we will be investigating the impacts of jogging to 

determine whether or not this is an appropriate use and a compatible use. Jogging is not a 

priority public use nor is it necessary to support one of the six priority public uses. 

Currently, there are a relatively high number of individuals that participate in jogging on 

the refuges. Other refuges have documented impacts to wildlife caused by jogging. We 

have issued a compatibility determination that indicates that, based on our current 

knowledge, jogging is compatible with refuge purposes. If we gather information to the 

contrary, we will issue a new compatibility determination with appropriate public comment 

opportunities. 

Picnicking 

Some respondents view picnicking as a harmless past time that allows people to enjoy the 

refuge’s beauty. 

We would like to take this opportunity to clarify our position on picnicking. We believe 

that the draft CCP/EA conveyed a change that we did not intent. We do not intend to 

prohibit a refuge visitor from sitting on a bench or under a tree and eating a snack or 

drinking a beverage. However, we will not issue permits for large events, such as family 

reunions, where a meal is a normal part of the event to occur on the refuges, nor will we 

provide picnic tables or specific locations for picnicking. 

Bicycling 

Similar to jogging, a number of commentors assert that the refuge offers a safe, trafficfree 

environment for bicycling. By not allowing bicycling on the refuges, it is asserted that 

the FWS will be creating a gap in the local trail systems. Some cyclists are willing to be 

flexible as to when and where they can pursue their sport. Some of the commentors 

suggest allowing cycling on paved roads only. Of greatest interest to many of the 

commentors are the Patrol Road on Assabet River NWR and the Tank Road on Oxbow 

NWR. 

Bicycling is not compatible with the refuge purposes for each of the 3 refuges. Bicycles 

frighten wildlife and cause changes in behavior that have potential adverse impacts to 

species. While there are places where bicycling can enhance wildlife dependent 

opportunities, in general the intention of a visitor on a bicycle is to engage in the act of 

cycling or transportation, not to observe wildlife. The refuges are small enough that 

bicycling is not needed to facilitate a wildlife-dependent public use. Additionally, while 

there may be some existing roads on the refuges (particularly Assabet River NWR) which 

seem to lend themselves to cycling, our long term plans for the refuges will include some 

road removal and return to a natural state. 

Snowmobiling 

Snowmobilers describe themselves as law-abiding recreationists that are respectful of 

others and wildlife. One local snowmobile club would like to establish a trail through the 

refuge, maintained by the club, for the club’s enjoyment. 


- 166 - 


Snowmobiling is not a wildlife-dependent use of the refuges. Snowmobiles tend to frighten 

wildlife and can adversely impact wintering species. The refuges are small enough that 

non-motorized use (such as cross-country skiing or snowshoeing) would be the preferred 

method of travel for facilitation of wildlife dependent uses of the refuges during winter 

months. 

Gathering 

One respondent requested permission to collect mushrooms and suggested a daily limit 

for individuals that would like to collect them. 

The picking of fruit, plants, and mushrooms is not allowed on the refuges. These plants 

and fungi are components of the natural ecosystem and can provide food for refuge 

wildlife. With the large volumes of refuge visitors, there could be significant depletion of 

certain plants and mushrooms as well as unauthorized access off-trail to collect these 

specimens if this were allowed. Our intention in managing these refuges is to allow natural 

processes to occur as much as possible, with specific land management techniques to 

maintain or restore specific habitat types for wildlife. Gathering of plants, mushrooms and 

other refuge resources (such as rocks found on stone walls) is not appropriate. 

Fees 

Commentors provided a number of arguments for and against fees. Additionally, some 

commentors questioned the viability of a fee system for the refuges. Some of the concerns 

raised include the appropriateness of fees on Federal land, a potential deterrence of 

visitors from low-income families or neighborhoods, and the costs of enforcement. Others 

point out the need to support local lands that are under-funded by Federal budgets. 

In response to concerns expressed about the cost of a pass, we have lowered the annual 

pass fee from $20 in our original proposal to $12. Additional detail about the fees has been 

added to the final CCPs for each of the refuges. 

Fees will be used to support local projects on the refuges. The only way the Service will be 

able to achieve, maintain and provide a high quality of visitor service in the future is with 

additional funds. Unfortunately, our budget is insufficient to meet our visitor services 

needs. Failure to receive additional revenues will have a significant impact on our ability 

to provide quality opportunities for visitors to engage in wildlife-dependent public uses. 

Fees are fair because they are paid by refuge users. 

Land Acquisition 

A large number of commentors expressed concern over the lack of additional lands within 

the proposed acquisition boundary. Some individuals specifically mentioned the Devens 

South Post land that has been identified as part of the Base Closure and Realignment Act 

as land to be transferred to Oxbow NWR. Other individuals expressed concern that some 

town conservation lands adjacent to the existing refuges were within the acquisition 



boundary. These individuals expressed a preference that the land remains in town 

control. 

Assabet River, Great Meadows, and Oxbow NWRs are a part of the much larger Refuge 

System. The Service is developing a plan for strategic growth of the Refuge System. This 

plan will allow the Service to prioritize land acquisition and boundary expansions for the 

System as a whole. The process for changing land acquisition boundaries is long and 

complex and takes a great deal of staff time. The plan for strategic growth will also allow 

Refuge System staff to focus boundary expansion efforts to those areas that are of 

greatest value to the System as a whole. Certainly, the refuges encompassed in the draft 

CCP/EA contribute a great deal to fulfilling the Refuge System mission. Any boundary 

expansion must also be shown to have a necessary contribution. Staff will continue to work 

toward boundary expansions within Service policy and guidelines. 

Expansion of the boundaries at locations that provide important habitats is still possible. 

Staff will need to pursue these acquisition boundary issues as a separate process. 

Congress has specifically identified the Devens South Post land as appropriate for transfer 

to the Service. The transfer would not be hindered by the lack of an acquisition boundary 

around that land. 

We would like to point out that the acquisition boundary identifies natural areas that are 

important to the purposes of the refuges. However, the Service does not plan to condemn 

land that is being protected by other entities. In the event that a group or individual, such 

as a town conservation commission, is attempting to sell some of this land, the Service 

would be interested in acquiring the land rather than allowing it to be developed. 

Buildings and Facilities 

Respondents voiced a myriad of opinions regarding what kinds of buildings and facilities 

should be provided at the refuge. Citing the importance of public education, many people 

ask the FWS to locate kiosks at strategic locations throughout the refuge. Comments 

regarding refuge parking focus on lot location with a number of people discouraging 

parking at Heard Pond. These respondents contend that there has been too much garbage 

dumping and vandalism at the Heard Pond site to make it a desirable parking place. 

We are sensitive to the fact that there are a wide variety of opinions regarding 

development of buildings, restroom facilities, and parking areas at the refuges. We will 

work to ensure that buildings are sited to provide the greatest benefit to the groups that 

will use them, while at the same time reducing any associated impacts. Where 

appropriate, we will site and build kiosks to provide educational and informational 

opportunities. We understand the concern over past activities at Heard Pond. The 

proposed parking lot will be located along the road and not set back like the previous lot. 

We have proposed a limited expansion of no more than 6 cars depending on available area 

that will allow more visitors to enjoy the area. 


- 168 - 


NHESP suggested working cooperatively with the Service for review of impacts to statelisted 

species when construction or demolition projects are proposed. 

The Service will continue to include NHESP in review of appropriate projects. 

Staffing 

Most commentors feel that adequate refuge staffing is essential. While many people 

assert that Alternative B will meet desired staffing levels, a number of other respondents 

contend that proposed staffing levels are too low. These people cite anticipated user 

conflicts, present refuge hazards, and the current downsizing trend in government as 

reasons to increase proposed staffing levels. Some respondents suggest utilizing 

community groups and/or to form partnerships with volunteer organizations to 

supplement staffing needs. 

We appreciate the support for increased staffing levels. We have proposed the level of 

staffing that we feel is appropriate to implement the programs outlined in the CCP. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The one concern regarding wild and scenic river designation expressed by several 

respondents is that hunting is incompatible with this designation and should be 

prohibited within these areas. 

The Wild & Scenic Rivers Act (WSR) does not prohibit hunting, nor does it indicate that 

hunting is incompatible with the intent of the WSR designation. 

Enforcement 

Respondents who comment on enforcement indicate that the level of enforcement on the 

refuge needs to increase. The key areas identified by respondents as needing increased 

policing efforts are off-highway vehicle trespass, poaching, dumping, trespass, and 

vandalism. 

We are aware of a number of violations that occur on refuge lands. Our law enforcement 

staff is working to correct these violations and are bringing in outside help when 

necessary. The number of violation notices issued during the past year is a testament to 

our focused law enforcement efforts. We look forward to implementation of the CCP and 

the opportunity to expand our law enforcement presence through the potential addition of 

staff, agreements with local law enforcement agencies, and continued cooperation with 

State environmental police officers. 

Invasives 

Many respondents support efforts to eliminate invasive non-native species. Several 

respondents raise concerns about invasives at Puffer Pond, given new fishing access. 

Concerns about targeted species are raised in two cases: one respondent argues that 



cattails are native, and should not be removed; a number of respondents argue that mute 

swans are harmless. 

We will develop specific strategies to deal with control and elimination of invasive species 

as a part of the Habitat Management Plan. We are aware of the problem with invasives at 

nearby lakes and ponds. We have proposed to allow only non-motorized boats on Puffer 

Pond to help ensure that new invasive species are not introduced to the pond. 

State Listed Species 

The Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NEHSP) 

provided changes and edits to the Species Lists for each of the refuges, especially 

concerning the state listed species. 

We have reviewed the suggestions and incorporated them into the species lists. 

Wildlife Surveys 

NEHSP suggested that we complete surveys to determine areas that should be closed to 

public use and prior to opening roads or trails for use. 

Staff will continue to use survey information, along with local knowledge and known 

locations of sensitive species to determine whether there is a need to close areas of the 

refuge that are open or before opening areas to new public access opportunities. 


An individual suggested inclusion of a comprehensive bibliography of biodiversity for the 

Great Meadows NWR area that has been published. 

We have included a reference to this bibliography in the Great Meadows NWR CCP. 

Editorial/Corrections 

A number of commentors made suggestions that were editorial or that offered corrections 

to place names, geography, or history. 

We have made the corrections where appropriate. 

Alternatives 

The Humane Society of the Unites States expressed concern that the CCP/EA did not 

consider a reasonable range of alternatives. HSUS urged the Service to “give full 

consideration to an alternative that would emphasize non-consumptive uses, non-lethal 

approaches to conflicts with wildlife, aggressive acquisition of land that could provide 

important habitat for refuge wildlife, and removal of invasive plant species. 


- 170 - 


We worked hard to ensure consideration of the reasonable range of alternatives that were 

presented in the draft CCP/EA. Each of the items mentioned was considered and the 

majority are included in the final CCP. We analyzed the effects of continuing no-hunting 

on Assabet River and Great Meadows NWR, along with maintaining the existing level of 

hunting on Oxbow NWR as a part of Alternative A. Our current management plan is a 

balance of consumptive and non-consumptive uses with a focus on non-consumptive uses 

only for the majority of the year. All of our alternatives emphasize non-lethal approaches 

to wildlife conflicts with lethal control only utilized when our managers and biologists have 

determined that non-lethal controls have not been effective. Similarly, we will continue to 

acquire land as dictated by Service policy and as outlined under the “land acquisition” 

heading earlier in this section. Finally, removal of non-native invasive plant species is 

included in our final CCP and will be outlined further in our Habitat Management Plan. 

Support for each alternative [No response required] 

A number of commentors expressed support for all or portions of specific alternatives 

without citing specific reasons for doing so. The greatest number of such respondents 

indicated support for Alternative B or variations of Alternative B. 



Table D-1: Fish of Assabet River NWR 

Scientific Name Common Name Reference 

Micropterus salmonoides Largemouth Bass MDFW, 1997 

Esox niger Chain Pickerel MDFW, 1997 

Ictalurus natalis Yellow Bullhead MDFW, 1997 

Ictalurus nebulosus Brown Bullhead MDFW, 1997 

Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed MDFW, 1997 

Lepomis auritus Redbreast Sunfish MDFW, 1997 

Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill MDFW, 1997 

Perca flavecens Yellow Perch MDFW, 1997 

Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black Crappie MDFW, 1997 

Catostomus commersoni White Sucker MDFW, 1997 

Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner MDFW, 1997 

Semotilus corporalis Fallfish MDFW, 1997 

Anguilla rostrata American Eel MDFW, 1997 

Erimyzon oblongus Creek Chubsucker MDFW, 1997 

PUFFER POND: 

Micropterus salmonoides Largemouth Bass U.S. Army, 1992 

Esox niger Chain Pickerel U.S. Army, 1992 

Ictalurus nebulosus Brown Bullhead U.S. Army, 1992 

Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed U.S. Army, 1992 

Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill U.S. Army, 1992 

Perca flavecens Yellow Perch U.S. Army, 1992 

Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black Crappie U.S. Army, 1992 

Cyprinus carpio Common Carp U.S. Army, 1992 

Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner U.S. Army, 1992 

Table D-2: Birds of Assabet River NWR 


Scientific Name Common Name Status Reference 

Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Branta canadensis Canada Goose Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Aix sponsa Wood Duck Lockwood 2000 

Mergus merganser Common Merganser Lockwood 1999 

Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned Hawk SC Lockwood 1999 

Buteo platypterus Broad-winged Hawk Lockwood 2000 

Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier Plagge 2000 

Falco sparverius American Kestrel Lockwood 1999 

Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture Lockwood 1999 

Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s Hawk SC Lockwood 1999 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle FT-SE Aneptek, 1991 

Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered hawk Aneptek, 1991; Lockwood 

2000 


- 172 - 


Bonasa umbellus Ruffed Grouse Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Meleagris gallopavo Wild Turkey Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Phasianus colchicus Ring-necked Pheasant Meyer & Montemerlo 1995 

Porzana carolina Sora Rail Aneptek, 1991 

Charadrius vociferus Killdeer Lockwood 1999 

Scolopax minor American Woodcock Plagge 2000 

Gallinago gallinago Common Snipe Aneptek, 1991 

Larus argentatus Herring Gull Lockwood 1999 

Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Columba livia Rock Dove Lockwood 1999 

Chaetura pelagica Chimney Swift Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Ceryle alcyon Belted Kingfisher Lockwood 1999 

Bubo virginianus Great Horned Owl Lockwood 1999 

Strix varia Barred Owl Lockwood 1999 

Caprimulgus vociferus Whip-poor-will Aneptek,1991 Meyer & 

Montemerlo 1995: Plagge 

2000 

Archilochus colubris Ruby-throated Hummingbird Lockwood 2000 

Ceryle alcyon Belted Kingfisher Lockwood 2000 

Melanerpes carolinus Red-bellied Woodpecker Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Picoides villosus Hairy Woodpecker Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Picoides pubescens Downy Woodpecker Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Colaptes auratus Northern Flicker Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Dryocopus pileatus Pileated Woodpecker Lockwood 2000 

Contopus virens Eastern Wood-Pewee Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Sayornis phoebe Eastern Phoebe Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Myiarchus crinitus Great-crested Flycatcher Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Empidonax alnorum Alder Flycatcher Lockwood 2000 

Empidonax traillii Willow Flycatcher Lockwood 2000 

Empidonax flaviventris Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Lockwood 2000 

Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern Kingbird Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Cyanocitta cristata Blue Jay Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Tachycineta bicolor Tree Swallow Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Riparia riparia Bank Swallow Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Stelgidopteryx serripennis Rough-winged Swallow Lockwood 2000 

Parus atricapillus Black-capped Chickadee Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Parus bicolor Tufted Titmouse Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Sitta canadensis Red-breasted Nuthatch Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Sitta carolinensis White-breasted Nuthatch Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Certhia americana Brown Creeper Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Troglodytes aedon House Wren Lockwood 1999 

Troglodytes troglodytes Winter Wren Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Troglodytes ludovicianus Carolina Wren Lockwood 1999 

Sialia sialis Eastern Bluebird Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Catharus fuscescens Veery Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Catharus guttatus Hermit Thrush Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Hylocichla mustelina Wood Thrush Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Seiurus aurocapillus Ovenbird Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Turdus migratorius American Robin Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Dumetella carolinensis Gray Catbird Lockwood 1999 & 2000 



Mimus polyglottos Northern Mockingbird Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Toxostoma rufum Brown Thrasher Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Regulus satrapa Golden-crowned Kinglet Lockwood 1999 

Regulus calendulasatrapa Ruby-crowned Kinglet Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Sturnus vulgaris European Starling Lockwood 1999 

Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar Waxwing Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Vermivora pinus Blue-winged Warbler Lockwood 1999 

Vermivora ruficapilla Nashville Warbler Lockwood 1999 

Parula americana Northern Parula ST Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Dendroica petechia Yellow Warbler Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Dendroica pensylvanica Chestnut-sided Warbler Lockwood 1999 

Dendroica magnolia Magnolia Warbler Lockwood 1999 

Dendroica caerulescens Black-throated Blue Warbler Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Dendroica coronata Yellow-rumped Warbler (Myrtle) Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Dendroica virens Black-throated Green Warbler Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Dendroica fusca Blackburnian Warbler Lockwood 1999 

Vermivora bachmanii Bachman’s Warbler Lockwood 2000 

Dedroica pinus Pine Warbler Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Dendroica discolor Prairie Warbler Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Dendroica castanea Bay-breasted Warbler Lockwood 1999 

Dendroica striata Blackpoll Warbler SC Lockwood 1999 

Mniotilta varia Black-and-white Warbler Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Setophaga ruticilla American Redstart Lockwood 1999 

Seiurus noveboracensis Northern Waterthrush Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Geothlypis trichas Common Yellowthroat Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Wilsonia canadensis Canada Warbler Lockwood 1999 

Vireo solitarius Blue-headed Vireo Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Vermivora celata Tennessee Warbler Lockwood 1999 

Dendroica palmarum Palm Warbler Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Piranga olivacea Scarlet Tanager Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Pipilo erythrophthalmus Eastern Towhee Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Spizella passerina Chipping Sparrow Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Spizella pusilla Field Sparrow Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Melospiza georgiana Swamp Sparrow Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Zonotrichia albicollis White-throated Sparrow Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Zonotrichia leucophrys White-crowned Sparrow Lockwood 1999 

Cardinalis cardinalis Northern Cardinal Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Pheucticus ludovicianus Rose-breasted Grosbeak Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Spizella arborea American Tree Sparrow Lockwood 1999 

Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln’s Sparrow Lockwood 1999 

Passerella iliaca Fox Sparrow Lockwood 1999 

Junco hyemalis Dark-eyed Junco Lockwood 1999 

Passerina cyanea Indigo Bunting Aneptek, 1991 

Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink Aneptek, 1991 

Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Euphagus carolinus Rusty Blackbird Lockwood 1999 

Quiscalus quiscula Common Grackle Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Molothrus ater Brown-headed Cowbird Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Icterus galbula Baltimore Oriole Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Carpodacus mexicanus House Finch Lockwood 1999 


- 174 - 


Carduelis tristis American Goldfinch Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Passer domesticus House Sparrow Lockwood 1999 

Carpodacus purpureus Purple Finch Lockwood 1999 & 2000 

Vermivora chrysoptera Golden-winged Warbler 

Dendroica tigrina Cape May Warbler 

Protonotaria citrea Prothonotary Warbler 

Seiurus aurocapillus Ovenbird 

Oporornis philadelphia Mourning Warbler 

Wilsonia pusilla Wilson’ s Warbler 

Icteria virens Yellow-breasted Chat 

Pooecetes gramineus Vesper Sparrow 

Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah Sparrow 

Ammodramus nelsoni Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow 

Plectrophenax nivalis Snow Bunting 

Spiza americana Dicksissel 

Sturnella magna Eastern Meadowlark 

Icterus spurius Orchard Oriole 

Pinicola enucleator Pine Grosbeak 

Carduelis flammea Common Redpoll 

Carduelis pinus Pine Siskin 

Coccothraustes vespertinus Evening Grosbeak 

Table D-3: Mammals of Assabet River NWR 

Scientific Name Common Name Reference 

Sorex cinereus Masked Shrew Thomas 1992 

Blarina brevicauda Northern Short-tailed Shrew Thomas 1992 

Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern Cottontail Thomas 1992 

Tamias striatus Eastern Chipmunk Thomas 1992 

Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Red Squirrel Plagge 2000 

Glaucomys sabrinus volans (Northern or Southern) Flying Squirrel Lockwood 2000 

Sciurus carolinensis Eastern Gray Squirrel Thomas 1992 

Castor canadensis American Beaver Thomas 1992 

Peromyscus leucopus White-footed Mouse Thomas 1992 

Microtus pennsylvanicus Meadow Vole Thomas 1992 

Clethrionomys gapperi Southern Red-backed Vole Thomas 1992 

Zapus hudsonius Meadow Jumping Mouse Thomas 1992 

Procyon lotor Common Raccoon Thomas 1992 

Mustela vison Mink Thomas 1992 

Lutra canadensis Northern River Otter Thomas 1992 

Mephitis mephitis Striped Skunk Thomas 1992 

Odocoileus virginiana White-tailed Deer Thomas 1992; Plagge 2000 

Canis latrans Eastern Coyote Meyer & Montemerlo 1995 

Marmota monax Woodchuck Aneptek, 1991 

Erethizon dorsatum Common Porcupine Aneptek, 1991 

Martes pennanti Fisher Aneptek, 1991 

Lynx rufus Bobcat Aneptek, 1991 

Ondatra zibethicus Common Muskrat Preliminary Proposal 1992 

Vulpes fulva Red Fox Aneptek, 1991 

Alces alces Moose Lockwood 2000 


Table D-4: Amphibians of Assabet River NWR 



Bufo americanus American Toad Meyer & Montemerlo 1995; Plagge 2000 

Rana catesbeiana Bull Frog Meyer & Montemerlo 1995; Plagge 2000 

Rana clamitans melanota Green Frog Meyer & Montemerlo 1995; Plagge 2000 

Rana palustris Pickerel Frog Meyer & Montemerlo 1995; Plagge 2000 

Hyla c. crucifer Spring Peeper Meyer & Montemerlo 1995; Plagge 2000 

Rana sylvatica Wood Frog Meyer & Montemerlo 1995; Plagge 2000 

Hyla versicolor Gray Tree Frog Plagge 2000 

Notophthalmus 

var. vurudescens Eastern Spotted Newt Meyer & Montemerlo 1995 

Ambystoma laterale Blue Spotted Salamander SC Meyer & Montemerlo 1995 

Plethodon cinereus Red Backed Salamander Meyer & Montemerlo 1995 

Desmognathus fuscus Dusky Salamander Aneptek, 1991 

Ambystoma maculatum Spotted Salamander 

Table D-5: Reptiles of Assabet River NWR 


Coluber c. constrictor Northern Black Racer Meyer & Montemerlo 1995 

Thamnophis s. sirtalis Eastern Garter Snake Meyer & Montemerlo 1995 

Nerodia sipedon sipedon Northern Water Snake Meyer & Montemerlo 1995 

Diadophis punctatus edwardsi Northern Ringneck Snake Meyer & Montemerlo 1995 

Clemmys guttata Spotted Turtle SC Meyer & Montemerlo 1995 

Chrysemys p. picta Eastern Painted Turtle Meyer & Montemerlo 1995 

Terrapene carolina Eastern Box Turtle SC Meyer & Montemerlo 1995 

Emydoidea blandingii Blanding’s Turtle ST Preliminary Proposal 1992 

Table D-6: Moths of Assabet River NWR 

MONA# Scientific Name References 

625F Oreta rosea form “irrorata” Mello & Peters 1992 

6273 Itame pustularia Mello & Peters 1992 

6340 Semiothisa minorata Mello & Peters 1992 

6342 Semiothisa bisignata Mello & Peters 1992 

6570 Aethalura intertexta Mello & Peters 1992 

6597 Ectropis crepuscularia Mello & Peters 1992 

6638 Eufidonia nototaria Mello & Peters 1992 

6654 Hypagyrtis unipunctata Mello & Peters 1992 

6667 Lomographa vestaliata Mello & Peters 1992 

6720 Lytrosis unitaria Mello & Peters 1992 

6796 Campaea perlata Mello & Peters 1992 

6812 Homochlodes fritillaria Mello & Peters 1992 

6815 Gueneria similaria Mello & Peters 1992 

6823 Metarranthis angularia Mello & Peters 1992 

6837 Probole alienaria Mello & Peters 1992 

6964 Tetracis cachexiata Mello & Peters 1992 

6974 Patelene olyzonaria Mello & Peters 1992 

7009 Nematocampa limbata Mello & Peters 1992 

7071 Chlorochlamys chloroleucaria Mello & Peters 1992 


- 176 - 


7139 Cyclophora pendulinaria Mello & Peters 1992 

7159 Scopula limboundata Mello & Peters 1992 

7206 Eulithis explanata Mello & Peters 1992 

74XX Eupithecia spp. Mello & Peters 1992 

7698 Malacosoma disstria Mello & Peters 1992 

7701 Malacosoma americanum Mello & Peters 1992 

7715 Dryocampa rubicunda Mello & Peters 1992 

7758 Actias luna Mello & Peters 1992 

7886 Darapsa pholus Mello & Peters 1992 

8129 Pyrrharctia isabella Mello & Peters 1992 

8133 Spilosoma latipennis Mello & Peters 1992 

8140 Hyphantria cunea Mello & Peters 1992 

8188 Apantesis figurata Mello & Peters 1992 

8316 Orgyia leucostigma Mello & Peters 1992 

8318 Lymantria dispar Mello & Peters 1992 

8322 Idia americalis Mello & Peters 1992 

8323 Idia aemula Mello & Peters 1992 

8326 Idia rotundalis Mello & Peters 1992 

8328 Idia julia Mello & Peters 1992 

8329 Idia diminuendis Mello & Peters 1992 

8334 Idia lubricalis Mello & Peters 1992 

8347 Zanclognatha obscuripennis Mello & Peters 1992 

8355 Chytolita morbidalis Mello & Peters 1992 

8357 Hormisa absorptalis Mello & Peters 1992 

8387 Renia sobrialis Mello & Peters 1992 

8397 Palthis angulalis Mello & Peters 1992 

8442 Bomolocha baltimoralis Mello & Peters 1992 

8490 Pangrapta decoralis Mello & Peters 1992 

8491 Ledaea perditalis Mello & Peters 1992 

8697 Zale minerea Mello & Peters 1992 

8704 Zale helata Mello & Peters 1992 

8707 Zale metatoides Mello & Peters 1992 

8717 Zale horrida Mello & Peters 1992 

8727 Parallelia bistriaris Mello & Peters 1992 

8739 Caenurgina erechtea Mello & Peters 1992 

8801 Catocala ilia Mello & Peters 1992 

8847 Catocala gracilis Mello & Peters 1992 

8849 Catocala andromedae Mello & Peters 1992 

8851 Catocala coccinata Mello & Peters 1992 

8857 Catocala ultronia Mello & Peters 1992 

8858 Catocala crategi Mello & Peters 1992 

9046 Lithacodia bellicula Mello & Peters 1992 

9059 Capis curvata Mello & Peters 1992 

9185 Colocasia propinquilinea Mello & Peters 1992 

9193 Raphia frater Mello & Peters 1992 

9258 Acronicta sperata Mello & Peters 1992 

9364 Apamea finitima Mello & Peters 1992 

9545 Euplexia benesimils Mello & Peters 1992 

9582 Nedra ramosula Mello & Peters 1992 

9631 Callopistria mollissima Mello & Peters 1992 

9638 Amphipyra pyramidoides Mello & Peters 1992 

9678 Elaphria versicolor Mello & Peters 1992 


9681 Elaphria festivoides Mello & Peters 1992 

9690 Platysenta videns Mello & Peters 1992 

9815 Cosmia calami Mello & Peters 1992 

9818 Amolita fessa Mello & Peters 1992 

10291 Polia latex Mello & Peters 1992 

10397 Lacinipolia renigera Mello & Peters 1992 

10436 Aletia oxygala Mello & Peters 1992 

10459 Leucania inermis Mello & Peters 1992 

10567 Ulolonche culea Mello & Peters 1992 

10569 Ulolonche modesta Mello & Peters 1992 

10578 Pseudorthodes vecors Mello & Peters 1992 

10587 Orthodes cynica Mello & Peters 1992 

10903 Euagrotis illapsa Mello & Peters 1992 

10928 Graphiphora haruspica Mello & Peters 1992 

Table D-7: Butterflies⁄Dragonflies at Assabet River NWR 

Scientific name Common name Reference 

Aeshna canadensis Canada Darner Walton 2001 

Aeshna constricta Lance-tipped Darner Walton 2001 

Anax junius Common Green Darner Walton 2001 

Celithemis elisa Calico Pennant Lockwood 2001 

Cercyonis pegala Common Wood-Nymph Walton 2001 

Coenonympha tullia Common Ringlet Walton 2001 

Colias eurytheme Orange Sulpher Walton 2001 

Colias philodice Clouded Sulpher Walton 2001 

Danaus plexippus Monarch Catapillar Walton 2001 

Dorocordulia lepida Petite Emerald Lockwood 2001 

Dromogomphus spinosus Black-Shouldered Spinyleg Lockwood 2001 

Erythemis simplicicollis Eastern Pondhawk Walton 2001 

Everes comyntas Eastern Tailed-blue Walton 2001 

Hesperia leonardus Leonard’s Skipper Walton 2001 

Leucorrhinia frigida Frosted Whiteface Lockwood 2001 

Libellula cyanea Spangled Skimmer Walton 2001 

Libellula Incesta Slaty Skimmer Walton 2001 

Libellula luctosa Widow Skimmer Lockwood 2001 

Libellula lydia Common Whitetail Lockwood 2001 

Libellula pulchella Twelve-spotted Skimmer Lockwood 2001 

Libellula quadrimaculata Four-spotted Skimmer Lockwood 2001 

Limenitis archippus Viceroy Walton 2001 

Lycaena phlaeas American Copper Walton 2001 

Pachydiplax longipennis Blue Dasher Lockwood 2001 

Perithemis tenera Eastern Amberwing Lockwood 2001 

Phyciodes tharos Pearl Crescent Walton 2001 

Pieris rapae Cabbage White Walton 2001 

Polites peckius Peck’s Skipper Walton 2001 

Pompeius verna Little Glassywing Walton 2001 

Speyeria cybele Great Spangled Fritillary Walton 2001 

Sympetrum sp. Meadow Hawk Dragonfly Walton 2001 

Sympetrum obtrusum White-Faced Meadowhawk Lockwood 2001 

Sympetrum rubicundulum⁄Int Ruby⁄Cherry-Faced Meadowhawk Lockwood 2001 

Sympetrum vicimum Yellow-legged Meadowhawk Lockwood 2001 

Vanessa atalanta Red Admiral Walton 2001 



- 178 - 


Table D-8: Vascular Plants of Assabet River NWR 

Key to “status” column notations 

FE Federally Endangered 

FT Federally Threatened 

SE State (MA) Endangered 

ST State (MA) Threatened 

SC State (MA) Special Concern 

WL State (MA) Watch List Species 

Scientific Name Common Name Status 

PTERIDOPHYTES (Ferns and fern allies) 

Equisetaceae 

Equisetum arvense L. Common Horsetail 

Equisetum fluviatile L. Water Horsetail 

Equisetum sylvaticum L. Wood Horsetail 

Lycopodiaceae 

Lycopodium clavatum L. Staghorn Clubmoss 

Lycopodium dendroideum Michx. Northern Tree Clubmoss 

Lycopodium digitatum Dill. 

ex A.Braun (= L. flabelliforme) Running Pine 

Lycopodium lucidulum Michx. Shining Clubmoss 

Lycopodium tristachyum Pursh Northern Ground Pine 

Ophioglossaceae 

Botrychium dissectum Spreng. Cut-Leaf Grape Fern 

Osmundaceae 

Osmunda cinnamomea L. Cinnamon Fern 

Osmunda claytoniana L. Interrupted Fern 

Osmunda regalis L. var. spectabilis (Willd.) Gray Royal Fern 

Polypodiaceae (includes Aspleniaceae, Cyatheaceae) 

Asplenium platyneuron (L.) B.S.P. 

var. platyneuron Ebony Spleenwort 

Athyrium filix-femina (L.) Roth 

subsp. asplenioides (Michx.) Hulten (= A. 

filix-femina var. michauxii) Lady Fern 

Dennstaedtia punctilobula (Michx.) T.Moore Hay Scented Fern 

Dryopteris cristata (L.) Gray Crested Wood Fern 

Dryopteris intermedia (Willd.) Gray 

(= D. spinulosa var. intermedia) Common Wood Fern 

Dryopteris marginalis (L.) Gray Marginal Wood Fern 

Onoclea sensibilis L. Sensitive Fern 

Polypodium virginianum L. (= P. vulgare) Common Polypody 

Polystichum acrostichoides (Michx.) Schott Christmas Fern 

Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn var. 

latiusculum (Desv.Underw. ex A.Heller Bracken Fern 

Thelypteris noveboracensis (L.) Nieuwl. New York Fern 

Thelypteris simulata (Davenp.) Nieuwl. Massachusetts Fern 


Thelypteris thelypteroides (Michx.) J.Holub 

(= T. palustris, Dryopteris thelypteris) Marsh Fern 

Woodwardia virginica (L.) J.E.Smith 

(= Anchistea virginica) Virginia Chan Fern 

GYMNOSPERMS (Cone Bearing Plants) 

Pinaceae (includes Cupressaceae) 

Chamaecyparis thyoides (L.) BSP. Atlantic White Cedar 

Juniperus communis L. Common Juniper 

Juniperus virginiana L. Eastern Red Cedar 

Larix laricina (DuRoi) K.Koch American Larch 

Picea abies (L.) Karst. Norway Spruce 

Picea mariana (Mill.) B.S.P. Black Spruce 

Pinus resinosa Soland. in Ait. Red Pine WL 

Pinus rigida Mill. Pitch Pine 

Pinus strobus L. White Pine 

Pinus sylvestris L. Scotch Pine 

Tsuga canadensis (L.) Carriere Northern Hemlock 

Taxaceae 

Taxus baccata L. English Yew 

ANGIOSPERMS (Flowering Plants) 

MONOCOTYLEDONEAE (Monocots) 

Alismataceae 

Alisma subcordatum Raf. American Water Plantain 

Sagittaria engelmanniana J.G.Smith 

subsp. Engelmanniana Engelmann’s Arrowhead 

Sagittaria latifolia Willd. var. latifolia Broad-Leaved Arrowhead 

Araceae 

Arisaema triphyllum (L.) Schott 

subsp. Triphyllum (= A. triphyllum var. triphyllum, 

A. atrorubens) Jack-in-the-Pulpit 

Calla palustris L. Water Arum 

Peltandra virginica (L.) Kunth Arrow Arum 

Symplocarpus foetidus (L.) Salisb. Skunk Cabbage 

Commelinaceae 

Commelina communis L. 

var. ludens (Miq.) C.B.Clarke Deceiving Asiatic Dayflower 

Cyperaceae 

Bulbostylis capillaris (L.) C.B.Clarke Sand Rush 

Carex annectens (Bickn.) Bickn. 

var. xanthocarpa (Kuekenth.) Wiegand Yellow-Fruited Sedge 

Carex blanda Dewey Woodland Sedge 

Carex brevior (Dewey) Mackenz. ex Lunell Shorter Sedge 

Carex bromoides Schkuhr Brome-Like Sedge 

Carex brunnescens (Pers.) Poir. Brownish Sedge 

Carex bullata Schkuhr Button Sedge 

Carex canescens L. var. canescens Common Silvery Sedge 



- 180 - 


Carex canescens L. var. disjuncta Fernald Separated Silvery Sedge 

Carex cephalophora Muhl. ex Willd. Oval-Headed Sedge 

Carex comosa Boott Bottlebrush Sedge 

Carex crinita Lam. Fringed Sedge 

Carex debilis Michx. var. rudgei L.H.Bailey White-Edged Sedge 

Carex digitalis Willd. var. digitalis Slender Wood Sedge 

Carex disperma Dewey Soft-Leaved Sedge 

Carex emmonsii Dewey 

(= C. nigromarginata var. minor) Emmon’s Sedge 

Carex foenea Willd. var. foenea (= C. siccata) Hay Sedge 

Carex gracillima Schweinitz Graceful Sedge 

Carex gynandra Schweinitz 

(= C. crinita var. gynandra) Nodding Sedge 

Carex howei MacKenz. Howe’s Sedge 

Carex intumescens Rudge var. intumescens Bladder Sedge 

Carex lacustris Willd. Lake-Bank Sedge 

Carex lanuginosa Michx. 

(= C. lasiocarpa var. latiflora) Wooly Sedge 

Carex lasiocarpa Ehrh. var. americana Fernald Slender Sedge 

Carex lonchocarpa Willd. (= C. smalliana, 

C. folliculata) Long Sedge 

Carex lupulina Muhl. ex Willd. Hop Sedge 

Carex lurida Wahlenb. Lurid Sedge 

Carex mesochorea MacKenz. 

(= C. cephalophora var. mesochorea) Midland Sedge SE 

Carex normalis MacKenz. Larger Straw Sedge 

Carex oligosperma Michx. Few-Seeded Sedge ST 

Carex pallescens L. Pale Sedge 

Carex pensylvanica Lam. Pennsylvania Sedge 

Carex radiata (Wahlenb.) Small (= C. convoluta, 

C. rosea) Stellate Sedge 

Carex rostrata J.Stokes Umbel-Like Sedge 

Carex scoparia Schkuhr ex Willd. Pointed Broom Sedge 

Carex X stipata Muhl. ex Willd. var. stipata Awl-Fruited Sedge 

Carex stricta Lam. var. stricta Tussock Sedge 

Carex swanii (Fernald) MacKenz. Swan’s Sedge 

Carex tribuloides Wahlenb. Blunt Broom Sedge 

Carex trisperma Dewey Three-Fruited Sedge 

Carex vestita Willd. Velvet Sedge 

Carex vulpinoidea Michx. Fox Sedge 

Cyperus dentatus Torr. Toothed Cyperus 

Cyperus erythrorhizos Muhl. Red-Rooted Cyperus 

Cyperus filiculmis Vahl Slender Cyperus 

Cyperus rivularis Kunth (= C. bipartitus) Shining Cyperus 

Cyperus strigosus L. Straw-Colored Cyperus 

Dulichium arundinaceum (L.) Britton Three-Way Sedge 

Eleocharis obtusa (Willd.) J.A.Schultes var. obtusa Blunt Spikerush 

Eleocharis olivacea Torr. Bright Green Spike Rush 

Eleocharis smallii Britton Small’s Spikerush 

Eleocharis tenuis (Willd.) J.A.Schultes var. tenuis Slender Spikerush 

Eriophorum virginicum L. Tawny Cottongrass 

Fimbristylis autumnalis (L.) Roem. & J.A.Schultes Slender Fimbristylis 


Rhynchospora alba (L.) Vahl White Beakrush 

Rhynchospora capitellata (Michx.) Vahl Small-Headed Beakrush 

Scirpus cyperinus (L.) Kunth Woolgrass 

Scirpus georgianus R.M.Harper 

(= S. atrovirens var. georgianus) Georgia Dark-Green Bulrush 

Scirpus validus Vahl Soft-Stem Bulrush 

Gramineae (= Poaceae) 

Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. 

var. repens (= A. leersianum) Quackgrass 

Agrostis perennans (Walter) Tuckerman 

var. perennans Autumn Bent 

Agrostis scabra Willd. var. scabra Hairgrass 

Agrostis tenuis Sibth. var. tenuis Rhode Island Bent 

Alopecurus aequalis Sobol. var. aequalis Short-Awn Foxtail 

Alopecurus pratensis Meadow Foxtail 

Andropogon gerardii Vitman var. gerardii Big Bluestem 

Anthoxanthum odoratum L. Sweet Vernalgrass 

Aristida dichotoma Michx. Poverty Grass 

Aristida oligantha Michx. Prairie Three-Awn 

Brachyelytrum erectum (Schreb.) Beauv. 

var. septentrionale W.K.Babel (= B. septentrionale) Bearded Short-Husk 

Bromus inermis Leyss. var. inermis Smooth Brome 

Calamagrostis canadensis (Michx.) Beauv. 

var. canadensis Bluejoint Grass 

Calamagrostis cinnoides W.Barton nomen superfl. Reedgrass 

Cinna arundinacea L. var. arundinacea Stout Woodreed 

Dactylis glomerata L. var. glomerata Orchard Grass 

Danthonia spicata (L.) Beauv. 

ex Roem. & J.A.Schultes Common Wild Oatgrass 

Deschampsia flexuosa (L.) Trin. Common Hairgrass 

Dichanthelium acuminatum (Swartz) Gould 

& C.A.Clark (= Panicum acuminatum) 

var. implicatum (Scribn.) 

Gould & C.A.Clark (= Panicum auburne 

, P.implicatum, P. lanuginosum var. 

implicatum, P. meridionale) Slender-Stemmed Panic Grass 

Dichanthelium acuminatum (Swartz) 

Gould & C.A.Clark(= Panicum acuminatum) 

var. lindheimeri (Nash) Gould & C.A.Clark 

(= Panicum lindheimen) Lindheimer’s Panic Grass 

Dichanthelium clandestinum (L.) 

Gould (= Panicum clandestinum) Deer-Tongue Grass 

Dichanthelium depauperatum (Muhl.) 

Gould (= Panicum depauperatum) Poverty Panic Grass 

Dichanthelium dichotomum (L.) Gould 

(= Panicum dichotomum) var. dichotomum Forked Panic Grass 

Dichanthelium linearifolium (Scribn.) 

Gould (= Panicum linearifolium) Low White-Haired Panic Grass 

Dichanthelium oligosanthes (J.A.Schultes) Gould 

var. scribnerianum (Nash) Gould (= Panicum 



- 182 - 


oligosanthes var. scribnerianum, P. scribnerianum) Scribner’s Panic Grass 

Dichanthelium sabulorum (Lam.) Gould & 

C.A.Clark var. thinium (A.Hitchc. & Chase) Gould 

& C.A.Clark (= Panicum columbianum) American Panic Grass 

Dichanthelium sphaerocarpon (Elliott) 

Gould var. sphaerocarpo(= Panicum sphaerocarpon) Round-Fruited Panic Grass 

Digitaria ischaemum (Schreb.) Schreb. 

ex Muhl. var. ischaemum Smooth Crabgrass 

Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. Tall Crabgrass 

Echinochloa muricata (Beauv.) Fernald var. muricata Barnyard Grass 

Eragrostis capillaris (L.) Nees Lacegrass WL 

Fragrostis pectinacea (Michx.) Nees Comb-LikeLovegrass 

Eragrostis spectabilis (Pursh) Steud. Purple Lovegrass 

Festuca arundinacea Schreb. (= F. elatior) Reed Fescue 

Festuca rubra L. var. commutata Gaudin Chewing’s Fescue 

Festuca rubra L. var. rubra Red Fescue 

Festuca tenuifolia Sibth. (= F. capillata) Hair Fescue 

Glyceria acutiflora Torr. Sharp-Scaled Mannagrass 

Glyceria canadensis (Michx.) Trin. var. canadensis Rattlesnake Grass 

Glyceria obtusa (Muhl.) Trin. Blunt Mannagrass 

Glyceria striata (Lam.) A.Hitchc. var. striata Fowl Mannagrass 

Leersia oryzoides (L.) Swartz Rice Cutgrass 

Leersia virginica Willd. var. ovata (Poir.) Fernald White Grass 

Lolium perenne L. var. multiflorum (Lam.) 

R.Parnell (= L. multiflorum) Awned Ryegrass 

Lolium perenne L. var. perenne Perennial Ryegrass 

Muhlenbergia frondosa (Poir.) Fernald Wirestem Muhly 

Muhlenbergia mexicana (L.) Trin. Satingrass 

Muhlenbergia schreberi J.F.Gmel. var. schreberi Nimblewill 

Muhlenbergia uniflora (Muhl.) Fernald One-Flowered Muhly 

Panicum capillare L. var. capillare Witchgrass 

Panicum dichotomiflorum Michx. 

var. dichotomiflorum Common Smooth Panic Grass 

Panicum dichotomiflorum Michx. 

var. geniculatum (A.Wood) Fernald Bent Smooth Panic Grass 

Panicum philadelphicum Bernh. ex Nees 

var. philadelphicum Philadelphia Panic-grass (Wood Witchgrass) SC 

Panicum rigidulum Bosc ex Nees (= P. agrostoides) Red Top Panic Grass 

Paspalum setaceum Michx. var. muhlenbergii (Nash) 

D.Banks (= P. ciliatifolium var. muhlenbergii, 

P. pubescens) Slender Beadgrass 

Phalaris arundinacea L. (= P. arundinacea 

var. picta) Reed Canary Grass 

Phleum pratense L. var. nodosum (L.) Huds. Knotty Timothy 

Phleum pratense L. var. pratense Common Timothy 

Phragmites australis (Cav.) 

Trin. ex Steud. (= P. communis) Common Reed 

Poa angustifolia L. Slender-Leaved Bluegrass 

Poa annua L. var. annua Annual Bluegrass 

Poa compressa L. Canada Bluegrass 

Poa pratensis L. Kentucky Bluegrass 

Puccinellia fernaldii (A.Hitchc.) E.G.Voss 


(= Glyceria fernaldii) Fernald’s Mannagrass 

Schizachyrium scoparium (Michx.) Nash 

(= Andropogon scoparius) var. frequens (F.T.Hubb.) 

Gould (= A. scoparius var. septentrionalis) Frequent Little Bluestem 

Schizachyrium scoparium (Michx.) Nash 

(= Andropogon scoparius) var. scoparium Common Little Bluestem 

Secale cereale L. Rye 

Setaria glauca (L.) Beauv. (=S. lutescens) Yellow Foxtail 

Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. Green Foxtail 

Spartina pectinata Link var. pectinata Prairie Cordgrass 

Iridaceae 

Iris X germanica L. Fleur-de-Lis 

Iris pseudacorus L. Yellow Iris 

Iris versicolor L. Blue Flag 

Sisyrinchium atlanticum Bickn. Eastern Blue-Eyed Grass 

Sisyrinchium montanum Greene Montane Blue-Eyed Grass 

Juncaceae 

Juncus brevicaudatus Anon. Narrow-Panicled Rush 

Juncus bufonius L. var. bufonius Toad Rush 

Juncus canadensis J.Gay Marsh Rush 

Juncus effusus L. var. solutus Fernald & Wiegand Soft Rush 

Juncus greenei Oakes & Tuckerman Greene’s Rush 

Juncus marginatus Rostk. var. marginatus Grass Rush 

Juncus pelocarpus E.Meyer Brown-Fruited Rush 

Juncus secundus Beauv. Secund Rush 

Juncus tenuis Willd. var. tenuis (= J. tenuis 

var. antholatus) Path Rush 

Luzula multiflora (Ehrh. ex Hoffm.) Lej. 

(= L. campestris var. multiflora) Field Woodrush 

Lemnaceae 

Lemna minor L. Lesser Duckweed 

Spirodela polyrhiza (L.) Schleid. Giant Duckweed 

Wolffia columbiana Karst. Watermeal 

Liliaceae (includes Smilacaceae) 

Asparagus officinalis L. Asparagus 

Clintonia borealis (Ait.) Raf. Corn Lily 

Convallaria majalis L. var. majalis Lily-of-the-Valley 

Erythronium umbilicatum C.R.Parks & 

J.W.Hardin (= E. americanum) Trout Lily 

Hemerocallis fulva (L.) L. Yellow Day Lily 

Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus L. (= H. flava) Orange Day Lily 

Hosta ventricosa (Salisb.) Stearn Plantain Lily 

Lilium canadense L. subsp. canadense Canada Lily 

Lilium tigrinum Ker-Gawl. Tiger Lily 

Maianthemum canadense Desf. var. canadense False Lily-of-the-Valley 



- 184 - 


Medeola virginiana L. Indian Cucumber Root 

Muscari botryoides (L.) Mill. Grape Hyacinth 

Ornithogalum umbellatum L. Star-of-Bethlehem 

Polygonatum biflorum (Walter) Elliott var. biflorum Common Solomon’s Seal 

Polygonatum pubescens (Willd.) Pursh Hairy Solomon’s Seal 

Scilla nonscripta (L.) Hoffmanns. & Link 

(= Endymion non-scriptus) English Bluebell 

Smilacina racemosa (L.) Desf. 

var. cylindrata Fernald Cylindrical False Solomon’s Seal 

Smilacina racemosa (L.) Desf. var. racemosa Common False Solomon’s Seal 

Smilax herbacea L. Carrion Flower 

Smilax rotundifolia L. var. rotundifolia Common Greenbrier 

Trillium cernuum L. Nodding Trillium 

Uvularia sessilifolia L. Sessile-Leaved Bellwort 

Yucca filamentosa L. var. smalliana (Fernald) 

H.E.Ahles Spanish Bayonet 

Orchidaceae 

Cypripedium acaule Ait. Pink Lady’s Slipper 

Epipactis helleborine (L.) Crantz Helleborine 

Goodyera pubescens (Willd.) R.Br. Downy Rattlesnake Plantain 

Goodyera tesselata Loddig. Checkered Rattlesnake Plantain 

Platanthera grandiflora (Bigel.) Lindl. 

(= Habenaria fimbriata, P. fimbriata) Large Purple Fringed Orchid 

Platanthera lacera (Michx.) G.Don 

(= Habenaria lacera) Ragged Fringed Orchid 

Spiranthes cernua (L.) L.C.Rich. Nodding Lady’s Tresses 

Pontederiaceae 

Pontedaria cordata L. var. cordata Pickerelweed 

Potamogetonaceae (= Zosteraceae) 

Potamogeton diversifolius Raf. (= P. capillaceus) Rafinesque’s Pondweed 

Potamogeton pusillius L. var. pusillus 

(= P. pusillus var. minor) Small Pondweed 

Potamogeton spirillus Tuckerman (= P. dimorphus) Spiral Pondweed 

Sparganiaceae 

Sparganium americanum Nutt. Nuttall’s Bur-Reed 

Typhaceae 

Typha X glauca Godr. Glaucous Cattail 

Typha latifolia L. Broad-Leaf Cattail 

Ulmaceae (= Celtidaceae) 

Ulmus americana L. American Elm 


Ulmus glabra Huds. Witch Elm 

Ulmus parvifolia Jacq. Chinese Elm 

Xyridaceae 

Xyris torta J.E.Smith Slender Yellow-Eyed Grass 

DICOTYLEDONEAE (Dicots) 

Aceraceae 

Acer platanoides Norway Maple 

Acer rubrum rubrum var. rubrum Red Maple 

Acer saccharum Marshall subsp. 

saccharum var. saccharum Sugar Maple 

Aizoaceae (includes Molluginaceae) 

Mollugo verticillata L. Carpetweed 

Amaryliidaceae 

Hypoxis hirsuta (L.) Coville Stargrass 

Narcissus poeticus L. Poet’s Narcissus 

Narcissus pseudonarcissus L. Daffodil 

Anacardiaceae 

Rhus copallinum L. var. copallinum Winged Sumac 

Rhus glabra L. Smooth Sumac 

Rhus typhina L. Staghorn Sumac 

Toxicodendron radicans (L.) Kuntze 

(= Rhus radicans) Poison Ivy 

Toxicodendron vernix (L.) Kuntze (= Rhus vernix) Poison Sumac 

Apocynaceae 

Apocynum androsaemifolium L. Spreading Dogbane 

Apocynum cannabinum L. Indian Hemp 

Vinca minor L. Common Periwinkle 

Aquifoliaceae 

Ilex laevigata (Pursh) Gray Smooth Winterberry 

Ilex verticillata (L.) Gray Common Winterberry 

Nemopanthus mucronatus (L.) Trelease Mountain Holly 

Araliaceae 

Aralia hispida Ventenat Bristly Sarsaparilla 

Aralia nudicaulis L. Wild Sarsaparilla 



- 186 - 


Hedera helix L. English Ivy 

Asclepiadaceae 

Asclepias exaltata L. Poke Milkweed 

Asclepias incarnata L. var. pulchra (Ehrh.) Pers. Swamp Milkweed 

Asclepias syriaca L. var. syriaca Common Milkweed 

Cynanchum nigrum (L.) Pers. Black Swallowwort 

Balsaminaceae 

Impatiens capensis Meerb. Spotted Touch-Me-Not 

Berberidaceae 

Berberis thunbergii DC. Japanese Barberry 

Berberis vulgaris L. Common Barberry 

Betulaceae (= Corylaceae) 

Alnus rugosa (DuRoi) Spreng. Speckled Alder 

Alnus serrulata (Dryand. in Ait.) Willd. Smooth Alder 

Betula alleghaniensis Britton (= B. lutea) Yellow Birch 

Betula lenta L. Black Birch 

Betula papyrifera Marshall var. papyrifera Paper Birch 

Betula populifolia Marshall Gray Birch 

Corylus americana Walter var. americana American Hazelnut 

Bignoniaceae 

Campsis radicans (L.) Seem. Trumpet Creeper 

Catalpa speciosa (Warder ex Barney) 

Warder ex Engelm Catawba Tree 

Boraginaceae 

Myosotis scorpioides L. True Forget-Me-Not 

Campanulaceae (includes Lobeliaceae) 

Campanula aparinoides Pursh Marsh Bellflower 

Campanula rapunculoides L. Creeping Bellflow 

Lobelia cardinalis L. subsp. cardinalis var. cardinalis Cardinal Flower 

Lobelia inflata L. Indian Tobacco 

Lobelia spicata Lam. var. spicata Pale-Spiked Lobelia 

Caprifoliaceae 

Diervilla lonicera Mill. Bush Honeysuckle 

Lonicera X bella Zabel Bella Honeysuckle 

Lonicera japonica Thunb. Japanese Honeysuckle 

Lonicera morrowii Gray Morrow Honeysuckle 


Sambucus canadensis L. var. canadensis Black Elderberry 

Viburnum acerifolium L. Maple-Leaf Viburnum 

Viburnum cassinoides L. Wild Raisin 

Viburnum lentago L. Nannyberry 

Viburnum recognitum Fernald var. recognitum Arrowwood 

Caryophyllaceae 


Cerastium semidecandrum L. Small Mouse-Ear Chickweed 

Cerastium vulgatum L. Common Mouse-Ear Chickweed 

Dianthus armeria L. Deptford Pink 

Gypsophila muralis L. Baby’s Breath 

Saponaria officinalis L. Bouncing Bet 

Silene pratensis (Rafn) Gren. & Godr. 

(= Lychnis alba) White Campion 

Spergularia rubra (L.) J. & K.Presl Common Sand Spurry 

Stellaria calycantha (Ledeb.) Bong. (= S. borealis) Northern Starwort WL 

Stellaria graminea L. Common Stitchwort 

Stellaria media (L.) Villars Common Chickweed 

Celastraceae 

Celastrus orbiculata Thunb. Asiatic Bittersweet 

Celastrus scandens L. American Bittersweet 

Euonymus alatus (Thunb.) Siebold Winged Spindle Tree 

Ceratophyllaceae 

Ceratophyllum demersum L. Coontail 

Chenopodiaceae 

Chenopodium album L. var. album Lamb’s-Quarters 

Chenopodium album L. var. lanceolatum 

(Muhl. ex Willd.) Coss. & Germ. (= C. lanceolatum) Lanceolate Pigweed 

Cistaceae 

Helianthemum bicknellii Fernald Hoary Frostweed 

Helianthemum canadense (L.) Michx. Long-Branched Frostweed 

Lechea intermedia Leggett ex Britton Large-Podded Pinweed 

Lechea maritima Leggett ex B.S.P. var. maritima Beach Pinweed 

Lechea tenuifolia Michx. var. tenuifolia Slender Pinweed 

Lechea villosa Elliott Hairy Pinweed 

Clethraceae 

Clethra alnifolia L. var. alnifolia Sweet Pepperbush 

Compositae (= Asteraceae) 

Achillea millefolium L. Common Yarrow 


- 188 - 


Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. var. elatior (L.) Descourt. Ragweed 

Anaphalis margaritacea (L.) Benth. & 

J.D.Hook var. margaritacea Pearly Everlasting 

Antennaria neglecta Greene var. attenuata (Fernald) 

Cronq. (= A. brainerdii, A. neodioica) Attenuate Pussytoes 

Antennaria neglecta Greene var. randii 

(Fernald) Cronq. (= A. canadensis) Rand’s Pussytoes 

Arctium minus Bernh. Common Burdock 

Artemisia vulgaris L. Common Mugwort 

Aster acuminatus Michx. Whorled Wood Aster 

Aster cordifolius L. var. cordifolius Blue Wood Aster 

Aster divaricatus L. White Wood Aster 

Aster dumosus L. var. dumosus Bushy Aster 

Aster ericoides L. var. ericoides Heath Aster 

Aster lateriflorus (L.) Britton 

var. pendulus (Ait.) Burgess Calico Aster 

Aster linariifolius L. Stiff-Leaf Aster 

Aster macrophyllus L. Big-Leaf Aster 

Aster novae-angliae L. New England Aster 

Aster novi-belgii L. var. novi-belgii New York Aster 

Aster puniceus L. var. puniceus Purple-Stemmed Aster 

Aster umbellatus Mill. var. umbellatus Flat-Top White Aster 

Aster undulatus L. Wavy-Leaf Aster 

Aster vimineus Lam. var. vimineus Small White Aster 

Bidens cernua L. var. cernua Bur Marigold 

Bidens connata Muhl. ex Willd. 

var. petiolata (Nutt.) Farw. Swamp Beggar-Ticks 

Bidens discoidea (Torr. & Gray) Britton Small Beggar-Ticks WL 

Bidens frondosa L. var. frondosa Common Beggar-Ticks 

Bidens tripartita L. European Beggar-Ticks 

Centaurea maculosa Lam. Spotted Knapweed 

Cichorium intybus L. Chicory 

Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Tenore Bull Thistle 

Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. 

var. canadensis (= Erigeron canadensis) Horseweed 

Erechtites hieraciifolia (L.) Raf. ex DC. 

var. hieraciifolia Pilewort 

Erigeron annuus (L.) Pers. Annual Daisy Fleabane 

Erigeron pulchellus Michx. var. pulchellus Robin’s Plantain 

Erigeron strigosus Muhl. ex Willd. var. strigosus Strigose Daisy Fleabane 

Eupatoriadelphus dubius (Willd. Ex Poir.) 

R.M.King & H. Rob (=Eupatorium dubium) Purple Boneset 

Eupatorium perfoliatum L. var. perfoliatum Thoroughwort 

Filaginella uliginosa (L.) Opiz 

(= Gnaphalium uliginosum) Low Cudweed 

Galinsoga quadriradiata Ruiz & Pavon (= G. ciliata) Ciliate Quickweed 

Gnaphalium obtusifolium L. var. obtusifolium Sweet Everlasting 

Hieracium aurantiacum L. Orange Hawkweed 

Hieracium canadense Michx. var. fasciculatum 

(Pursh) Fernald (= H. kalmii) Canada Hawkweed 

Hieracium flagellare Willd. Whiplash Hawkweed 

Hieracium florentinum All. (= H. piloselloides) King Devil 



Hieracium paniculatum L. Panicled Hawkweed 

Hieracium pilosella L. Mouse-Ear Hawkweed 

Hieracium pratense Tausch Field Hawkweed 

Hieracium scabrum Michx. var. scabrum Rough Hawkweed 

Krigia virginica (L.) Willd. Dwarf Dandelion 

Lactuca biennis (Moench) Fernald Blue Lettuce 

Lactuca canadensis L. var. latifolia Kuntze Wild Lettuce 

Leontodon autumnalis L. var. autumnalis Fall Dandelion 

Leucanthemum vulgare Lam. 

(= Chrysanthemum leucanthemum) Ox-Eye Daisy 

Liatris borealis Nutt. New England Blazing Star SC 

Matricaria chamomilla L. Wild Chamomile 

Prenanthes trifoliata (Cass.) Fernald var. trifoliata Gall-of-the-Earth 

Rudbeckia serotina Nutt. non Sweet var. serotina Black-Eyed Susan 

Senecio aureus L. Golden Ragwort 

Solidago bicolor L. White Goldenrod 

Solidago caesia L. Blue-Stem Goldenrod 

Solidago canadensis L. var. canadensis Canada Goldenrod 

Solidago gigantea Ait. var. gigantea Common Late Goldenrod 

Solidago juncea Ait. Early Goldenrod 

Solidago nemoralis Ait. var. nemoralis Gray Goldenrod 

Solidago nuttallii Greene (= S. graminifolia 

var. nuttallii) Nuttall’s Flat-Top Goldenrod 

Solidago odora Ait. var. odora Sweet Goldenrod 

Solidago puberula Nutt. var. puberula Downy Goldenrod 

Solidago rugosa Mill. subsp. Aspera 

var. villosa (Pursh) Fernald Villose Rough Goldenrod 

Solidago rugosa Mill. subsp. Rugosa var. rugosa Common Rough Goldenrod 

Solidago uliginosa Nutt. var. uliginosa Swamp Goldenrod 

Tanacetum vulgare L. Tansy 

Taraxacum officinale G.H.Weber Common Dandelion 

Tragopogon dubius Scop. Goat’s Beard 

Tussilago farfara L. Coltsfoot 

Convolvulaceae (includes Cuscutaceae) 

Calystegia sepium (L.) R.Br. 

subsp. Sepium (= Convolvulus sepium) Hedge Bindweed 

Cuscuta cephalanthi Engelm. Buttonbush Dodder 

Cuscuta compacta Juss. ex Choisy var. compacta Compact Dodder 

Cuscuta gronovii Willd. ex J.A.Schultes var. gronovii Gronovious’ Dodder 

Cornaceae (includes Nyssaceae) 

Cornus alternifolia L.F. Alternate-Leaved Dogwood 

Cornus amomum Mill. subsp. amomum Silky Dogwood 

Cornus canadensis L. Bunchberry 

Cornus florida L. Flowering Dogwood 

Cornus foemina Mill. subsp. racemosa (Lam.) 

J.S.Wilson (= C. racemosa) Gray Dogwood 

Nyssa sylvatica Marshall var. sylvatica Black Gum 


- 190 - 


Crassulaceae 

Sedum purpureum (L.) J.A.Schultes Purple Live-Forever 

Sedum spurium M.Bieb. Two-Row Stonecrop 

Cruciferae (= Brassicaceae) 

Barbarea vulgaris R.Br. in W.T.Ait. Yellow Cress 

Cardamine pensylvanica Muhl. ex Willd. 

var. pensylvanica Pennsylvania Bittercress 

Erysimum cheiranthoides L. subsp. Cheiranthoides Wormseed Mustard 

Lepidium campestre (L.) R.Br. in W.T.Ait. Cow Cress 

Lepidium densiflorum Schrad. var. densiflorum Bird’s Peppergrass 

Lepidium virginicum L. var. virginicum Wild Peppergrass 

Droseraceae 

Drosera intermedia Hayne Narrow-Leaf Sundew 

Drosera rotundifolia L. var. rotundifolia Round-Leaf Sundew 

Elaeagnaceae 

Elaeagnus umbellata Thunb. Asiatic Silverberry 

Ericaceae 

Chamaedaphne calyculata (L.) Moench Leatherleaf 

Epigaea repens L. Trailing Arbutus 

Gaultheria procumbens L. Wintergreen 

Gaylussacia baccata (Wangenh.) K.Koch Black Huckleberry 

Gaylussacia frondosa (L.) Torr. & Gray var. frondosa Dangleberry 

Kalmia angustifolia L. Sheep Laurel 

Kalmia latifolia L. Mountain Laurel 

Leucothoe racemosa (L.) Gray Swamp Sweetbells 

Lyonia ligustrina (L.) DC. var. ligustrina Maleberry 

Rhododendron canadense (L.) B.S.P. Rhodora 

Rhododendron viscosum (L.) Torr. var. viscosum Swamp Azalea 

Vaccinium angustifolium Ait. Late Lowbush Blueberry 

Vaccinium corymbosum L. (= V. atrococcum) Highbush Blueberry 

Vaccinium macrocarpon Ait. Large Cranberry 

Vaccinium oxycoccos L. Small Cranberry 

Vaccinium vacillans Torr. var. vacillans Early Lowbush Blueberry 

Euphorbiaceae 

Acalypha rhomboidea Raf. Rhombic Three-Seeded Mercury 

Euphorbia cyparissias L. Cypress Spurge 

Euphorbia maculata L. (= E. supina, 

Chamaesycemaculata) Spotted Spurge 

Fagaceae 


Castanea dentata (Marshall) Borkh. American Chestnut 

Fagus grandifolia Ehrh. American Beech 

Fagus sylvatica L. European Beech 

Quercus alba L. White Oak 

Quercus bicolor Willd. Swamp White Oak 

Quercus coccinea Muenchh. Scarlet Oak 

Quercus ilicifolia Wangenh. Scrub Oak 

Quercus prinoides Willd. Dwarf Chestnut Oak 

Quercus rubra L. Red Oak 

Quercus velutina Lam. Black Oak 

Gentianaceae 

Bartonia virginica (L.) B.S.P. Bartonia 

Geraniaceae 

Geranium maculatum L. Wild Geranium 

Guttiferae (= Hypericaceae, Clusiaceae) 

Hypericum boreale (Britton) Bickn. Northern St. John’s-Wort 

Hypericum canadense L. Common Canadian St. John’s-Wort 

Hypericum dissimulatum Bickn. Disguised St. John’s-Wort 

Hypericum ellipticum Hook. Pale St. John’s-Wort 

Hypericum gentianoides (L.) B.S.P. Pineweed 

Hypericum mutilum L. Dwarf St. John’s-Wort 

Hypericum perforatum L. Common St. John’s Wort 

Hypericum punctatum Lam. Spotted St. John’s Wort 

Triadenum virginianum (L.) 

Raf. (= Hypericum virginianum) Common Marsh St. John’s-Wort 

Halorrhagidaceae (includes Myriophyllaceae) 

Myriophyllum humile (Raf.) Morong Low Water Milfoil 

Proserpinaca palustris L. 

var. crebra Fernald & Griscom Mermaid Weed 

Hamamelidaceae 

Hamamelis virginiana L. Witch Hazel 

Hippocastanaceae 

Aesculus hippocastanum L. Horsechestnut 

Juglandaceae 

Carya glabra (Mill.) Sweet var. glabra Common Pignut Hickory 

Carya ovalis (Wangenh.) Sarg. var. ovalis Sweet Pignut Hickory 

Carya ovata (Mill.) K.Koch var. ovata Shagbark Hickory 

Juglans cinerea L. Butternut 



- 192 - 


Labiatae (= Lamiaceae) 

Ajuga reptans L. Bugle 

Glecoma hederacea L. Ground Ivy 

Lamium purpureum L. Purple Dead-Nettle 

Leonurus cardiaca L. Motherwort 

Lycopus americanus Muhl. ex W.Barton 

var. americanus Cut-Leaved Water Horehound 

Lycopus uniflorus Michx. Northern Water Horehound 

Lycopus virginicus L. Bugleweed 

Mentha arvensis L. var. glabrata (Benth.) Fernald 

(= M. arvensis var. villosa f. glabrata) Glabrate Field Mint 

Prunella vulgaris L. subsp. lanceolata (W.Barton) 

Hulten (= P. vulgaris var. lanceolata) Lanceolate Heal-All 

Prunella vulgaris L. subsp. Vulgaris 

(= P. vulgaris var. vulgaris) Common Heal-All 

Pycnanthemum muticum (Michx.) Pers. Short Toothed Mountain Mint 

Pycnanthemum tenuifolium Schrad. Narrow-Leaved Mountain Mint 

Scutellaria galericulata L. 

var. galericulata (= S. epilobifolia) Common Skullcap 

Scutellaria laterifolia L. Mad-Dog Skullcap 

Thymus serpyllum L. Wild Thyme 

Trichostema dichotomum L. Blue Curls 

Lauraceae 

Sassafras albidum (Nutt.) Nees Sassafras 

Leguminosae (= Fabaceae; includes Caesalpiniaceae, Papilionaceae) 

Amphicarpaea bracteata (L.) Fernald var. bracteata Hog Peanut 

Apios americana Medik. var. americana Groudnut 

Baptisia tinctoria (L.) R.Br. var. tinctoria Wild Indigo 

Desmodium canadense (L.) DC. Giant Tick Trefoil 

Desmodium dillenii Darl. Dillen’s Tick Trefoil 

Desmodium glutinosum (Muhl. ex Willd.) A.Wood Sticky Tick Trefoil 

Desmodium paniculatum (L.) DC. var. paniculatum Panicled Tick Trefoil 

Lespedeza capitata Michx. Round-Headed Bush Clover 

Lespedeza hirta (L.) Hornem. subsp. Hirta Hairy Bush Clover 

Medicago sativa L. Alfalfa 

Melilotus alba Medik. White Sweet Clover 

Robinia hispida L. Bristly Locust 

Robinia pseudo-acacia L. var. pseudo-acacia Black Locust 

Tephrosia virginiana (L.) Pers. var. virginiana Goat’s-Rue 

Trifolium arvense L. Rabbit’s-Foot Clover 

Trifolium aureum Pollich (= T. agrarium) Yellow Clover 

Trifolium dubium Sibth. Least Hop Clover 

Trifolium hybridum L. Alsike Clover 

Trifolium pratense L. Red Clover 

Trifolium repens L. White Clover 

Vicia cracca L. Cow Vetch 


Vicia tetrasperma (L.) Moench Lentil Vetch 

Wisteria macrostachya (Torr. & Gray) Nutt. 

ex B.Rob & Fernald Kentucky Wisteria 

Lentibulariaceae 

Utricularia gibba L. Cone-Spur Bladderwort 

Utricularia intermedia Hayne Flat-Leaved Bladderwort 

Utricularia macrorhiza Leconte (= U. vulgaris) Common Bladderwort 

Utricularia purpurea Walter Purple Bladderwort 

Utricularia radiata Small Floating Bladderwort 

Lythraceae 

Decodon verticillatus (L.) Elliott Water Willow 

Lythrum salicaria L. Purple Loosestrife 

Melastomataceae 

Rhexia virginica L. Meadow-Beauty 

Moraceae (includes Cannabaceae) 

Humulus japonicus Siebold & Zuccar. Japanese Hops 

Morus alba L. White Mulberry 

Myricaceae 

Myrica aspleniifolia L. (= Comptonia peregrina) Sweet Fern 

Myrica gale L. Sweet Gale 

Myrica pensylvanica Loiseleur Northern Bayberry 

Nymphaceae (includes Cabombaceae) 

Brasenia schreberi J.F.Gmel. Water Shield 

Nuphar luteum L.Sibth. & J.E.Smith subsp. variegatum 

(Engelm. ex G.W.Clinton) E.O.Beal (= N. variegatum) Yellow Lotus 

Nymphaea odorata Soland. in Ait. var. odorata White Water Lily 

Oleaceae 

Forsythia viridissima Lindl. Golden Bells 

Fraxinus americana L. White Ash 

Syringa vulgaris L. Lilac 

Onagraceae 

Circaea lutetiana L. subsp. canadensis (L.) 

Aschers. & Magnus (= C. quadrisulcata) Common Enchanter’s Nightshade 

Epilobium ciliatum Raf. subsp. glandulosum 

(Lehm.) P.C.Hoch (= E. adenocaulon, 

E. glandulosum) Northern Willow-Herb 



- 194 - 


Epilobium leptophyllum Raf. Narrow-Leaved Willow-Herb 

Ludwigia palustris (L.) Elliott Water Purslane 

Oenothera biennis L. Common Evening Primrose 

Orobanchaceae 

Orobanche uniflora L. subsp. uniflora var. uniflora One-Flowered Cancer Root 

Oxalidaceae 

Oxalis stricta L. (= O. europea) Yellow Wood Sorre 

Papaveraceae 

Chelidonium majus L. Greater Celandine 

Phytolaccaceae 

Phytolacca americana L. Pokeweed 

Plantaginaceae 

Plantago aristata Michx. Bracted Plantain 

Plantago lanceolata L. English Plantain 

Plantago major L. var. major Common Plantain 

Plantago rugelii Decne. Pale Plantain 

Polemoniaceae 

Phlox subulata L. var. subulata Moss Phlox 

Polygalaceae 

Polygala paucifolia Willd. Fringed Milkwort 

Polygala sanguinea L. Field Milkwort 

Polygonaceae 

Polygonella articulata (L.) Meisn. Jointweed 

Polygonum arifolium L var. pubescens 

(R.Keller) Fernald Halbeard-Leaved Tearthumb 

Polygonum aviculare L. Prostrate Knotweed 

Polygonum careyi Olney Carey’s Pinkweed 

Polygonum cuspidatum Siebold & Zuccar. Japanese Knotweed 

Polygonum hydropiper L. Common Smartweed 

Polygonum hydropiperoides Michx. Mild Water Pepper 

Polygonum pensylvanicum L. Pennsylvania Pinkweed 

Polygonum persicaria L. Lady’s Thumb 

Polygonum punctatum Elliott 

var. leptostachyum Small nomen superfl. Slender-Spiked Dotted Smartweed 

Polygonum punctatum Elliott var. punctatum Common Dotted Smartweed 

Polygonum sagittatum L. Arrow-Leaved Tearthumb 


Polygonum scandens L. var. scandens Climbing False Buckwheat 

Rheum rhaponticum L. (= R. rhabarbarum) Rhubarb 

Rumex acetosella L. Sheep Sorrel 

Rumex crispus L. Curly Dock 

Rumex obtusifolius L. subsp. obtusifolius Bitter Dock 

Rumex orbiculatus Gray Great Water Dock 

Primulaceae 

Lysimachia ciliata L. Fringed Loosestrife 

Lysimachia hybrida Michx. Hybrid Loosestrife 

Lysimachia nummularia L. Moneywort 

Lysimachia quadrifolia L. Whorled Loosestrife 

Lysimachia terrestris (L.) B.S.P. Swamp Candles 

Trientalis borealis Raf. Starflower 

Pyrolaceae (includes Monotropaceae) 

Chimaphila maculata (L.) Pursh var. maculata Spotted Wintergreen 

Chimaphila umbellata (L.) W.Barton 

var. cisatlantica Blake Pipsissewa 

Hypopitys monotropa Crantz 

(= Hypopithys monotropa, Monotropa hypopitys) Pinesap 

Monotropa uniflora L. Indian Pipe 

Pyrola chlorantha Swartz (= P. virens) Greenish-Flowered Wintergreen 

Pyrola elliptica Nutt. Shinleaf 

Pyrola rotundifolia L. 

var. americana (Sweet) Fernald (= P. americana) Round-Leaf American Wintergreen 

Ranunculaceae 

Anemone quinquefolia L. Wood Anemone 

Aquilegia canadensis L.var. canadensis Red Columbine 

Caltha palustris L. Marsh Marigold 

Clematis virginiana L. Virgin’s Bower 

Coptis trifolia (L.) Salisb. (= C. groenlandica) Goldthread 

Ranunculus acris L. Common Buttercup 

Ranunculus bulbosus L. Bulbous Buttercup 

Ranunculus recurvatus Poir. var. recurvatus Hooked Buttercup 

Ranunculus septentrionalis Poir. 

(= R. hispidus var. caricetorum) Swamp Buttercup 

Thalictrum pubescens Pursh (= T. polygamum) Tall Meadow Rue 

Thalictrum thalictroides (L.) A.Eames & B.Boivin 

(= Anemonella thalictroides) Rue Anemone 

Rhamnaceae 

Ceanothus americanus L. var. americanus New Jersey Tea 

Rhamnus cathartica L. Common Buckthorn 

Rhamnus frangula L. European Buckthorn 



- 196 - 


Rosaceae 

Agrimonia gryposepala Wallr. Tall Hairy Agrimony 

Amelanchier arborea (Michx.F.) Fernald (= A. laevis) Shadbush 

Amelanchier canadensis (L.) Medik. Serviceberry 

Aronia melanocarpa (Michx.) Elliott 

(= Pyrus melanocarpa) Black Chokeberry 

Aronia prunifolia (Marshall) Rehd. 

(= Pyrus floribunda) Purple Chokeberry 

Crataegus flabellata (Bosc ex Spach) 

K.Koch (= C. macrosperma) Variable Hawthorn 

Crataegus succulenta Schrad. ex Link Long-Spined Hawthorn 

Fragaria virginiana Duchesne subsp. Virginiana 

(= F. virginiana var. virginiana) Wild Strawberry 

Geum canadense Jacq. White Avens 

Malus floribunda Siebold ex VanHoutte Showy Crabapple 

Malus pumila (L.) Mill. (= Pyrus malus) Common Apple 

Potentilla argentea L. Silvery Cinquefoil 

Potentilla canadensis L. var. canadensis Dwarf Cinquefoil 

Potentilla norvegica L. Rough Cinquefoil 

Potentilla recta L. Sulphur Cinquefoil 

Potentilla simplex Michx. var. calvescens Fernald Balding Old-Field Cinquefoil 

Potentilla simplex Michx. var. simplex Common Old-Field Cinquefoil 

Prunus americana Marshall American Plum 

Prunus pensylvanica L.F. Pin Cherry 

Prunus persica (L.) Batsch Peach 

Prunus serotina Ehrh. var. serotina Black Cherry 

Prunus virginiana L. Choke Cherry 

Pyrus communis L. Domestic Pear 

Rosa carolina L. Pasture Rose 

Rosa gallica L. French Rose 

Rosa multiflora Thunb. Multiflora Rose 

Rosa palustris Marshall Swamp Rose 

Rosa virginiana Mill. Wild Rose 

Rubus allegheniensis T.Porter var. allegheniensis Northern Blackberry 

Rubus alumnus L.H.Bailey Nursling Blackberry 

Rubus flagellaris Willd. Prickly Dewberry 

Rubus hispidus L. var. obovalis (Michx.) Fernald Obovate Running Swamp Blackberry 

Rubus occidentalis L. Black Raspberry 

Rubus plicatifolius W.H.Blanch. Plaited-Leaved Dewberry 

Rubus pubescens Raf. var. pubescens Dwarf Raspberry 

Rubus strigosus Michx. 

var. strigosus (= R. idaeus var.strigosus) Red Raspberry 

Rubus trifrons W.H.Blanch. Three-Leaved Dewberry 

Sorbus aucuparia L. European Mountain Ash 

Spiraea latifolia (Ait.) Borkh. var. latifolia Meadowsweet 

Spiraea nipponica Nippon Spiraea 

Spiraea prunifolia Siebold & Zuccar var. prunifolia Bridal Wreath 

Spiraea tomentosa L. var. tomentosa Steeplebush 

Rubiaceae 


Cephalanthus occidentalis L. Buttonbush 

Galium aparine L. Cleavers 

Galium asprellum Michx. Rough Bedstraw 

Galium circaezans Michx. var. hypomalacum Fernald Wild Licorice 

Galium mollugo L. White Bedstraw 

Galium palustre L. Ditch Bedstraw 

Galium tinctorium L. subsp. Tinctorium 

(= G. tinctoriumvar. tinctorium) Wild Madder 

Galium triflorum Michx. Sweet-Scented Bedstraw 

Houstonia caerulea L. var. caerulea 

(= Hedyotis caerulea) Bluets 

Mitchella repens L. Partridgeberry 

Salicaceae 

Populus alba L. White Poplar 

Populus deltoides W.Bartram ex Marshall subsp. 

Deltoides (= P. deltoides var. deltoides) Cottonwood 

Populus grandidentata Michx. Big-Tooth Aspen 

Populus nigra L. Lombardy Poplar 

Populus tremula L. subsp. tremuloides (Michx.) 

Loeve & Loeve (= P. tremuloides, 

P. tremulavar. tremuloides) Quaking Aspen 

Salix bebbiana Sarg. Bebb’s Willow 

Salix discolor Muhl. Pussy Willow 

Salix humilis Marshall Prairie Willow 

Salix nigra Marshall Black Willow 

Salix petiolaris J.E.Smith (= S. gracilis) Slender Willow 

Salix sericea Marshall Silky Willow 

Salix rigida Muhl. Stiff Willow 

Santalaceae 

Comandra umbellata (L.) Nutt. subsp. umbellata Bastard Toadflax 

Sarraceniaceae 

Sarracenia purpurea L. var. purpurea Pitcher Plant 

Saxifragaceae (includes Grossulariaceae, Hydrangeaceae) 

Chrysosplenium americanum Schweinitz Water Carpet 

Ribes hirtellum Michx. Northern Gooseberry 

Scrophulariaceae 

Agalinis paupercula (Gray) Britton var. paupercula 

(= Gerardia paupercula) Small-Flowered Gerardia 

Chelone glabra L. var. glabra Turtleheads 

Gratiola aurea Pursh Golden Hedge Hyssop 

Linaria canadensis (L.) Dum.Cours. Blue Toadflax 

Linaria vulgaris Mill. Butter-and-Eggs 



- 198 - 


Lindernia dubia (L.) Pennell var. dubia False Pimpernel 

Melampyrum lineare Desr. 

var. americanum (Michx.) Beauverd Cow Wheat 

Mimulus ringens L. var. ringens Common Monkeyflower 

Verbascum thapsus L. Common Mullein 

Veronica arvensis L. Corn Speedwell 

Veronica officinalis L. Common Speedwell 

Veronica scutellata L. Marsh Speedwell 

Veronica serpyllifolia L. subsp. serpyllifolia Thyme-Leaf Speedwell 

Simaroubaceae 

Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle Tree-of-Heaven 

Solanaceae 

Physalis heterophylla Nees var. ambigua (Gray) 

Rydb. Clammy Ground Cherry 

Solanum americanum Mill. var. americanum American Nightshade 

Solanum carolinense L. var. carolinense Horse Nettle 

Solanum dulcamara L. Bittersweet 

Solanum nigrum L. Black Nightshade 

Styracaceae 

Halesia carolina L. Silverbell Tree 

Tiliaceae 

Tilia americana L. American Basswood 

Umbelliferae (= Apiaceae) 

Cicuta bulbifera L. Water Hemlock 

Cicuta maculata L. Spotted Cowbane 

Daucus carota L. Queen Anne’s Lace 

Hydrocotyle americana L. Pennywort 

Zizia aurea (L.) W.Koch Golden Alexanders 

Urticaceae 

Boehmeria cylindrica (L.) Swartz var. cylindrica False Nettle 

Pilea pumila (L.) Gray Clearweed 

Urtica dioica L. subsp. Dioica Stinging Nettle 

Verbenaceae 

Verbena hastata L var. hastata Blue Vervain 

Verbena urticifolia L. var. urticifolia White Vervain 

Violaceae 


Viola conspersa Reichenb. Dog Violet 

Viola cucullata Ait. Common Violet 

Viola fimbriatula J.E.Smith Northern Downy Violet 

Viola lanceolata L. subsp. Lanceolata 

(= V. lanceolata var. lanceolata) Lance-Leaf Violet 

Viola pallens (Banks) Brainerd 

(= V. macloskeyivar. pallens) Sweet White Violet 

Viola pedata L. Bird Foot Violet 

Viola septentrionalis Greene Northern Blue Violet 

Vitaceae 

Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L.) Planch. Virginia Creeper 

Parthenocissus vitacea (Knerr) A.Hitchc. 

(= P. inserta) Thicket Creeper 

Vitis aestivalis Michx. var. argentifolia 

(Munson) Fernald Summer Grape 

Vitis labrusca L. Fox Grape 

681 taxa 

667 species 

8 State Listed species 

528 Native (78%) 

151 Introduced (22%) 

99 Additional Species likely to occur 

32 Species uncommon in E.-Central MA 

References for Species Lists 


Meyer & Montemerlo 1995 Meyer, Stephen M. and Debbie (Montemerlo) Dineen. Wildlife Species Observed 

on the Fort Devens Annex (South):June 24 - July 31, 1995. Sudbury Conservation Commission. 

Preliminary Proposal 1992 Preliminary Project Proposal, Addition to Great Meadows NWR- Fort Devens 

Sudbury Annex Maynard, Hudson, Stow, and Sudbury, Massachusetts 

Aneptek, 1991 Endangered Species Survey: Phase I, An Environmental Inventory of Wildlife Species and 

Their Habitats. Aneptek Corporation, Contact No. DAAK6091P2517. December 1991. 

Lockwood 1999 Lockwood, Ron. 1999 Spring/Summer Bird Observations at Fort Devens Sudbury Training 

Annex. 

Thomas 1992 Thomas, Howard H. , PhD. Small Mammal Surveys of the Sudbury Training Annex, Sudbury, 

Middlesex County, Massachusetts and Fort Devens Military Reservation, Lancaster, Worcester County, 

and Shirley, Middlesex County, Massachusetts. Fitchburg State College. April - December 1992. 

Mello & Peters 1992 Mello, Mark J. and Edward Peters. Survey of Lepidoptera at Fort Devens with notes on 

Sudbury Annex. Lloyd Center for Environmental Studies. April - November 1992. 

Hunt 1992 Hunt, David M. Floristic Survey with Emphasis on Rare Species of the Sudbury Annex of Fort 

Devens, Massachusetts. November 30, 1992. 

Baseline Study 1993 Biological and Endangered Species Baseline Study Fort Devens, Massachusetts. ABB 

Environmental Services, Inc. August 1993. 


- 200 - 


U.S. Army, 1992 Bioaccumulation Study at Puffer Pond, Fort Devens Sudbury Training Annex, Maynard, 

MA. October. 1994. 

Plagge 2000 Observations by Lisa Plagge During 2000 Field Season, Biological Technician at USFWS Great 

Meadows NWR 

Lockwood 2000 Bird and other observations by Ron Lockwood 2000 at Fort Devens Sudbury Training Annex 

MDFW, 1997 Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Assabet River Survey, July 1997. 




The Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS) lists refuge projects over $20,000. The 

Management Maintenance System (MMS) identifies maintenace needs on refuges. 

Projects on both lists are prioritized and initated as funding becomes available. Funding is 

allocated through the Service’s Northeast Regional Office and is based on Congressional 

appropriation to the service. 

Project: this list includes projects currently in the RONS database and projects proposed 

in the CCP. 

FTE: full time staffing equivalent. One fte equals one person working full time for one 

whole year; seasonal employees are considered 0.5 fte. (note: staff are often “shared” by 

multiple rons projects) 

Cost, year 1: estimated costs incurred during the first year of a project - typically higher 

than recurring costs, due to construction, equipment purchase, or other start-up expenses. 

Cost, recurring: estimated average annual project cost for subsequent years; includes 

recurring salary and maintenance costs. 

Project duration: estimated length of time for each project. Since this CCP will be revised 

in 15 years, the “maximum project duration” is 15 years, even though some projects may 

continue into the next planning cycle 

Table E-1: Projects Currently in the RONS Database and Proposed Projects to be included for 


Project FTE Startup 

cost 

Oversee refuge management, planning, 

programs, administration and maintenance 

Provide wildlife and habitat management 

planning, implementation, and evaluation 

Collect essential biological data to 

efficiently manage the refuge 

Develop and implement a forestry 

management plan 

Provide planning and implementation of 

wildlife-dependent public use programs 

GS 11 

Refuge 

Ops. 

Spec. 

GS 11 

Wildlife 

Biologist 

GS 7 

Biol. 

GS 11 

Forester 

GS 11 

Outdoor 

Rec. 

Planner 

Annual Duration 

cost (years) 

x1,000 x 1,000 

139 74 15 

133 68 15 

114 49 15 

133 68 15 

133 68 15 


- 202 - 


Project FTE Startup 

cost 

Conduct interpretive and educational 

programs 

Provide refuge visitor protection and law 

enforcement 

Provide refuge maintenance and facilities 

repair 

Provide habitat restoration, maintenance, 

and facilities repair 

Provide refuge Visitor Contact Station 

support, administrative programs, and 

visitor services 

Equip and operate refuge Visitor Contact 

Station 

GS 5 

Park 

Ranger 

GS 7 

(LE) 

Park 

Ranger 

WG 8 

Maint. 

Worker 

WG 5 

Main. 

Worker 

Admin 

Tech. 

Annual Duration 

cost (years) 

x1,000 x 1,000 

107 42 15 

114 49 15 

118 53 15 

110 45 15 

107 42 13 

280 30 15 

Establish bat resting habitat 30 2 3 

Increase accessible hunting and fishing 

opportunities 

60 10 2 

Design, construct, and maintain accessible 

interpretive trails, wildlife viewing 

platforms, and photography blinds 

180 20 15 

Restore and maintain wetland habitat 50 10 15 

Control exotic and invasive species 118 53 5 

Develop and maintain parking areas and 

refuge gates 

108 8 14 

Develop and implement FMP 76 28 10 

Maintain and restore grassland habitat 80 15 15 

Maintain and restore forest habitat 65 15 15 

Conduct essential migratory bird surveys 30 8 15 

Conduct herptile and invertebrate surveys 25 8 15 

Inventory and evaluate status of key 

wildlife species 

55 55 2 

Develop Habitat Inventory and 

Management Plan 

50 12 2 

Conduct cultural resources overview of 

refuge 

80 8 3 

Construct and maintain three on-site 

interpretive kiosks 

45 4 15 

With partners, construct and maintain 

three off-site interpretive kiosks 

25 2 15 

Total 2,565 846 



Table E-2: Projects Currently Backlogged in the Maintenance Management System (MMS) for 


Project # 

(SAMMS) 

Project Name Cost 

Estimate 

($1,000) 

99110794 Phase II building removal 522 

99104368 Remove foundations 44 

01110809 Rehab military gates 43 

0110808 Remove 10 acres of asphalt 264 

99110807 Phase III building removal 522 

00104415 Repair Patrol, White Pond, and Craven Roads 153 

98104371 Replace John Deere 555 Backhoe 98 

00110310 Office/Visitor Contact Station 1,357 

00123749 Two parking lots 136 

00123748 Two fishing piers 94 

Total 3,233 

Table E-3: Projects Currently Backlogged in the MMS for the Eastern Massachusetts Refuge 

Complex 

Project # 

(SAMMS) 

Project Name Cost 

Estimate 

($1,000) 

01113926 Replace 1979 tractor trailer 55 

99104362 Replace 1992 S-10 32 

99104364 Replace 1991 Suburban 37 

00104409 Replace 17’ aluminum boat 27 

00104417 Replace 23’ Sea Ox 42 

00104412 Replace Boston Whaler 26 

01111811 Replace 00 Suburban 40 

01111813 Replace 00 Durango 37 

02120884 Replace 01 1-ton pickup 42 

02120936 Replace 19’ Carolina skiff 29 

02120939 Replace 02 crew cab pickup 28 

02120942 Replace 01 ½ ton pickup 25 

00110311 Visitor center phase I 522 

00110344 Visitor center phase II 908 

00110539 Visitor center phase III 5,386 

Total 7,026 


- 204 - 




Appendix F: Staffing Charts 

Appendix F: Existing and Proposed Staffing Charts for Assabet River, 

Great Meadows, and Oxbow NWRs 


- 206 - 



-207 - 

Maintenance 

Mechanic 

WG-9 

Maintenance 

Worker 

WG-7/8 

*Laborer 

WG-3 

Office Assistant 

GS-6 

*Administrative 

Support Asst. 

GS-5 

Park Ranger 

GS-5/7 

* Great Meadows 


GS-12 

Biologist 

GS-11 

Park Ranger 

GS-5/7 

Park Ranger 

GS-5/7 

Education Specialist 

GS-11 

Biotech 

GS-5/7 

Maintenance Worker 

WG-5/7 

Outreach Spec./ 

Volunteer Coord 

GS-11 

Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Assabet River, Great Meadows, and Oxbow National Wildlife Refuges 

Proposed Staffing Chart 


GS-12 

Biotech 

GS-9 

Equipment 

Operator 

WG-5 

Park Ranger 

(LE) 

GS-7/9/11 

*Oxbow Refuge 

Operations Specialist 

GS-11 

Project Leader 

GS-14 

Deputy Project 

Leader 

GS-13 

Oxbow/Assabet 


GS-12 

*Maintenance 

Worker 

WG-9 

*Admin Support 

Asst 

GS-6 

*Outdoor Recreation 

Planner 

GS-9 

*Park Ranger 

GS-5/7 

*Assabet Refuge 

Operations Specialist 

GS-11 

*Park Ranger 

GS-9 

*Maintenance 

Worker 

WG-8 

*Biologist 

GS-7 

Administrative 

Officer 

GS-9 

Wildlife 

Biologist 

GS-12 

*Outdoor Recreation 

Planner 

GS-9 

*Maintenance 

Worker 

WG-5 

Forester (Complex) 

GS-7/9/11 Admin Tech 

GS-3/5 

Highlighted boxes show proposed positions. 

This chart does not depict additional staff for Mashpee, Massasoit, Monomoy, Nomans Land Island, and Nantucket NWRs 

* Positions that are currently vacant. 

Biologist 

GS-11 

Supv. Outdoor 

Rec Planner 

GS-11/12 

*Park Ranger 

GS-5/7 

*Park Ranger 

GS-5/7 (term) 

*Field Training 

Officer 

GS-11 

Park Ranger 

GS-7 

Appendix F: Staffing Charts


- 208 - 







Compatibility Determination 

Use: Cultural History Tours 

Refuge Name: Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing Authority: Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established 

in 2000 under an Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife, or 

Other Purposes. (16 U.S.C. 667b). 

Refuge Purpose: “...particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird 

management program.” (16 U.S.C. 667bd, as amended) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 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. 

Description of Use: 

(a) What is the use? Is the use a priority public use? 

This activity consists of a group of people with a leader or guide walking or driving on the 

refuge to learn about its cultural history, including Revolutionary War ties, farming 

communities and the former military presence. This is not a priority public use. 

(b) Where would the use be conducted? 

Cultural history tours would occur only on established refuge trails or roads. 

(c) When would the use be conducted? 

Cultural history tours would be conducted only during hours when the refuge is open, 

generally ½ hour before sunrise to ½ hour after sunset. 

(d) How would the use be conducted? 

Cultural history tours would occur either by foot or motor vehicle. 

(e) Why is this use being proposed? 

Cultural history tours offer an opportunity to expose visitors to the Refuge and the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. In addition to learning about the history 

and culture of the area, participants will have the opportunity to observe wildlife and gain 

an appreciation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Availability of Resources: Before groups may conduct tours on the refuge they must 

obtain a special use permit. The cost of preparing special use permits for the cultural 

history tours will be minimal. Maintenance of the trails and facilities in areas not normally 

open to the public may incur some slight additional cost, but would be offset by the benefit 

to refuge staff having easier access to the refuge for wildlife management purposes. 

Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Purpose: The impacts associated with this activity are 

trampling of vegetation, littering, and temporary disturbance to wildlife in the area of the 

- 210 - 



group. These impacts are minor in light of the appreciation and knowledge gained by 

participants in these activities. The known presence of a threatened or endangered species 

will preclude the use of an area until the Refuge Manager determines otherwise. 

Public Review and Comment: The compatibility determination was included in the Draft 

CCP/EA. The Draft CCP/EA was available for comment from July 20 through September 

3, 2003. Refuge staff held four public meetings to collect public comments, written and 

verbal, on the draft CCP/EA, including all compatibility determinations. 

Determination: 

Use is not compatible ___. 

Use is Compatible with the following stipulations _X_. 

The following stipulations are required to ensure compatibility: Special use permits 

will be issued to the organization conducting the cultural history tours. A fee may be 

charged for the special use permit. The areas used for such tours will be closely monitored 

to evaluate the impacts on Refuge resources; if adverse impacts appear, the activity will 

be moved to secondary locations or curtailed entirely. Specific conditions may apply 

depending upon the requested activity and will be addressed through the special use 

permit. 

Justification: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105- 

57) identifies six legitimate and appropriate uses of wildlife refuges: environmental 

education, interpretation, hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and wildlife photography. 

These priority public uses are dependent upon healthy wildlife populations. Where these 

uses are determined to be compatible, they are to receive enhanced consideration over 

other uses in planning and management. 

Cultural history activities allow visitors to both learn about the prior historical/cultural 

uses of an area and hopefully gain an appreciation for the refuge purpose and lands on 

which these activities take place. Impacts can largely be minimized. The minor resource 

impacts attributed to these activities are generally outweighed by the benefits gained by 

educating present and future generations about refuge resources. 

These activities will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the refuge was established. 

Signature - Refuge Manager: /s/ Elizabeth A. Herland 12/21/2004 

(Signature and Date) 

Concurrence - Regional Chief: /s/ Anthony D. Léger 12/27/2004 


Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: December 27, 2014 




Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation 





Purpose: Assabet River NWR’s purpose is its“...particular value in carrying out the 

national migratory bird management program.” (16 U.S.C. 667b-d, as amended) 





Description of Use: Environmental education includes activities which seek to increase 

public knowledge and understanding of wildlife and the importance of habitat protection 

and management. Typical activities include teacher or staff-guided on-site field trips, offsite 

programs in classrooms, and nature study, such as teacher and student workshops and 

curriculum-structured instruction, and interpretation of wildlife resources. The refuge also 

supports an Urban Education program which offers these programs to students from the 

Boston and Worcester schools. 

Interpretation includes those activities and supporting infrastructure that explain 

management activities, fish and wildlife resources, ecological processes, and cultural 

history among other topics to public users. Programs and activities may be developed, 

sponsored and supervised by the Friends of Assabet River NWR. 

Access to the refuge for these activities is achieved through walking, snowshoeing or 

cross-country skiing. 

On and off site environmental education programs and interpretive programs, assistance 

with teacher workshops, and informational kiosks would be offered at Assabet River 

NWR. The proposed action also includes interpretive materials on the trails. A visitor 

contact station would be built to support refuge programs. 

Availability of Resources: Environmental education and interpretation occur through 

the use of existing staff, resources, and facilities. Existing resources include staff, 

interpretive kiosks and displays, environmental education programs carried out through 

extensive help of volunteers, displays, and trails. The amount and character of 

environmental and interpretive programming will be a direct reflection of the refuge’s 

staff and funding levels. The following components of an environmental education and 

interpretation program will need to be developed to fully implement the program outlined 

in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Additional components may be added at later 

dates. Specific costs will be determined as implementation of specific programs occurs. 

- 212 - 


• Construction of visitor contact station 


• Provision of Visitor Contact Station support, administrative programs and services 

• Construction and maintenance of three new kiosks (plus three off-site kiosks) 

• Additional staffing 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: On-site activities by teachers and students using trails 

and environmental education sites may impose low-level impacts such as trampling of 

vegetation, removing vegetation, littering and temporary disturbance to wildlife. In the 

event of persistent disturbance to habitat or wildlife, the activity will be restricted or 

discontinued. 

Placement of kiosks may impact small areas of vegetation. Kiosks will be placed where 

minimal disturbance will occur. 

Providing additional interpretive and educational brochures and materials may result in 

increased knowledge of the refuge and its resources. This awareness and knowledge may 

improve the willingness of the public to support refuge programs, resources, and 

compliance with regulations. 

There will be impacts from building a new visitor contact station. These impacts will be 

analyzed in an appropriate NEPA compliance document after potential sites for a building 

are determined. 



3, 2003. Additionally, Refuge staff held four public meetings to collect public comments, 

written and verbal, on the draft CCP/EA, including all compatibility determinations. 




The following stipulations are required to ensure compatibility: 

Activities will be held in areas where minimal impact will occur. Additional funding will be 

necessary to fully implement the environmental education and interpretation program 

outlined in the CCP. The level of implementation will be determined by the amount of 

funding allocated to the refuge over the next 15 years. Periodic evaluation of sites and 

programs will be conducted to assess if objectives are being met and to prevent site 

degradation. If evidence of unacceptable adverse impacts appear, the location(s) of 

activities will be rotated with secondary sites, curtailed or discontinued. The known 

presence of a threatened or endangered species will preclude the use of an area until the 

Refuge Manager determines otherwise. 



Special use permits will be issued to organizations conducting environmental education or 

interpretive tours or activities. A fee may be charged for the special use permit. The areas 

used by such tours will be closely monitored to evaluate the impacts on the resource; if 

adverse impacts appear, the activity will be moved to secondary locations or curtailed or 

discontinued. Specific conditions may apply depending upon the requested activity and will 

be addressed through the special use permit. 

Guidelines to ensure the safety of all participants will be issued in writing to the teacher or 

group leader responsible for the activities and will be reviewed before the activity begins. 







Environmental education and interpretation activities generally support Refuge purposes 

and impacts can largely be minimized (Goff et al., 1988). The minor resource impacts 

attributed to these activities are generally outweighed by the benefits gained by educating 

present and future generations about refuge resources. Environmental education is a 

public use management tool used to develop a wildlife conservation ethic within society. 

While it targets school age children, it is not limited to this group. This tool allows us to 

educate refuge visitors about endangered and threatened species management, wildlife 

management and ecological principles and communities. A secondary benefit of 

environmental education is that it instills an ‘ownership’ or ‘stewardship’ ethic in visitors 

and most likely reduces vandalism, littering and poaching; it also strengthens Service 

visibility in the local community. Environmental education (outdoor classroom) is listed in 

the Refuge Manual (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1985) as the highest priority visitor use 

activity throughout the National Wildlife Refuge System. 








- 214 - 



Use: Fishing 






Refuge Purpose: 

Assabet River NWR’s purpose is its“...particular value in carrying out the national 

migratory bird management program.” (16 U.S.C. 667b-d, as amended) 





Description of Use: Fishing activities include shore or bank fishing and fishing from a 

boat or canoe. Access to the refuge for this activity is achieved through walking or by nonmotorized 

boat. Fishing at Assabet River NWR is allowed only in Puffer Pond. Anglers at 

Assabet River NWR will be required to practice catch and release and not use live bait 

until we have determined that fish populations are sustainable. Ice fishing is not permitted 

on the refuge. Fishing will be in compliance with all State regulations. Up to four 

designated areas for fishing on Puffer Pond will be identified and at least one of the four 

sites will be accessible to handicapped anglers. Wetland pools are closed to public access. 

Availability of Resources: This program can be run with existing staff, although the 

hiring of additional public use and law enforcement staff would assist in managing the 

program and ensuring compliance. Maintenance costs for this activity are small. Costs 

which may occur include maintenance costs to trails and access areas. Existing refuge 

staff will need to prepare a fishing program and annual fishing plans. Estimated cost for 

developing accessible hunting and fishing opportunities: $60,000 

Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Purpose: The designated areas for fishing may need 

stabilization to prevent erosion before being opened and or to curb erosion after use of 

these areas has begun. Potential and actual refuge impacts include trampling vegetation, 

creation of unauthorized trails and subsequent erosion or over-harvesting. Some 

disturbance of roosting and feeding birds will probably occur (Burger, 1981) but is 

considered minimal. Discarded fishing line and other fishing litter can entangle migratory 

birds and cause injury and death (Gregory, 1991). Additionally, litter impacts the visual 

experience of refuge visitors (Marion and Lime, 1986). Anticipated law enforcement issues 

include illegal taking of fish, littering, illegal fires at night, fishing without a license, and 

disorderly conduct. 











The designated areas for fishing may need stabilization to prevent erosion before being 

opened and or to curb erosion after use of these areas has begun. 

Enforcement will be conducted to help curb illegal fires, disorderly conduct and littering. 

Enforcement will also help to ensure that fishing regulations are observed, reduce creation 

of unauthorized trails and serve as a direct contact to the fishing public. Public meetings 

with local fishing clubs and interested parties will also be required to reinforce refuge 

regulations. If these measures do not curb unauthorized activities, other measures will be 

implemented to control activities and fishermen. 

Law enforcement patrol of public use areas should minimize the above-mentioned types of 

violations. The current “Refuge open ½ hour before sunrise to ½ hour after sunset” 

regulation restricts entry after daylight hours, and should be maintained along with 

“Public Use Restricted to Trails Only”. 


57) identifies six legitimate and appropriate uses of wildlife refuges: fishing, environmental 

education, interpretation, hunting, wildlife observation and wildlife photography. These 

priority public uses are dependent upon healthy wildlife populations. Where these uses are 

determined to be compatible, they are to receive enhanced consideration over other uses in 

planning and management. 

Fishing is a wildlife-oriented activity that provides substantial recreational opportunities 

to the public (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1992 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

1997). Fishing is a traditional form of outdoor recreation. 



Literature Cited: 

Burger, J. 1981. The Effect of Human Activity on Birds at a Coastal Bay. Biol. Conserv. 

21:231-241. 

Gregory, M.R. 1991. The Hazards of Persistent Marine Pollution: Drift Plastics and 

Conservation Islands. J. Royal Soc. New Zealand. 21(2):83-100. 

- 216 - 



Marion, J.L. And D.W. Lime. 1986. Recreational Resource Impacts: Visitor Perceptions 

and Management Responses. pp. 239-235. Kulhavy, D.L. and R.N. Conner, Eds. in 

Wilderness and Natural Areas in the Eastern United States: A Management Challenge. 

Center for Applied Studies, Austin State Univ., Nacogdochesz, TX. 416pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Fisheries USA. The Recreational Fisheries Policy of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Wash, D.C.,U.S. Gov’t Printing Office. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997a. Recreation Fee Programs Frequently Asked 

Questions. 









Use: Hunting – Big Game , Upland Game, and Migratory Bird 





Refuge Purpose: Assabet River NWR’s purpose is its “...particular value in carrying out 

the national migratory bird management program.” (16 U.S.C. 667b-d, as amended) 





Description of Proposed Use: 

Migratory Game Bird Hunting 

This activity involves the taking of American woodcock on portions of the refuge north of 

Hudson Road. 

Big Game Hunting 

This activity involves the taking of white-tailed deer and turkey. Archery, shotgun and 

primitive firearm deer hunting opportunities will be provided on portions of the refuge. 

Only portable stands are allowed and no tree spiking is permitted. 

For the section of the refuge north of Hudson Road and inside of the Patrol Road, whitetailed 

deer may be taken by shotgun, archery and primitive firearms. For the section of 

the refuge outside of the Patrol Road and for the area to the south of Hudson Road, whitetailed 

deer may be taken only by archery. 

For the section of the refuge north of Hudson Road and inside of the Patrol Road, turkey 

may be taken by bow and arrow or shotgun. Lead shot will be allowed. Turkey hunters 

may use only bow and arrow outside the Patrol Road and south of Hudson Road. 

Upland Game 

This activity involves the taking of gray squirrel, cottontail rabbit, and ruffed grouse. 

These animals are taken with shotguns only; non-toxic shot is required. Hunting will be 

limited to the area north of Hudson Road and inside the Patrol Road. 

All applicable Federal (50 CFR Part 32) and State hunting regulations will be in force on 

the refuge, including the discharge of firearms or arrows across or within 150 feet of any 

- 218 - 



highway and the possession or discharge of any firearm or arrow within 500 feet of any 

dwelling or building in use. The use or possession of alcoholic beverages while hunting will 

be strictly prohibited. Hunting will occur within designated State seasons but could be 

restricted by time or day if determined necessary by the Refuge Manager to address 

resource or visitor use issues. All hunters will be required to obtain a permit from the 

refuge prior to scouting or hunting. The permit could contain both refuge-specific 

information, maps, and/or additional refuge requirements for hunter compliance. This 

may be modified on an annual basis if necessary. A fee will be charged for the permit. 

Access to the refuge for all hunt seasons is through walking or snowshoeing. Cutting of 

vegetation is prohibited. 

Limited special seasons will be provided for physically handicapped hunters. Selected 

roads on the refuge will remain open for restricted vehicle traffic. Some of these roads will 

allow us to provide handicapped accessible hunting opportunities. 

Availability of Resources: Hunting on the refuge will be by annual permit. The refuge 

will be collecting an annual fee of $20 for all hunting seasons on the refuge. One fee is valid 

for Assabet River, Great Meadows, and Oxbow NWRs only for the seasons that are 

allowed at each NWR. Fee money collected will help recover costs for funding the 

program. The Comprehensive Conservation Plan estimates that the cost of starting a hunt 

program will be $60,000 with an annual recurring cost of $10,000. These resources are 

available as the program will be managed by existing refuge staff. 

Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Purpose: The impacts of allowing hunting may include 

disturbance of non-target species in the course of tracking prey, trampling of vegetation, 

possible creation of unauthorized trails by hunters, littering and possible vandalism and 

subsequent erosion. These impacts are not anticipated to be significant. 

White-tailed deer number about 90,000 in Massachusetts. In some areas, deer density is as 

high as 25-30 deer per square mile. Many landowners suffer landscape damage due to deer 

on a regular basis, transmission of Lyme disease becomes a significant issue with large 

numbers of deer, starvation is a possibility when deer numbers are high as food supplies 

dwindle in bad weather and deer-vehicle collisions become more common and problematic. 

During the hunting season, non-hunters may limit refuge visits to Sundays or to the area 

south of Hudson Road, which will be open only for archery hunting during the turkey and 

deer seasons, or they may avoid the refuge altogether. 




verbal, on the draft CCP/EA, including all compatibility determinations. Many people 

wrote in to express opposition to hunting in general. Others recommended hunting be 

restricted to archery deer hunting. Others either supported hunting opportunities 

specifically or supported the preferred alternative, which included establishing the hunt 

programs. 







� All hunters must obtain all necessary State, Federal, and refuge permits. 

� Hunters must abide by all applicable refuge, State, and Federal regulations. 

� Refuge staff will develop a Hunt Plan and amend the Code of Federal Regulations 

before permitting hunting on the refuge. 

� Staff will monitor hunting activities to determine any adverse impacts to refuge 

resources and adjust the hunt program as necessary. 


57) identifies six legitimate and appropriate uses of wildlife refuges: hunting, 

environmental education, interpretation, fishing, wildlife observation and wildlife 

photography. These priority public uses are dependent upon healthy wildlife populations. 

Where these uses are determined to be compatible, they are to receive enhanced 

consideration over other uses in planning and management. 

Hunting of white-tailed deer and turkey, upland game (rabbit, squirrel and ruffed grouse) 

and woodcock on Assabet River NWR is justified within refuge objectives by providing 

wildlife-oriented recreation and promoting appreciation of wildlife and the outdoors. 

Recreational hunting is also a valid means of population control and can serve to keep 

wildlife populations in check. 








- 220 - 



Use: Natural History Tours 

Refuge Name: Assabet River National Wildlife Refuges 



in 200) under an Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife, or 


Refuge Purpose: Assabet River NWR’s purpose is its“...particular value in carrying out 








This activity consists of a group of people with a leader or guide walking or driving on 

refuge property to learn about plant and wildlife species, natural processes and wetlands 

and other habitats. Natural history tours will facilitate wildlife observation and 

photography, environmental interpretation and education, which are priority public uses of 

the refuge. 


Natural history tours would normally occur on established refuge trails or roads. 

However, tours could be conducted in other areas of the refuge with approval from the 

refuge manager. 


Natural history tours would normally be conducted during hours when the refuge is open, 

generally ½ hour before sunrise to ½ hour after sunset. Activities held at night, such as an 

owl prowl, would require approval from the refuge manager. 


Natural history tours would occur either by foot or motor vehicle. 


Natural history tours offer an opportunity to expose visitors to the Refuge purposes and 

Refuge System Mission. Some of the tours may also be birding trips. Participants gain an 

extra understanding and appreciation for the Refuge and the environment. 

Availability of Resources: Before groups may conduct tours on the refuge they must 

obtain a Special Use Permit (SUP). The cost of preparing the SUPs for natural history 

tours will be minimal. Maintenance of trails and facilities will be encompassed in costs 

associated with routine refuge operations and maintenance activities. 



Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Purpose: The impacts associated with this activity are 

trampling of vegetation, littering, possible vandalism and temporary disturbance to 

wildlife in the area of the group. These impacts are minor in light of the appreciation and 

knowledge gained by participants in these activities. The known presence of a threatened 

or endangered species will preclude the use of an area until the refuge manager 

determines otherwise. 








The following stipulations are required to ensure compatibility: An SUP will be issued 

to the organization conducting the tours. A fee may be charged for the special use permit. 

The areas used by such tours will be closely monitored to evaluate the impacts on the 

resource. If adverse impacts appear, the activity will be moved to secondary locations or 

curtailed entirely. Specific conditions may apply depending upon the requested activity 

and will be addressed through the SUP. 




“Public Use Restricted to Trails Only”, unless specifically authorized by an SUP. 







Natural history activities generally support refuge purposes and impacts can largely be 

minimized. The minor resource impacts attributed to these activities are generally 

outweighed by the benefits gained by educating present and future generations about 

refuge resources. Natural history activities are a public use management tool used to 

develop a resource protection ethic within society. This tool allows us to educate Refuge 

visitors about endangered and threatened species management, wildlife management and 

ecological principles and communities. A secondary benefit of natural history activities is 

that it instills an ‘ownership’ or ‘stewardship’ ethic in visitors and most likely reduces 

vandalism, littering and poaching. It also strengthens Service visibility in the local 

community. 

- 222 - 









Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date: December 27, 2019 




Use: Non-motorized Boating 

Refuge Name: Assabet River National Wildlife Refuges 





management program” (16 U.S.C. 667b-d, as amended). 







Non-motorized boating consists of the use of canoes, kayaks, row boats or other human 

powered watercraft across open water. The use is not a priority public use, but would 

facilitate participation in a variety of priority wildlife-dependent activities, including 

fishing, wildlife observation and wildlife photography. 


Non-motorized boating would be conducted only on Puffer Pond, not in refuge wetland 

pools or other ponds. 


Non-motorized boating would occur during times when the refuge is open and access is 

provided. 


Access would be provided at a designated launch site on the pond. Parking near the site 

would be provided but boats would be hand-carried into the pond. 


Non-motorized boating will facilitate participation in priority wildlife-dependent 

recreation. 

Availability of Resources: The costs of infrastructure associated with facilitating nonmotorized 

boating are discussed in the compatibility determinations for the respective 

wildlife dependent public uses. Existing and new facilities at Assabet River NWR would 

be used. Minor improvements and maintenance would be accomplished by refuge staff and 

volunteers. 

- 224 - 



Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Purpose: Non-motorized boating at Assabet River NWR 

will be monitored to ensure the activity will not have adverse impact on wildlife habitat, or 

the management of migratory birds and other wildlife species. This activity will facilitate 

wildlife-dependent recreation. 








The following stipulations are required to ensure compatibility: Non-motorized 

boaters will utilize only established established access areas open to the public and not 

venture into closed areas. A “Refuge open ½ hour before sunrise to ½ hour after sunset” 

regulation which restricts entry after daylight hours should be established as well as a 

“Public Use Restricted to Trails Only” regulation. 







Non-motorized boating is to be used only as a means to facilitate the priority public uses 

identified above. 











Use: Scientific Research 






management program.” (16 U.S.C. 667b-d, as amended). 







The use is research conducted by non-Service personnel. The purposes of research 

conducted on the refuge are to further the understanding of the natural resources and to 

improve the management of such resources on the refuge or within the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (Refuge System). Priority will be given to research which is applicable to 

wildlife, habitat, or public use management on and near the refuge. Research conducted 

by non-Service personnel is not a priority public use of the Refuge System. 


The location of the research will vary depending on the individual research project that is 

being conducted. The entire refuge may be made available for specific scientific research 

projects. However, an individual research project is usually limited to a particular habitat 

type, plant or wildlife species. On occasion research projects may encompass an 

assemblage of habitat types, plants or wildlife. The research location will be limited to 

only those areas of the refuge that are necessary to conduct any specific, approved 

research project. 


The timing of the research will depend on the individual research project that is being 

conducted. Scientific research may be allowed to occur on the refuge throughout the year. 

An individual research project could be short-term in design, requiring one or two visits 

over the course of a few days. Other research projects could be multiple-year studies that 

require daily visits to the study site. The timing of each individual research project will be 

limited to the minimum required to complete the project. If a research project occurs 

during a refuge hunting season, special precautions or limitations may be required to 

ensure the safety of researchers or staff. 

- 226 - 




The methods of a research project will depend on the individual project that is being 

conducted. The methods of each research project will be evaluated before it will be 

allowed to occur on the refuge. No research project will be allowed to occur if it does not 

have a study plan approved by the refuge manager, or if the refuge manager determines 

the project may adversely affect wildlife, wildlife habitat, on-going or planned refuge 

management activities, previously approved research programs, approved priority public 

uses, or public health and safety. 


Research by non-Service personnel is conducted by colleges, universities, Federal, State, 

and local agencies, non-governmental organizations, and qualified members of the general 

public. The purposes of research conducted on the refuge are to further the 

understanding of the natural resources and to improve the management of such resources 

on the refuge or within the National Wildlife Refuge System. Priority will be given to 

research which is applicable to wildlife, habitat, or public use management on and near the 

refuge. 

Most research projects on the refuges comprising the Eastern Massachusetts NWR 

Complex examine management of avian resources, various public uses, and rare, 

threatened or endangered species. Currently, research by non-refuge staff is 

concentrated on 5 of the refuges in Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex: Great 

Meadows, Assabet River, Oxbow, Monomoy, and Massasoit. Much of the research is 

focused on management of migratory birds, or resident herptiles and mammals, but other 

more specific research projects have also been implemented. In addition, much of the 

research conducted at the refuges is part of larger, landscape based projects. At Great 

Meadows NWR, Special Use Permits (SUP) have been issued for research which has 

included: investigating deer populations and movements, particularly in the winter 

months; investigating Blanding's turtle populations, movements, and habitat occupancy 

during the non-nesting season; mapping the spread of West Nile Virus; and evaluating 

mercury contamination in the Sudbury and Concord Rivers. At Assabet River and Oxbow 

NWRs, research activities have included establishing presence, documenting habitat use, 

and monitoring impacts to productivity of Blanding's Turtles, Spotted Turtles, Box 

Turtles, and Wood Turtles. At Monomoy NWR, research has covered the breadth of 

biological resources including: neurological studies involving horseshoe crabs; movement 

patterns and use of the Refuge by grey and harbor seals; and tern phenology, behavior, 

and productivity on Monomoy (a control site for oil spill studies occurring in Buzzards 

Bay). At Massasoit NWR, research has focused on the natural history of the federally 

listed Northern red-bellied cooter. Although no SUPs have been issued to date for 

biological research on Nomans Land Island, Mashpee, and Nantucket NWRs, it is likely 

that research will occur on these sites in the future. 

The Service will encourage and support research and management studies on refuge lands 

that improve and strengthen natural resource management decisions. The refuge 

manager will encourage and seek research relative to approved refuge objectives that 

clearly improves land management and promotes adaptive management. Information that 

enables better management of the Nation’s biological resources and is generally 

considered important to agencies of the Department of Interior, including the U.S. Fish 



and Wildlife Service, the Refuge System, and State Fish and Game Agencies, and/or that 

addresses important management issues or demonstrate techniques for management of 

species and/or habitats, will be the priority. 

The refuge may also consider research for other purposes which may not be directly 

related to refuge-specific objectives, but would contribute to the broader enhancement, 

protection, use, preservation and management of populations of fish, wildlife and plants, 

and their natural diversity within the region or flyway. These proposals must comply with 

the Service’s compatibility policy. 

The refuge may develop a list of research needs that will be provided to prospective 

researchers or organizations upon request. Refuge support of research directly related to 

refuge objectives may take the form of funding, in-kind services such as housing or use of 

other facilities, direct staff assistance with the project in the form of data collection, 

provision of historical records, conducting of management treatments, or other assistance 

as appropriate. 

Availability of Resources: The bulk of the cost for research is incurred in staff time to 

review research proposals, coordinate with researchers, write SUPs, and review the 

research results. In some cases, a research project may only require one day of staff time 

to write a SUP. In other cases, a research project may require weeks of staff time. 

Currently, a senior refuge biologist spends an average of seven weeks a year working full 

time on research projects conducted by outside researchers. At an hourly wage of 

approximately $30 (for a GS-12), this adds up to about $8,500 annually for resources spent 

on outside research. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Disturbance to wildlife and vegetation by researchers 

could occur through observation, a variety of wildlife capture techniques, banding, and 

accessing the study area by foot or vehicle. It is possible that direct or indirect mortality 

could result as a by-product of research activities. Mist-netting or other wildlife capture 

techniques, for example, can cause mortality directly through the capture method or intrap 

predation, and indirectly through capture injury or stress caused to the organism. 

Overall, however, allowing well designed and properly reviewed research to be conducted 

by non-Service personnel is likely to have very little impact on refuge wildlife populations. 

If the research project is conducted with professionalism and integrity, potential adverse 

impacts are likely to be outweighed by the knowledge gained about an entire species, 

habitat or public use. 

Public Review and Comment: The draft compatibility determination was available for 

public review and comment by 1) a notice posted on the Great Meadows NWR kiosk 

bulletin boards for a period of thirty days, 2) notice included in a planning update that was 

sent to all of the individuals on the comprehensive conservation plan mailing list, and 3) 

posted on the refuge website. The comment period was from June 21, 2004 to July 20, 

2004. 

- 228 - 


Determination (check one below): 

___ Use is Not Compatible 

_X_ Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations 


Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: All researchers will be required to 

submit a detailed research proposal following Service Policy (FWS Refuge Manual 

Chapter 4 Section 6, as may be amended). The refuge must be given at least 45 days to 

review proposals before initiation of research. If collection of wildlife is involved, the 

refuge must be given 60 days to review the proposal. Proposals will be prioritized and 

approved based on need, benefit, compatibility, and funding required. 

An SUP will be issued for all research conducted by non-Service personnel. The SUP will 

list the conditions that the refuge manager determines to be necessary to ensure 

compatibility. The SUP will also identify a schedule for progress reports and the 

submittal of a final report or scientific paper. 

Regional refuge biologists, other Service Divisions, State agencies or non-governmental 

organizations and biologists may be asked to provide additional review and comment on 

any research proposal. 

All researchers will be required to obtain appropriate State and Federal permits. 

All research related SUPs will contain a statement regarding the Service’s policy 

regarding disposition of biotic specimen. The current Service policy language in this 

regard (USFWS, 1999) is, “You may use specimens collected under this permit, any 

components of any specimens (including natural organisms, enzymes, genetic material 

or seeds), and research results derived from collected specimens for scientific or 

educational purposes only, and not for commercial purposes unless you have entered into 

a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with us. We prohibit the 

sale of collected research specimens or other transfers to third parties. Breach of any of 

the terms of this permit will be grounds for revocation of this permit and denial of future 

permits. Furthermore, if you sell or otherwise transfer collected specimens, any 

components thereof, or any products or any research results developed from such 

specimens or their components without a CRADA, you will pay us a royalty rate of 20 

percent of gross revenue from such sales. In addition to such royalty, we may seek other 

damages and injunctive relief against you.” 

Any research project may be terminated at any time for non-compliance with the SUP 

conditions, or modified, redesigned, relocated or terminated, upon a determination by the 

refuge manager that the project is causing unanticipated adverse impacts to wildlife, 

wildlife habitat, approved priority public uses, or other refuge management activities. 

Justification: The Service encourages approved research to further understanding of 

refuge natural resources. Research by non- Service personnel adds greatly to the 

information base for refuge managers to make proper decisions. Research conducted by 



non-Service personnel will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the 






Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: December 27, 2004 


U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Refuge Manual. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Director’s Order No. 109: Use of Specimens 

Collected on Fish and Wildlife Lands. March 30, 1999. 

- 230 - 



Use: Snowshoeing and cross country skiing 







management program.” (16 U.S.C. 667b-d, as amended). 





Description of Use: These uses are not priority public uses, but would facilitate wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and interpretive programs, which are priority public 

uses, during winter months. The trail systems are not plowed, because of the cost and 

because of the habitat disturbance plowing would entail. The use simply involves foottravel 

over the surface of the snow with the use of snowshoes and cross country skis on the 

refuge trail systems. 

Availability of Resources: The cost of trail and facilities maintenance are not directly 

related to showshoeing or cross country skiing. Costs for activities that are facilitated by 

these methods of locomotion are discussed under their respective compatibility 

determinations. 

Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Purpose: Snowshoeing and cross country skiing as 

conducted on Assabet River NWR have no adverse impact on the management of 

migratory birds or other wildlife species. These activities will only be done in coordination 

with wildlife-dependent recreation. These will likely create similar disturbances as people 

walking on the trails. 









Snowshoers and cross country skiers will utilize only established trails and other areas 

open to the public and not venture into closed areas. The current “refuge open ½ hour 



before sunrise to ½ hour after sunset” regulation restricts entry after daylight hours, and 

should be maintained along with “Public Use Restricted to Trails Only”. 







Snowshoeing and cross country skiing are to be used only as a means to facilitate the 

priority public uses identified above. 








- 232 - 



Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Refuge Names: Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge 





Refuge Purpose: Assabet River NWR’s purpose is its“...particular value in carrying out 






Description of Use: Access to the Refuge for this activity will be achieved through 

walking, snowshoeing or cross-country skiing. Wildlife observation and photography 

include walking on open and established trails to observe and/or photograph the natural 

environment. 

Plans for Assabet River NWR include opening approximately 15 miles of trails for wildlife 

observation, photography and interpretive opportunities. These trails are being opened in 

phases. Additionally, a wildlife viewing platform and photo blind will be constructed. 

Photography conducted on parts of the refuge open to the general public will not require a 

special use permit. 

Availability of Resources: Wildlife observation and photography occur through the use 

of existing staff, resources, and facilities. Existing resources for wildlife observation 

include trails. The amount and character of these opportunities will be a direct reflection 

of the refuge’s staff and funding levels. The following components of a wildlife observation 

and photography program will need to be developed to fully implement the program 

outlined in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Additional components may be 

developed at a later date. Specific costs will be determined as implementation of the 

program occurs. Some of these projects are either underway or have been completed. 

Projects completed in part or in whole by volunteers require less fiscal resources. 

• Construct, Improve and Maintain Accessible Visitor Trails 

• Wildlife Viewing Platforms, Photography Blinds 

• Rehabilitate Gates 

• Repair Roads 

• Remove Obstacle Course 

• Develop and maintain parking areas and gates 

Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Purpose: We predict that the impacts of wildlife 

observation and photography uses will be minimal. Possible impacts include disturbing 



wildlife, removing or trampling of plants, littering, vandalism and entrance into closed 

areas. We will not be creating new trails, rather improving existing trails. There will be 

some removal of vegetation to place the observation platforms and photo blinds. In the 

event of persistent disturbance to habitat or wildlife the activity will be restricted or 

discontinued. Little energy will be expended by wildlife leaving areas of disturbance. 









Additional funding will be necessary to fully implement the wildlife observation and 

photography program outlined in the CCP. The level of implementation will be 

determined by the amount of funding allocated to the refuge over the next 15 years. 




“Public Use Restricted to Trails Only”. 

Special use permits are required for organizations conducting wildlife observation and 

photography activities on the refuge. A fee may be charged for the special use permit. The 

areas used by such tours will be closely monitored to evaluate the impacts on the resource; 

if adverse impacts appear, the activity will be moved to secondary locations or curtailed 

entirely. Specific conditions may apply depending upon the requested activity and will be 

addressed through the special use permit. 

Commercial photography is subject to a special use permit and commercial photographers 

will be charged a fee. The fee is dependent on size, scope and impact of the proposed 

activity. 

Periodic evaluations will be done on trails to assess visitor impacts on the habitat. If 

evidence of unacceptable adverse impacts occurs, these uses will be curtailed, relocated or 

discontinued. Refuge regulations will be posted and enforced. Closed areas will be 

established, posted and enforced. The known presence of any threatened or endangered 

species likely to be disturbed by trail activity will preclude use of that site as a trail. 

All photographers must follow refuge regulations. Photographers in closed areas must 

follow the conditions outlined in the special use permit which normally include notification 

of refuge personnel each time any activities occur in closed areas. Use of a closed area 

should be restricted to inside blinds to reduce disturbance to wildlife. No baits or scents 

may be used. At the end of each session, the blind must be removed. All litter will be 

removed daily. 

- 234 - 




57) identifies six legitimate and appropriate uses of wildlife refuges: wildlife observation 

and wildlife photography, environmental education, interpretation, hunting, and fishing. 




The majority of visitors to the refuge are there to view the wildlife and upland, wetland, 

and grassland habitat areas. Some visit to develop an understanding of natural or cultural 

history. This visitation is in accordance with a wildlife-oriented activity and is an 

acceptable secondary use. There will be some visitor impacts from this activity, such as 

trampling vegetation (Kuss and Hall, 1991) and disturbance to wildlife near trails (Klein, 

1993 and Burger, 1981), but the knowledge, appreciation and understanding of 

management gained by visitors will provide support for the Service. The long-term 

benefits gained through wildlife observation and photography activities outweigh the 

impacts listed above. 




Burger, J. 1981. The Effect of Human Activity on Birds at a Coastal Bay. Biol. Conserv. 

21:231-241. 

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird Behavioral Response to Human Disturbances. Wildl. Soc. 

Bull. 21:31-39. 

Kuss, F.R. and C.N. Hall. 1991. Ground Flora Trampling Studies: Five Years After 

Closure. Environ. Manage. 15(5):715-727.

Assabet River NWR Final CCP - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?