Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Assabet River, Great Meadows and Oxbow National Wildlife Refuges

              U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Eastern Massachusetts
National Wildlife Refuge
Complex
Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan and Environmental Assessment
Assabet River, Great Meadows and
Oxbow National Wildlife Refuges
April 2003
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal 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 94-million acre National Wildlife Refuge
System comprised of 540 national wildlife refuges and thousands of waterfowl production
areas. It also operates 65 national fish hatcheries and 78 ecological services field stations.
The agency enforces federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores
nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands,
administers the Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign governments with their
conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program which distributes
hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state
wildlife agencies.
CCPs 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 in-creases,
operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
This goose, designed by J.N. “Ding”
Darling, has become a symbol of the
National Wildlife Refuge System
Cover photo: Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, USFWS Photo
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Eastern Massachusetts
National Wildlife Refuge
Complex
Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan and Environmental Assessment
Vision Statement for the Complex
The Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge
Complex will contribute to the mission of the National
Wildlife 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 community– supported 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.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Northeast Regional Office
300 Westgate Center Drive
Hadley, MA 01035
April 2003
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
Type of Action: Administrative— Development of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Location: Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Massachusetts
Assabet River, Great Meadows and Oxbow National Wildlife Refuges
Lead Agency: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Responsible Official: Dr. Richard O. Bennett, Acting Regional Director
For Further Information: Libby Herland, Project Leader
73 Weir Hill Rd
Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776
(978)443-4661
This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (CCP/EA) describes
three alternatives for three of the refuges in the Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge
Complex (Complex): Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge, Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge
and Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge. Later, we will release a CCP/ Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for Monomoy, Nomans Land Island and Nantucket national wildlife refuges, and CCP/EAs for
Massasoit and Mashpee national wildlife refuges. A brief description of the alternatives in this EA are
as follows:
Alternative A. This is the current management alternative required by the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). The refuges continue programs they currently have in place. No new efforts are
undertaken, and land acquisition occurs only for those parcels already within the approved refuge
boundaries.
Alternative B. This alternative represents the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Proposed Action; that is,
the alternative we recommend for approval. Land acquisition occurs only within the refuge boundaries.
This alternative emphasizes inventorying and monitoring refuge resources. This alternative also offers
more wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation opportunities as
well as hunting and fishing on all three refuges.
Alternative C. Alternative C is similar to Alternative A, but places emphasis on a less intrusive
management style. Inventory and monitoring of refuge resources would occur, but would be limited.
The refuges would support similar programs as existing now, but not expand habitat management
programs as Alternative B does. This alternative is distinguished from others by the amount of
resources directed towards expanding all priority public use opportunities and active management
programs.
This document also includes appendices that provide additional information supporting our analysis.
Reader’s Guide
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service planning process for all national wildlife refuges involves two levels
of planning:
1) the development of a broad Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP); and,
2) the formulation of more detailed step-down management plans required to fully implement the CCP.
This Draft EA/ CCP provides NEPA compliance for the future management of three refuges in the
Complex: Assabet River, Great Meadows and Oxbow refuges. Following the release of our final NEPA
decision document and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) we will release a stand-alone CCP for
each refuge.
We have written Chapter 1 and Chapter 5 to apply to all three refuges. However, each refuge has a
separate part or section in the Affected Environment, Alternatives, and Environmental Consequences
chapters and in some appendices. In these chapters, Assabet River Refuge is Part 1, Great Meadows
Refuge is Part 2 and Oxbow Refuge is Part 3. The CCP will consist of information organized in the
following sections of this document:
• Chapter 1. The Purpose of and Need for Action, Issues and Concerns
This chapter discusses the purpose of and need for action; it provides background information on the
Complex, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Wildlife Refuge System, and the Gulf of
Maine Ecosystem. It briefly describes the planning process followed. This chapter also describes issues,
concerns, and opportunities identified during public scoping. It identifies issues not addressed in this EA
and how the issues help form the alternatives.
• Chapter 2. Alternatives
This chapter describes the alternatives for each refuge based on the issues, concerns and opportunities
discussed in Chapter 1. The Service’s Proposed Action for each refuge is identified. Alternatives
describe what management will occur over the next 15 years. A series of issue questions are answered
for each alternative, showing how it responds to the issues. A table at the end of the chapter summarizes
the alternatives and compares the differences between them.
• Chapter 3. Affected Environment
This chapter describes the existing environment of the three refuges. It describes the physical, biological,
socioeconomic and cultural resources that would be affected by the management actions of each
alternative discussed in Chapter 2. The affected environment is the baseline for comparing the
consequences of implementing each alternative.
• Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences
This chapter describes the environmental consequences of implementing each of the alternatives. It
provides scientific and analytical bases for comparing the alternatives. It describes the probable
consequences (impacts or effects) of each of the alternatives on the physical, biological, cultural, and
socio-economic resources of the refuges.
• Chapter 5. Consultation with Others
This chapter describes the effort made by the Service to identify the issues, concerns, and opportunities to
be described in this EA.
• Appendices
The Appendices contain materials relevant to the decision being made, the affected environments of each
of the refuges in the complex, and the analysis involved in determining environmental consequences.
Public involvement and NEPA compliance have been incorporated into the process at all appropriate
stages.
The final approved CCP will provide the vision and strategic direction for the refuges. When fully
implemented, each CCP will help achieve the refuge’s purpose, fulfill the National Wildlife Refuge
System (System) mission, maintain or restore the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental
health of the Complex, and meet other mandates. It will be adjusted to consider new and better
information, ensuring that refuge activities best serve the intended purpose and mission of the System.
The CCP will also guide management decisions and set goals, objectives, and strategies to accomplish
these ends. We also require step-down management plans to provide additional details about meeting
CCP goals and objectives and to describe strategies and implementation schedules. The CCP will be
based on the principles of sound fish and wildlife management, available science, legal mandates, and our
other policies, guidelines, and planning documents. It will, above all else, ensure that wildlife comes
first on the refuges.
We greatly appreciate the time and efforts of the many citizens who contributed to the creation of the
refuges and the development of their CCPs. While this plan does not satisfy all the concerns expressed
during the planning process, public involvement and participation substantially shaped the plan. Public
involvement also greatly assisted the Service in determining how best to balance the important
conservation of the natural resources found on the refuges while ensuring that environmental education
and visitor use needs are met, as mandated by legislation.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction
Introduction and Background............................................................................................... 1-1
Purpose and Need for a CCP................................................................................................. 1-1
Planning Areas...................................................................................................................... 1-2
Other Refuges of the Complex.............................................................................................. 1-10
Vision Statement for the Complex......................................................................................... 1-11
Goals for the Complex........................................................................................................... 1-11
National and Regional Mandates and Plans Guiding this Project......................................... 1-12
Planning Process and Public Involvement............................................................................ 1-17
Wilderness Review ............................................................................................................... 1-18
Step-down Management Plans ............................................................................................. 1-20
Issues Identified Through Public Scoping............................................................................ 1-21
Issues and Concerns Considered Outside the Scope of this Analysis.................................. 1-23
Chapter 2. Alternatives
Formulating Alternatives....................................................................................................... 2-1
Features Common to All Alternatives................................................................................... 2-1
Features Common to All Action Alternatives....................................................................... 2-9
Alternatives or Actions Considered, but Eliminated From Further Evaluation...................2-15
Part 1: Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge
Alternative A: Current Management........................................................................2-18
Alternative B: Proposed Action................................................................................ 2-24
Alternative C..............................................................................................................2-35
Alternative Matrix......................................................................................................2-38
Part 2: Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge
Alternative A: Current Management....................................................................... 2-45
Alternative B: Proposed Action................................................................................ 2-60
Alternative C..............................................................................................................2-75
Alternative Matrix..................................................................................................... 2-81
Part 3: Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge
Alternative A: Current Management........................................................................2-87
Alternative B: Proposed Action................................................................................ 2-95
Alternative C..............................................................................................................2-106
Alternative Matrix......................................................................................................2-111
Chapter 3. Affected Environment
Part 1: Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge
Physical Resources....................................................................................................3-1
Biological Resources..................................................................................................3-11
Cultural Resources.................................................................................................... 3-20
Socioeconomic Environment...................................................................................... 3-26
Part 2: Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge
Physical Resources....................................................................................................3-29
Biological Resources..................................................................................................3-34
Cultural Resources.................................................................................................... 3-39
Socioeconomic Environment ..................................................................................... 3-44
Part 3: Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge
Physical Resources....................................................................................................3-51
Biological Resources..................................................................................................3-59
Cultural Resources.................................................................................................... 3-73
Socioeconomic Environment ..................................................................................... 3-83
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences
Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 4-1
Actions Common to All Alternatives .................................................................................... 4-2
Part 1: Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge
Alternative A: Current Management........................................................................4-3
Alternative B: Proposed Action................................................................................ 4-9
Alternative C..............................................................................................................4-18
Part 2: Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge
Alternative A: Current Management........................................................................4-21
Alternative B: Proposed Action................................................................................ 4-29
Alternative C..............................................................................................................4-37
Part 3: Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge
Alternative A: Current Management........................................................................4-39
Alternative B: Proposed Action................................................................................ 4-46
Alternative C..............................................................................................................4-55
Cumulative Impacts............................................................................................................... 4-58
Consequences Matrix............................................................................................................ 4-63
Chapter 5. Cordination with Others
Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 5-1
Public Involvement Summary ...............................................................................................5-1
Coordination with State and Other Partners......................................................................... 5-4
Mailings.................................................................................................................................5-5
Federal Register Notices....................................................................................................... 5-5
Core Planning Team.............................................................................................................. 5-5
Other Assistance................................................................................................................... 5-7
Addresses............................................................................................................................. 5-8
Literature Cited
Glossary
Appendices
Appendix A Relevant Legal Mandates.............................................................................. A-1
Appendix B Compatibility Determinations........................................................................B-1
Appendix C Water Quality Report Oxbow......................................................................... C-1
Appendix D Staffing Charts.............................................................................................. D-1
Appendix E RONS/MMS.................................................................................................. E-1
Appendix F Species List................................................................................................... F-1
Maps
Map 1-1. Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex...................................................1-3
Map 1-2. Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge...................................................................................... 1-6
Map 1-3. Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge: Concord Unit........................................................ 1-7
Map 1-4. Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge: Sudbury Unit...................................................... 1-8
Map 1-5. Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge................................................................................................... 1-9
Map 1-6. Gulf of Maine Ecosystem Map...................................................................................................... 1-15
Map 2-1. Alternative A: Current Facilities and Habitat Management at Assabet River.............. 2-23
Map 2-2. Alternative B: Proposed Facilities and Public Use at Assabet River............................... 2-34
Map 2-3. Alternative C: Public Use At Assabet River.......................................................................... 2-37
Map 2-4. Alternative A: Current Management: Existing Public Use & Habitat
Improvements at Concord.............................................................................................................. 2-54
Map 2-5. Alternative A: Current Management: Existing Pub. Use & Habitat
Improvements at Concord.............................................................................................................. 2-55
Map 2-6. Alternative A: Current Management (Existing Pub. Use & Habitat Improvements
at Sudbury.......................................................................................................................................... 2-56
Map 2-7. Alternative A: Current Management (Existing Public Use & Habitat
Improvements at Sudbury.............................................................................................................. 2-57
Map 2-8. Alternative A: Current Management (Existing Facilities at Concord)............................ 2-58
Map 2-9. Alternative A: Current Management (Existing Facilities at Sudbury)...........................2-59
Map 2-10. Alternative B: Proposed Action: Proposed Public Use at Concord...................................2-71
Map 2-11. Alternative B: Proposed Action: Proposed Public Use at Concord Impoundments.....2-72
Map 2-12. Alternative B: Proposed Action: Proposed Public Use at Sudbury.................................. 2-73
Map 2-13. Alternative B: Proposed Action: Proposed Public Use at Sudbury (inset).....................2-74
Map 2-14. Alternative C: Public Use (Concord)........................................................................................2-78
Map 2-15. Alternative C: Public Use (Sudbury)....................................................................................... 2-79
Map 2-16 Alternative C: Public Use (Sudbury)........................................................................................2-80
Map 2-17. Alternative A: Existing Habitat Management at Oxbow......................................................2-93
Map 2-18. Alternative A: Existing Public Use at Oxbow.........................................................................2-94
Map 2-19. Alternative B: Proposed Public Use at Oxbow.......................................................................2-104
Map 2-20. Alternative B: Proposed Hunting at Oxbow........................................................................... 2-105
Map 2-21. Alternative C: Public Use at Oxbow......................................................................................... 2-109
Map 2-22. Alternative C: Hunting at Oxbow.............................................................................................. 2-110
Tables
Table 2-1. Revenue Sharing Payments for Towns Associated with Assabet River, Great
Meadows and Oxbow National Wildlife Refuges........................................................................ 2-4
Table 2-2. Summary of Compatible Uses for Wildlife Dependent Activities on Assabet River,
Great Meadows and Oxbow National Wildlife Refuges............................................................ 2-10
Table 2-3. Biological Surveys at Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge.............................................. 2-18
Table 2-4. Actions and Strategies for Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge..................................... 3-38
Table 2-5. Biological Surveys at Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge............................................2-47
Table 2-6. Actions and Strategies for Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge.................................. 2-81
Table 2-7. Biological Surveys at Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge............................................................ 2-88
Table 2-8. Actions and Strategies for Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge.................................................. 2-110
Table 3-1. Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge Acreage...................................................................... 3-1
Table 3-2. Cover Types and Acreage at Assabet .......................................................................................... 3-13
Table 3-3. Rare Plant Species at Assabet River Refuge............................................................................. 3-14
Table 3-4. Invasive Species at Assabet River Refuge.................................................................................. 3-15
Table 3-5. Federal and State-listed Species at Assabet River Refuge..................................................... 3-16
Table 3-6. State- listed Amphibians and Reptiles at Assabet River Refuge .......................................... 3-18
Table 3-7. Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge Acreage ...................................................................................3-51
Table 3-8. U.S. Geological Survey Discharge Data ..................................................................................... 3-55
Table 3-9. Selected Plant Communities of National Wildlife Refuge North of Route 2....... ............... 3-60
Table 3-10. Oxbow Pond Vegetative Communities.......................................................................... 3-64
Table 3-11. Massachusetts State-listed Plant Species at Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge..3-65
Table 3-12. Bird Species of Concern at Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge.................................. 3-66
Table 3-13. Rare Plant Species at Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge...........................................3-72
Table E-1. Proposed projects currently in the RONS database and additional projects
proposed (Alt. B & C) for Assabet River .....................................................................E-2
Table E-2. Proposed projects currently in the RONS database and additional projects
proposed (Alt B & C) for Great Meadows ...................................................................E-5
Table E-3. Proposed projects currently in the RONS database and additional projects
proposed (Alt B & C) for Oxbow ....................................................................................E-8
Table E-4. Projects currently backlogged in the MMS for Assabet River,
Great Meadows and Oxbow National Wildlife Refuges............................................ E11
Table F-1. Fish at Assabet River NWR...........................................................................................F-2
Table F-2. Birds at Assabet River NWR.........................................................................................F-2
Table F-3. Mammals at Assabet River NWR................................................................................ F-5
Table F-4. Amphibians at Assabet River NWR ............................................................................ F-5
Table F-5. Reptiles at Assabet River NWR ...................................................................................F-5
Table F-6. Moths at Assabet River NWR....................................................................................... F-6
Table F-7. Butterflies/Dragonflies at Assabet River NWR........................................................F-7
Table F-8. Vascular Plants at Assabet River NWR .....................................................................F-7
Table F-9. Mushrooms at Assabet River NWR.............................................................................F-23
Table F-10. Birds at Great Meadows NWR...................................................................................... F-24
Table F-11. Butterflies at Great Meadows NWR............................................................................ F-27
Table F-12. Invertebrates at Great Meadows NWR ......................................................................F-27
Table F-13. Fish of Great Meadows NWR ....................................................................................... F-28
Table F-14. Reptiles at Great Meadows NWR.................................................................................F-28
Table F-15. Amphibians at Great Meadows NWR.......................................................................... F-28
Table F-16. Mammals at Great Meadows NWR .............................................................................F-29
Table F-17. Plants at Great Meadows NWR.................................................................................... F-30
Table F-18. Fish at Oxbow NWR........................................................................................................ F-35
Table F-19. Birds at Oxbow NWR...................................................................................................... F-36
Table F-20. Mammals at Oxbow NWR.............................................................................................. F-38
Table F-21. Reptiles at Oxbow NWR................................................................................................. F-39
Table F-22. Amphibians at Oxbow NWR...........................................................................................F-39
Table F-23. Moths at Oxbow NWR.....................................................................................................F-40
Table F-24. Butterflies at Oxbow NWR............................................................................................ F-45
Table F-25. Dragonflies and Damselflies at Oxbow NWR............................................................ F-45
Table F-26. Insects at Oxbow NWR.................................................................................................. F-46
Table F-27. Freshwater Mollusks at Oxbow NWR........................................................................ F-47
Table F-28. Vascular Plants at Oxbow NWR................................................................................... F-47
Figures Chapter3
Figure 3-1 Oxbow Cover Type Map................................................................................................... 3-62
Figure 3-2 Oxbow Cover Type Map................................................................................................... 3-62
Figure 3-3 Oxbow Cover Type Map................................................................................................... 3-63
Figure 3-4 Zoning................................................................................................................................. 3-88
Figure 3-5 Zoning ............................................................................................................................... 3-89
Figure 3-6 Districts..............................................................................................................................3-90
Chapter 1
Great Blue Heron at Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Photo by Sandy
Selesky
Introduction
• Introduction and Background
• Purpose and Need for a CCP
• Planning Areas
• Other Refuges of the Complex
• Vision Statement for the Complex
• Goals for the Complex
• National and Regional Mandates and Plans Guiding this
Project
• The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process and
Public Involvement
• Wilderness Review
• Step-Down Management Plans
• Issues Identified Through Public Scoping
• Issues and Concerns Considered Outside the Scope of This
Analysis
Draft CCP/EA April 2003 1-1
Chapter 1
Introduction and Background
This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental
Assessment (CCP/EA) has been prepared for three of the eight
refuges of the Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge
Complex (Complex). These three refuges are Assabet River, Great
Meadows (Concord and Sudbury Units), and Oxbow national wildlife
refuges.
We will prepare a separate CCP and Environmental Impact
Statement (CCP/EIS) for Monomoy and Nomans Land Island
national wildlife refuges. CCP/EAs for Nantucket, Massasoit and
Mashpee national wildlife refuges will undergo the CCP process at a
later date.
NEPA ensures that this document assess and evaluate a reasonable
range of alternatives and the predictable socioeconomic, physical,
cultural and biological impacts of implementing each alternative.
Appendices for each refuge provide additional references and
information used in compiling this draft CCP/EA.
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
refuges play, consistent with 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 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,
Great Meadows or Oxbow refuges that establishes priorities or
provides consistent direction for managing fish, wildlife, habitats, and
public uses on these refuges. This plan will help to resolve issues
related to control of nuisance and invasive species, public uses in
1-2 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex
Chapter 1 Introduction
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
national wildlife refuges 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.
Decision to be Made
Based on the assessment described in this draft document, our
Regional Director will select a preferred alternative to fully develop
into CCPs for the refuges. The Regional Director’s selected
alternative could be the Proposed Action, the Current Management
Alternative, Alternative C or a combination of actions or alternatives
presented. Selection of the preferred alternative will be made based
on an evaluation of the Service’s mission, the purposes for which the
refuges were established, legal mandates, and responses to this
Draft CCP/EA. In accordance with NEPA, our Regional Director
must also determine whether the selected management alternative
will have a significant impact on the quality of the human
environment. If there is a significant impact, additional analysis will
be required in an EIS. If there is no impact, we will is issue a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Once the Regional
Director has signed the FONSI and Decision Memorandum and we
have completed stand-alone CCPs for each refuge, we will notify the
public in the Federal Register and implement the plan.
Planning Areas
The Complex consists of eight refuges located in Massachusetts
(Map 1-1). This plan addresses Assabet River, Great Meadows and
Oxbow refuges.
• Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge, in the towns of
Maynard, Sudbury, Stow, and Hudson;
• Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (Concord and
Sudbury Units) in the towns of Concord, Sudbury, Bedford,
Billerica, Carlisle, Wayland, Framingham and Lincoln;
• Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge, in the towns of Shirley,
Harvard, Ayer and Lancaster.
We will discuss Massasoit, Mashpee, Monomoy, Nantucket, and
Nomans Land Island refuges in later NEPA documents.
Draft CCP/EA April 2003 1-3
Chapter 1
1-4 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex
Chapter 1 Introduction
Oxbow Refuge entrance sign.
USFWS Photo
Establishment and History of the Eastern Massachusetts Refuges
National Wildlife Refuge System lands are acquired under a variety
of legislative and administrative authorities. Refuges can be
established by Congress through special legislation, by the
President through Executive Orders, or administratively by the
Secretary of Interior who is authorized by Congress through a
number of different legislation including: Migratory Bird
Conservation Act of 1929, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of
1934, Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962,
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966,
Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation
Purposes Act of 1972, Endangered Species Act of 1973, Emergency
Wetland Resources Act of 1986, and the North American and the
Wetland Conservation Act of 1989. Lands are also acquired through
military excess, bequests and donations.
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge
Formerly known as the Sudbury Training Annex, Assabet River
Refuge 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 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
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 refuge was
not opened to general public use; however, hunting, fishing, and
interpretive opportunities remain a high priority for local
community members.
Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge
Established in 1944, the Concord impoundments became the first
tract of land in the Great Meadows Refuge. The refuge’s 3,629 acres
extend into eight towns. The refuge was created under the
Migratory Bird Conservation Act “for use as an inviolate
sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory
birds.”
The refuge is divided into two units: the Concord Unit (1,492 acres)
and the Sudbury Unit (2,137 acres). The Concord and Sudbury
units provide habitat for a variety of species. For example, the
Concord impoundments are utilized by many migrating waterfowl,
shorebirds, wading and marsh birds. The upland areas support
woodcock, songbirds, and many raptors. The marsh habitats are
utilized by amphibians and reptiles.
Great Meadows Refuge faces a growing problem with invasive
species, particularly purple loosestrife, water chestnut and common
reed. The refuge has implemented control methods for water
Draft CCP/EA April 2003 1-5
Chapter 1
Oxbow Refuge. USFWS Photo
chestnut and purple loosestrife in an effort to reestablish a rich
diversity of native vegetation.
The visitor center, located at the Complex headquarters in
Sudbury, offers interpretive exhibits and educational and
interpretive programing for visitors. A walking trail offers
visitors wildlife observation and photography opportunities.
Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge
Oxbow Refuge was also formerly part of the Fort Devens base.
The two original transfers from the Army in 1973 totalled 711
acres. All acres within the boundary are acquired. The refuge
was established for its “particular value in carrying out the
national migratory bird management program under an “Act
Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife
Conservation Purposes Act of May 1948.” In 1999, 836 additional
acres along the Nashua River were transferred to the Service
after the Fort Devens base closed. Recent acquisitions complete
the boundary at 1,667 acres.
Oxbow Refuge protects forested upland, marsh and grassland
habitats. The upland habitat is important for migratory song
birds, turkey, white-tailed deer and small game mammals.
Marshes and ponds along the Nashua River are important habitat
for waterfowl and beaver.
A number of recreational activities occur at Oxbow Refuge.
Visitors canoe, view wildlife, cross-country ski, fish and in some
areas, hunt.
Other Areas Evaluated
Land protection in eastern Massachusetts is a high priority for
many communities. As part of the CCP process, we evaluated
lands which may be appropriate for Service management or
ownership to support refuge purposes. In addition to areas
immediately adjacent to the current refuge lands, we evaluated
focus areas containing significant and important habitats within
eastern Massachusetts. The Service worked intensively with
communities, conservation organizations and state agencies to
identify significant habitats in eastern Massachusetts for possible
protection. In the future, We may look to expand refuge
boundaries beyond what is currently protected to include these
areas.
1-6 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex
Chapter 1 Introduction
Draft CCP/EA April 2003 1-7
Chapter 1
1-8 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex
Chapter 1 Introduction
Draft CCP/EA April 2003 1-9
Chapter 1
1-10 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex
Chapter 1 Introduction
Great Point Lighthouse. Nantucket
National Wildlife Refuge. USFWS
Photo
Other Refuges of the Complex
As described earlier, Assabet River, Great Meadows and Oxbow
refuges are managed as part of a complex of eight national wildlife
refuges. In an effort to provide a better idea of how the vision and
goals fit in the context of the Complex, we provide a brief overview
of the other refuges in the Complex below.
Established in 1983, Massasoit Refuge is located in the Town of
Plymouth, MA. The refuge was established under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 with the purpose of protecting and conserving
land for the endangered Northern red-bellied cooter. The refuge
consists of 184 acres of land cooperatively managed with the State of
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife.
Mashpee Refuge is located in the towns of Mashpee and Falmouth.
The refuge was established in 1995 and is an example of cooperative
management between the Service and other agencies, Tribes, and
organizations. The overall approved refuge boundary encompasses
5,871 acres of salt marsh, pine barrens, cranberry bogs, Atlantic
white cedar swamps, freshwater marshes and a vernal pool, though
the refuge protects only 275 acres in fee and easement.
Established in 1944, Monomoy Refuge was established “for use as
an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for
migratory birds.” It is the only refuge in the Complex with
Wilderness designation. Most of the refuge above mean low water is
designated as Wilderness, part of the National Wilderness
Preservation System.
Nantucket Refuge includes 24 acres located in the town of
Nantucket at the tip of Great Point. The refuge was established for
its “particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird
management program.” The Trustees of Reservations (TTOR),
who owns and manages the adjacent wildlife sanctuary of Coskata-
Coatue, currently manages the refuge for the Service under a
Memorandum of Understanding.
Since 1975, the Service has been managing Nomans Land Island
Refuge as an overlay National Wildlife Refuge under a Joint
Management Agreement between the Department of the Interior
and Department of the Navy. In 1998, the Navy transferred the 628
acre island to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The establishment
purpose for the refuge is “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for
any other management purpose, for migratory birds” under the
Migratory Bird Conservation Act.
Draft CCP/EA April 2003 1-11
Chapter 1
Our vision and goals are for all the refuges in the Complex.
Vision Statement for the Complex
The Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex will
contribute to the mission of the National Wildlife 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 community– supported 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.
Goals for the Complex
The following goals of the Complex support the mission of the
Refuge System and the Gulf of Maine Ecosystem Priorities (see
section Regional Plans). These goals provide a general management
direction for the refuges and will aid in choosing the preferred
alternative for management in the final CCP.
1. Recover threatened
and endangered species of the
Complex.
2. Protect and enhance habitats
that support self-sustaining
populations of Federal trust
species and wildlife diversity.
3. Build a public that
understands, appreciates, and
supports refuge goals for
wildlife.
4. Adequately protect cultural
resources that occur in the
complex.
5. Maintain a well-trained,
diverse staff working
productively toward a shared
refuge vision.
1-12 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex
Chapter 1 Introduction
Our mission is:
The National Wildlife Refuge System.
“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.”
Using these goals, we will develop a selected management approach
in the final CCP. Each goal is supported by objectives identified in
the following alternative section with specific strategies and tasks
needed to accomplish them. Objectives are intended to be
accomplished in a 10-to-15 year time frame. Actual implementation
will vary as a result of available funding.
National and Regional Mandates and Plans Guiding this
Project
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission
National Wildlife Refuges are managed by the Service under the
Department of 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.”
The Service has primary responsibility for migratory birds,
endangered species, anadromous and interjurisdictional fish, and
certain marine mammals. These are referred to as Federal trust
species. The Service also manages national fish hatcheries, enforces
Federal wildlife laws and international treaties on importing and
exporting wildlife, assists with State fish and wildlife programs, and
helps other countries develop wildlife conservation programs.
The National Wildlife Refuge System 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 538 national
wildlife refuges that provide important habitat for native plants and
many species of mammals, birds, fish, and threatened and
endangered species, encompassing over 93 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.
Draft CCP/EA April 2003 1-13
Chapter 1
Laws
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 uses 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 of 1997. It is also the key legislation
on managing public uses, and protecting the Refuge System from
incompatible or harmful human activities to insure that Americans
can enjoy Refuge System lands and waters.
Before activities or uses are allowed on a refuge, the uses must be
found to be a “compatible use.” A compatible use is a use, “...that
will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of
the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge.”
Wildlife-dependent recreational uses may be authorized on a refuge
when they are compatible and not inconsistent with public safety.
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 review into this
document (see Wilderness Review section).
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. This EA is written to fulfill compliance
with NEPA.
Regional Plans
In the past decade, partnerships with private landowners, tribes,
conservation organizations, corporations, and State and Federal
agencies have enabled the Service to manage from the perspective of
interrelated parts of an ecosystem. The focus is on the resources of
1-14 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex
Chapter 1 Introduction
major watersheds or ecosystems. Goals and priorities for
management, research and acquisition are guided by these
cooperative efforts.
Gulf of Maine - Ecosystem Priorities
There are 52 Ecosystem teams across the country. The Complex
falls in two of them, the Connecticut River/Long Island Sound
Ecosystem and the Gulf of Maine Ecosystem.
Assabet River, Oxbow, Great Meadows, and Massasoit refuges are
located in the Gulf of Maine Ecosystem (See Map 1-6). The
ecosystem priorities are:
• Recover populations and habitats of endangered and
threatened species.
• Protect, enhance, and restore habitats for migratory birds,
anadromous and catadromous fishes, and listed species of
concern in the Penobscot, Kennebec and Androscoggin River
basins.
• Protect, enhance, and restore coastal habitats for trust
resources of concern.
• Protect, enhance, and restore populations of migratory bird
species of special concern and their habitats.
• Rebuild American shad and river herring populations in
coastal rivers including the Merrimac River.
• Restore and rehabilitate Atlantic salmon populations in the
Merrimac River.
• 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. Oxbow, Assabet River, and Great Meadows
refuges are part of this focus area, with nationally significant
wetlands that support migrating waterfowl.
“Protect and manage priority
wetland habitats for migration,
wintering, and production of
waterfowl, with special consider-ation
to black ducks, and to
benefit other wildlife in the joint
venture area.” Goal for the
Atlantic Coast Joint Venture
Pickerel weed and tussock grass.
Photo by Marijke Holtrop
Draft CCP/EA April 2003 1-15
Chapter 1
1-16 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex
Chapter 1 Introduction
Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan: Southern New
England Physiographic Area
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
nonregulatory, and (2) focuses proactively on relatively common
species in areas where conservation actions can be most effective,
rather than local emphasis on rare and peripheral populations.
PIF has completed a bird conservation plan for the Southern New
England physiographic area, which includes all of eastern
Massachusetts. This plan identifies 72 bird species and 7 major
habitat types as priorities for conservation in this area. Of the
priority species for this physiographic area, at least 23 of them are
known to nest on refuges in the Complex, and an additional 34
species have been recorded as occurring on the refuges in the
Complex. 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 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 be help direct
landbird management on the refuges in the Complex.
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, two of them are within the Complex
acquisition boundary.
Wood duck. Photo by Bruce Flaig
Draft CCP/EA April 2003 1-17
Chapter 1
Our Irreplaceable Heritage - Protecting Biodiversity in
Massachusetts, 1998. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and
Wildlife, and the Massachusetts Chapter of the Nature
Conservancy.
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.
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process and
Public Involvement
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 to prepare an EIS in the January 1999 Federal Register to
officially kick-off our planning effort.
First, we collected information on our biological and habitat re-sources.
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 (See Chap-ter
V for the schedule of public meetings). 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 would 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 firmed up, 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
1-18 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex
Chapter 1 Introduction
reasonable range of alternatives was identified (see Chapter 2), we
evaluated the environmental consequences of each alternative (see
Chapter 4).
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 a Notice of Intent to prepare a CCP/EA for
five of the refuges in the Complex, Assabet River, Great Meadows,
Oxbow, Mashpee and Massasoit refuges. Additional issues and a
need for more information prompted us to later split Mashpee and
Massasoit refuges from this draft as well.
Following a public 45-day review of this draft CCP/EA, we will
compile and respond to public comments in an Appendix to a final
CCP/EA. The final CCP/EA will be submitted to the Regional
Director for concurrence and approval of the preferred alternative.
The Regional Director will then issue a decision in the Decision
Memorandum. The final product of the process is three stand-alone
CCPs, one for each refuge. We will publish a Notice of Availability
of the final documents in the Federal Register. Implementation of
the decision can occur once the FONSI is signed. We will then
distribute final documents to interested parties.
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, Great
Meadows and Oxbow refuges 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. Figure 1-1 displays the steps
of the planning process and how it incorporates NEPA
requirements.
Wilderness Review
The planning team conducted a Wilderness Review, as required
under the 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 none of the three refuges studied in this document
fulfill the eligibility requirements for a Wilderness Study Area as
defined by the Wilderness Act. All three refuges and their
surrounding areas have been altered in some way by man, with the
imprint of man’s work generally noticeable. None of the areas
inventoried have 5,000 contiguous acres, or are of sufficient size as
to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired
condition. Furthermore, permanent roads are contained within most
of the areas studied (See Maps 1-2 -1-5). Therefore, suitability of
the lands for wilderness designation is not analyzed further in this
document.
Draft CCP/EA April 2003 1-19
Chapter 1
Figure 1-1. The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process and NEPA Compliance
1-20 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex
Chapter 1 Introduction
Step-Down Management Plans
The Refuge Manual (Part 4, Chapter 3) lists more than 25 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.
We consider the following plans up-to-date. We are not proposing
revision or drafting these in this CCP.
• Fire Management Plan 2003
• Spill Prevention and Counter Measure Plan (new draft 2003,
should be final soon)
• Water Management Plan 2002
• Integrated Pest Management and Housekeeping Plan 2002
These plans exist, but we consider them out of date and needing
revision:
• Animal Control Plan
• Energy Contingency Plan
• Fishing Plan
• Fur Management Plan
• Immediate Response Action Plan-Maintenance Building
• Law Enforcement Management Plan
• Migratory Bird Disease Contingency Plan
• Public Use Plan
• Safety Management Plan
• Sign Plan
• Wildlife Inventory Management Plan
These step-down plans need to be initiated on all three refuges.
Additional management plans may be required as future Service
policy dictates.
• Wildlife Inventory Plan
• Habitat Management Plan
• Integrated Pest Management Plan
• Visitor Services Plan
• Refuge Hunt Plan
• Refuge Fishing Plan
• Cultural Resources Management Plan
• Pesticide Use Plan
Draft CCP/EA April 2003 1-21
Chapter 1
Issues Identified Through Public Scoping
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 also
identified by the Service. 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. For instance,
water quality is a concern that was raised by many people.
Proposed refuge management actions will work to improve water
quality on the refuge, yet many sources of water pollution originate
beyond refuge boundaries and are outside refuge staff ability to
affect or change. For this reason, general water quality off-refuge is
not analyzed in detail but is listed as a concern raised by the public.
We have considered all issues throughout our planning process, and
have developed alternative plans that attempt to address the
significant issues in different ways where possible.
Habitat and wildlife management.
Many people were interested in our management programs. The
Complex has begun additional surveys and inventories to collect
baseline information on the all refuges in the Complex. Our efforts
at these refuges will help us develop a Habitat Management Plan
which will provide a detailed description of our goals and objectives
for habitat management on these refuges.
There is a lot of interest in how we manage the freshwater
impoundments at Concord, Blanding’s turtles at Oxbow and
migratory birds and upland habitats on Assabet River, Oxbow and
Great Meadows. Additionally, interest was expressed in creating an
additional wildlife passage under Route 2 at Oxbow Refuge.
The public is concerned about what will happen with fencing that
currently surrounds Assabet River 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 water chestnut, common reed, and
purple loosestrife are a concern at Assabet River, Great Meadows
and Oxbow refuges. These species limit the productivity of wildlife
habitat. Management to control invasive species was mentioned as a
watershed-wide priority to some conservation associations.
The refuges continue their efforts to control known invasives on the
refuge. At Great Meadows Refuge, we are experimenting with
different control techniques.
Water chestnut harvesting. In the
past, Great Meadows Refuge has
harvested water chestnut to help
control the spread of this invasive
species. USFWS Photo
1-22 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex
Chapter 1 Introduction
Hunting
Requests were made at public meetings and through written
comments both to allow and not to allow deer hunting on the refuges.
We received a petition requesting consideration of bow hunting at
Assabet River Refuge. Currently, Oxbow Refuge is the only refuge
in the Complex where hunting is allowed. Poaching is a problem on
the Sudbury Unit of Great Meadows Refuge. There have been
suggestions to provide lawful hunting opportunities on the refuge to
control deer populations and deter poaching. Some would like to see
waterfowl hunting on the Concord Unit of the Great Meadows
Refuge. Cooperation with local towns and hunting groups was a
suggestion. Others oppose hunting of any kind on the refuge. Again,
there were suggestions both for and against hunting.
Management of public use and access.
The Eastern Massachusetts Refuge Complex Headquarters and
interpretive and environmental education center is located in
Sudbury, MA. Residents near Oxbow Refuge are anxious to have a
visitor center/ education center closer to their refuge. Many people
requested a visitor center at Fort Devens in an effort not to build on
the refuge itself. Also, the need for environmental educational
programs in local schools as well as additional interpretive
opportunities where the public can learn about the refuges was also
raised.
Both Great Meadows and Oxbow
refuges have high visitation
numbers. We estimate use at
Great Meadows Refuge to be
around 500,000 visitors per year,
with the majority of visitors at
the Concord impoundments.
Oxbow visitation is around
70,000 per year. These numbers
are estimates. We do not have a
consistent process for collecting
and documenting visitation at all
sites.
Several non-wildlife dependent
recreational activities occur on
the all three refuges. Trespass
is occurring at Assabet River
Refuge. Many visitors use trails
at Oxbow and Great Meadows
refuges for dog walking, jogging
and bike riding.
Public Use. Many identified the need for additional environmental
education opportunities on all three refuges. USFWS Photo
Draft CCP/EA April 2003 1-23
Chapter 1
Resource protection and visitor safety
Many people voiced concern for additional protection for cultural
and historical resources, particularly at Assabet and Oxbow. Other
concerns included the need to control poaching, trespassing and
other refuge regulations violations. We need to address use of
structures, especially at Assabet River Refuge, where a number of
buildings need to be removed.
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.
Issues and Concerns Considered Outside the Scope of This
Analysis
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. 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. The clean up of
Assabet River Refuge is being monitored by the Service. Some
cleanup efforts are the responsibility of other agencies, such as
contaminants cleanup from Otis/Edwards Air Force Base on the
Cape. Nutrient loading in Waquoit Bay, in Mashpee, is a larger area
problem created primarily from sewage management that is beyond
the ability of Service employees to solve. Refuge staff or Service
specialists are not often involved in such regional efforts.
Before the Army transferred the property to the Service, site
contamination surveys were completed. The surveyed areas of the
Fort Devens property that contained dangerous levels of arsenic
were found and cleaned. However, many people are still concerned
with possible contamination in bunkers and other sites on the refuge
that have not been surveyed and/or cleaned. Both refuge and Army
personnel are examining any possible impacts on the health of the
visiting public. The Army has responsibility for the clean-up should
additional measures be warranted.
1-24 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex
Chapter 1 Introduction
Potential impacts to the local economy and quality of life due to Army
base closures.
Portions of two refuges, Oxbow and Assabet River, are lands
formerly under Army administration. In towns surrounding these
two refuges, people questioned if the surrounding towns would be
better off having a refuge as a neighbor or the continued presence of
the Army with its population of Fort Devens. There was concern
over the potential impact the Army’s departure will have on the local
community, including the economic effect on stores, restaurants, and
other community services. The decision to close Fort Devens has
already been made. As a redevelopment site, the population of the
Army base is slowly, but not completely, being replaced by
employees of the offices and businesses being established in the
Devens facilities.
Those lands now administered by the Service will generate revenue
sharing payments for the towns in which refuge land is located (see
Chapter 2: Introduction, Refuge Revenue Sharing). Under Army
administration, the lands comprising Assabet River Refuge were
closed to any public access. As a national wildlife refuge, the area
may be opened up in part to public access, as safety permits and if
compatible with wildlife needs.
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.
There is a proposal to expand use of Hanscom Air Field.
MassPort operates Hanscom Air Field, sited in Bedford, Concord,
Lincoln, and Lexington. The proposal is to use the airstrip as an
auxiliary airport for the Boston Airport, as well as increasing the
number of flights per day. The Concord impoundments of Great
Meadows Refuge lie directly west of Hanscom’s east-west runway.
The MassPort plans for expansion of Hanscom may affect wildlife
conditions and visitor experience on Great Meadows Refuge. At issue
are noise, overflights above a national wildlife refuge, fuel dumping
that occurs on landing, water quality, and the concentration of storm
water runoff from runways and impervious surfaces. Although the
refuge isn’t analyzing in detail various alternatives for resolving
these issues with Hanscom Field, we support a restriction on
volume of air travel to and from Hanscom.
Draft CCP/EA April 2003 1-25
Chapter 1
Chemical control of mosquitoes on National Wildlife Refuges nationwide
is being evaluated by the Service.
The Service is in the process of developing an EIS for mosquito
control on refuges. In 2000, 2001, and 2002 mosquito spraying did
not take place on any refuges in the Complex. Great Meadows
Refuge is no longer involved in the East Middlesex Mosquito
Control Project . Any future Service policy will be applied to
Assabet River, Great Meadows and Oxbow refuges.
Jet Skis on the Concord River
Many residents and the National Park Service spoke against jet skis
on the Concord River, particularly with its Wild and Scenic River
status. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Management prohibits the operation of watercraft “in excess of five
miles per hour” when the craft is within 150 feet of any channel,
tunnel, pier, mooring, wharf, or other floating structure or
swimming beach.” (MA State Forests and Parks regulation 304
CMR 12.34). The width of the rivers that flow through the refuges
are rarely, if ever, in excess of 150 feet. It is therefore illegal to
operate water craft, including jet skis, under State regulations, over
five miles per hour within refuge boundaries. Jet skis interfere with
wildlife-dependent recreation such as fishing, hunting, and wildlife
observation from canoes. Fishing recreationists have frequently
complained of jet ski disturbance during their use of the refuge.
Some have suggested that this problem could be countered with
better patrolling by the refuge.
Chapter 2
Eastern bluebird. Photo by Bruce Flaig
Alternatives
• Formulating Alternatives
• Features Common to All Alternatives
• Features Common to All Action Alternatives (B & C)
• Alternatives or Actions Considered, but Eliminated From
Further Evaluation
• Part 1: Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge
• Alternative A: Current Management
• Alternative B: Proposed Action
• Alternative C
• Alternative Matrix
• Part 2: Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge
• Alternative A: Current Management
• Alternative B: Proposed Action
• Alternative C
• Alternative Matrix
• Part 3: Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge
• Alternative A: Current Management
• Alternative B: Proposed Action
• Alternative C
• Alternative Matrix
Draft CCP/EA April 2003 2-1
Introduction Chapter 2
Formulating Alternatives
This chapter describes and fully evaluates three alternatives
spanning a reasonable range of actions for managing Assabet River,
Great Meadows and Oxbow refuges and addressing the key issues
identified in Chapter 1.
One of our primary objectives is to clearly define the differences
among the alternatives. At the end of each part of this chapter, you
will find a matrix that compares and contrasts the alternatives by
their specific management actions and strategies in tabular format
(Tables 2-4, 2-6 and 2-8). We organized the matrix to associate
actions and strategies with their function in addressing key issues.
Alternatives are packages of complementary management strategies
and specific actions for achieving the missions of the Refuge System
and the Service, the vision and goals of the Complex, and the
purpose for establishing each refuge. Primarily, they propose
different ways of responding to key issues, and secondarily,
different ways of dealing with the other issues, management
concerns, and opportunities identified during the planning process.
While those elements underlie every alternative, each is
distinguished by its intensity and timing in committing the resources
necessary to achieve desired future conditions.
Features Common to All Alternatives for All Refuges
This chapter describes current management and two alternatives for
each issue identified in Chapter 1. We describe refuge specific
actions in Parts 1, 2 and 3 of this chapter. In order to be concise and
eliminate repetition, we have described actions that are common to
all alternatives, including the Current Management Alternative, for
all refuges in this beginning section. These issues are not
reevaluated in later sections of the document.
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 FMP, which includes Great Meadows, Assabet River,
and Oxbow refuges, 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 of 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.
It is written to comply with a service-wide requirement that refuges
with burnable vegetation develop a FMP (620 DM 1).
2-2 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex
Chapter 2 Alternatives
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 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.
If you would like a copy of the FMP, or the EA, please contact the
Refuge Headquarters in Sudbury.
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 insure 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, Great
Meadows and Oxbow, 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,
in the interim, on acquiring inholdings within already approved
boundaries, which is our proposal under all alternatives for these
three refuges.
Draft CCP/EA April 2003 2-3
Introduction Chapter 2
In the future, we may look at wetland, upland and river systems
near Assabet River, Oxbow and Great Meadows refuges 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 are important for the health of fish and wildlife on the
refuge. We will continue to protect and acquire lands within the
present acquisition boundary at Great Meadows. All lands within
the Assabet River and Oxbow refuge acquisition boundaries are
already acquired. See Maps 1-3, 1-4 and 1-5 for the acquisition
boundaries and refuge owned lands.
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 cost-effective method of protection. In general,
conservation easements must preclude destruction or degradation of
habitat, and allow refuge staff to 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. Nevertheless, donations of easements or voluntary
deed restrictions prohibiting habitat destruction would 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.
Property Taxes, Refuge Revenue Sharing, Relocation, and Landowner
Rights
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.
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
Cattails at Assabet River Refuge.
Photo by Marijke Holtrop
2-4 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex
Chapter 2 Alternatives
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.
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, roads, utilities, police and fire protection, etc.
The owner of land adjacent to refuge land, or with acquisition
boundary, retains any and all the rights, privileges, and
responsibilities of private land ownership. The refuge controls uses
only on the properties it owns.
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.
Table 2-1. Revenue Sharing Payments for Towns Associated with Assabet River,
Great Meadows and Oxbow National Wildlife Refuges
Assabet River Hudson Maynard Stow Sudbury
2001 $863 $15,395 $21,286 $10,179
2000 $846 $15,083 $20,854 $9,972
1999 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Great Meadows Bedford Billerica Carlisle Concord
2001 $10,181 $2,988 $10,839 $5,853
2000 $7,796 $1,743 $1,804 $11,283
1999 $8,887 $622 $2,056 $12,862
Lincoln Sudbury Wayland
2001 $174 $29,331 $26,806
2000 $134 $23,421 $18,196
1999 $153 $26,699 $20,641
Oxbow Ayer Harvard Lancaster Shirley
2001 $1,023 $17,328 $7 $833
2000 $1,002 $5,193 $7 $816
1999 $1,136 $5,939 N/A $927
Draft CCP/EA April 2003 2-5
Introduction Chapter 2
Protection and Management of Cultural Resources
The Service has a legal responsibility to consider the effects its
actions have on archeological and historic resources. Under all
alternatives, we will 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.
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 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.
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.
Those issued a MOU do not make a profit from the event/program/
study (e.g., a group providing educational tours to the public for
minimal or no fee, or a researcher conducting a multi-year project
on the refuges.), while those obtaining a MOA charge a fee to all
participants above and beyond the cost of the program. 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.
2-6 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex
Chapter 2 Alternatives
Volunteer Opportunities and Educational Programs
As the Assabet River, Great Meadows and Oxbow refuges continue
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 interpretative programs, providing information to
visitors, conducting observations and surveys of wildlife species,
botanical surveys, fabrication of wood duck and bluebird boxes,
litter pick-up, 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. In 2002, we again 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.
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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; the National Wildlife 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.
Draft CCP/EA April 2003 2-7
Introduction Chapter 2
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.
Monitoring and Adaptive Management
The Final CCP will cover a 15-year period. Periodic review of the
CCP will be 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
would be implemented, focusing on issues involving public use
activities, and wildlife habitat and population management.
Monitoring of public use programs would involve the continued
collection and compilation of visitation figures and activity levels. In
addition, research and monitoring programs would 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
were occurring.
Collection of baseline data on wildlife populations and habitats will be
implemented. This data would update often limited existing records
of wildlife species using the refuge, their habitat requirements, and
seasonal use patterns. This data would also be used in the evaluation
of the effects of public use and habitat management programs on
wildlife populations.
Refuge habitat management programs would be monitored for
positive and negative impacts on wildlife habitat and populations and
the ecological integrity of the ecosystem. The monitoring will be of
assistance in determining if these management activities are helping
to meet refuge goals and objectives. Information resulting from
monitoring would 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”.
2-8 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex
Chapter 2 Alternatives
Features Common to All Action Alternatives (B and C) for All
Refuges
These are actions common to all action alternatives (B and C). While
some of these actions occur under current refuge management, we
have described additional steps or actions we would take under
Alternative B or C in this section.
The Compatibility Determination
Federal law and Service policy provide the direction and planning
framework to protect the System from incompatible or harmful
human activities, and to insure that Americans can enjoy Refuge
System lands and waters. The National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57), 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). Six priority, wildlife-dependent uses
that are to be considered at each refuge are defined in the Act and
Regulation. These are: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
photography, environmental education and interpretation. These
priority, wildlife-dependent uses may be authorized on a refuge
when they are compatible (as defined above), and not inconsistent
with public safety. Not all uses that are determined compatible may
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).
The Complex completed compatibility determinations for these six
priority public uses for Assabet River, Great Meadows, and Oxbow
Refuges under existing Service regulations and policy, the Act and
the recent revisions of our Compatibility Regulations (Appendix B).
Draft CCP/EA April 2003 2-9
Introduction Chapter 2
Each (with some restrictions) was found to be compatible with both
the mission of the System and the purposes for which the refuges
were established. We are issuing these compatibility
determinations, for the 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, and cross-country
skiing. All of these means of locomotion are subject to
compatibility determinations for these activities as part of this CCP.
The compatible uses for Assabet River, Great Meadows, and Oxbow
refuges are summarized in Table 2-1.
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
incompatible with the purpose for which the refuges were
established (additional information regarding these uses is provided
in this chapter under section Alternatives or Actions Considered,
but Eliminated from Further Consideration).
Wildlife and Habitat Management
Assabet River, Great Meadows and Oxbow refuges are currently
managing their 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, as described
in Alternative A, to better understand the role these refuges for
these species and under Alternative B we propose 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 a Habitat Management Plan for each refuge which
outlines the direction and details of refuge management. The
Habitat Management Plan 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).
2-10 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex
Chapter 2 Alternatives
Table 2-2. Summary of Compatible Uses on Assabet River, Oxbow, and Great Meadows National
Wildlife Refuges.
Wildlife Dependent
Recreational Activities
and Other Compatible
Uses
Assabet River National
Wildlife Refuge
Great Meadows
National Wildlife
Refuge
Oxbow National Wildlife
Refuge
Existing
Activity
Allowed
Under Alt.
B
Existing
Activity
Allowed
Under Alt.
B
Existing
Activity
Allowed
Under Alt.
B
Wildlife Observation No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Wildlife Photography No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Environmental
Education
No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Environmental
Interpretation
No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Hunting- Small game
and upland birds
No Yes* No No Yes Yes*
Hunting - woodcock and
waterfowl
No Only after
surveys
No Yes* woodcock
only
Yes*
(waterfowl
on river
only)
Hunting-deer No Yes* No Yes*
(archery
only)
No Yes*
Fishing-pond No Yes* No No N/A N/A
Fishing -river N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes (from
boat &
bank)
Yes
Natural history tours Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cultural history tours Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowshoeing and cross
country skiing (to
facilitate wildlife
dependent uses)
No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
canoeing (to facilitate
wildlife dependent uses)
No Yes Yes (on the
river only)
Yes (on the
river only)
Yes Yes
*Please refer to the maps for Alternative B for specific locations where these activities are proposed.
Draft CCP/EA April 2003 2-11
Introduction Chapter 2
New Recreational Fees
Under Alternatives B and C, the Complex would charge an entrance
fee at Assabet River and Oxbow refuges and at the Concord
impoundments at Great Meadows Refuge, and a user fee for
hunting on the Complex. Our fee program would be established
under the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program, a program
which Congress initiated in 1997 to encourage Department of
Interior agencies who 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). The Program is
authorized through 2004 at which time Congress will evaluate its
success and either make it a permanent part of the Recreation Fee
Program on our National lands or revise the Program. The
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. Great
Meadows Refuge 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 would 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. For more information on the Recreation Fee Demonstration
Program visit http://www.ios.doi.gov/nrl/Recfees/RECFEE.HTM.
The following fee program would be initiated at Great Meadows and
Oxbow refuges and at Assabet River Refuge after it is opened.
• A one day access fee will be charged by car or per group if
arriving via foot or bicycle. Our proposed fee would be $4
per day.
• An annual pass for three refuges in the Complex (Assabet
River, Great Meadows and Oxbow) would be available for
$20.
• All entrance fees will be collected by refuge staff stationed
on site or at self-service fee collection stations.
• An annual fee of $10 for small game and upland game bird
hunting, $15 for deer hunting or a combined $20 fee for all
hunting seasons open on the refuge would be charged. One
permit would be valid for any of the refuges in the
Complex that are open to hunting. Hunting fees will be paid
when the permit is issued. A hunter, with a valid hunt
permit, would not have to pay an entrance fee.
We may adjust fees over the 15 year period addressed in this plan to
reflect changes in administrative costs or management goals.
Refuge staff assist students with
environmental education project.
USFWS Photo
2-12 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex
Chapter 2 Alternatives
Hunting and Fishing
The following discussion is applicable to all alternatives proposing
hunting. For the description of the proposed hunting areas, see
Parts 1, 2, and 3 of this chapter.
A Hunt Plan will be completed following the final NEPA decision
and approval of this CCP. NEPA compliance will be met with this
document, however any necessary, refuge-specific regulations or
restrictions will be described in the Hunting or Fishing Plan,
disseminated through refuge hunting brochures, news releases, and
on-refuge informational signing and published in the Federal
Register for additional comment and review.
The refuge weighs a number of factors in opening an area to hunting
or fishing, including visitor safety considerations. Under the
Proposed Action and Alternative C, 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 would occur
if hunting or fishing becomes inconsistent with other higher priority
refuge programs or endangers refuge resources or public safety.
Annual permits would be required for hunting on the refuge. The
permits will facilitate managing numbers of hunters and harvest.
Fees charged for these permits would offset costs associated with
managing hunting programs. For additional information on the fee
program, see previous section on New Recreational Fees.
Providing hunting and fishing opportunities addresses the mandates
of Executive Order 12996 and the Refuge System Improvement Act
of 1997 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 related 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 permit hunting and fishing on the refuge
should 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.
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 State
Conservation 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
Draft CCP/EA April 2003 2-13
Introduction Chapter 2
seasons will emphasize refuge specific regulations, safety
considerations and the protection of wildlife species found on
the refuge.
Examples of refuge regulations that would apply to hunting
include: access to closed areas of the refuge will be strictly
enforced; permanent blinds are not permitted on the refuge;
(50 CFR, 27.92) all hunting materials, deer 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. (50
CFR 32.2 (i)); no discharge of a projectile from any bow
within 150 feet of any public road or 500 feet of any building;
“the unauthorized distribution of bait and the hunting over
bait is prohibited on wildlife refuge areas” (50 CFR, 32.2
(h)); the use or possession of toxic shot is prohibited except
when hunting deer or turkey; hunters are permitted on the
refuge from one half hour before legal sunrise to one half
hour after legal sunset; no night hunting will be allowed on
the refuge; all firearms must be unloaded outside of legal
State hunting hours; the use of all terrain vehicles (ATV’s) on
refuge land is prohibited; training of dogs on the refuge is
not permitted (50 CFR, 27.91); no open fires are permitted in
accordance with 50 CFR 27.95; pre-hunt scouting of the
refuge is allowed, however carrying of loaded guns is not
permissible during pre-hunt scouts; hunters must wear in a
conspicuous manner on head, chest, and back, a minimum of
500 square inches of solid-colored hunter orange clothing or
material (per State regulations), except when hunting
waterfowl or turkey; the use or possession of alcoholic
beverages while hunting is prohibited; (50 CFR, 32.2 (j)); in
accordance with State regulations, all hunters are required
to hold valid Massachusetts State hunting licenses, permits,
and stamps (50 CFR, 32.2 (a)); hunters will be required to
obtain permits to hunt on the refuge; check stations will not
be established on the refuge at this time but reporting
requirements will be instituted. Refuge staff can provide
information about reporting forms when permits are issued.
For the range of alternatives on hunting on each refuge, see
the hunting sections in Parts 1, 2, and 3.
2-14 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex
Chapter 2 Alternatives
Alternatives or Actions Considered, but Eliminated From
Further Evaluation
Proposals for new, non-wildlife-dependent public uses
During our scoping process, we received requests for a number of
recreational opportunities that are not wildlife dependent. These
activities include horseback riding, biking, model airplane flying,
snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles, dog sled pulling, ice skating,
picnicking, jogging and dog walking. Biking and ice skating were
previously allowed, but were eliminated in the late 1990’s. Service
policy, as well as the Refuge Improvement Act, states that
incompatible or non-wildlife dependent recreation will be eliminated
as expeditiously as practical, with few exceptions. Our Refuge
Manual specifically states that, with few exceptions, these uses will
be de-emphasized and gradually phased out. Following public
review and comment, the Service published our Final Compatibility
Policy in Federal Register Volume 65. No. 202, pp 62484-62496 (603
FWM2) on October 18, 2002. This final rule provides additional
detail on our process for determining which activities are compatible
with a refuge’s establishment purpose and management goals. This
draft does not evaluate new proposals for these uses because their
establishment would contradict Service policy, the purposes for
which the refuges were established (see previous section, The
Compatibility Determination).
Non-wildlife dependent recreational uses currently allowed at Great
Meadows and Oxbow refuges, such as dog walking, jogging and
picnicking, are addressed in Parts 2 and 3 of this chapter. Assabet
River Refuge, which is currently closed, is not evaluating opening
the refuge to non-wildlife dependent public uses for reasons stated
above.
Deer Management Options
Reproductive Intervention (birth control)
Reproductive intervention or birth control is the general category
for a number of fertility control methods available, each with varying
rates of success. Immunocontraception with porcine zona pellucida
(PZP) vaccine injection, is probably the best known and most widely
applied. Steroid implantation has been available since the 1970s.
Remote prostaglandin injection (Denicola 1997), oral vaccination with
a live vector (Miller et al. 1999a), and vaccines are more recent and
lack long-term evaluation of effectiveness. Sterilization is a
permanent option, although not widely applicable.
Effectiveness and efficiency of any of the above forms of
reproductive intervention is affected by a number of factors
including; method of application or delivery, need or ability to
capture the animal, the number of treatments needed to ensure
effectiveness, size of the population, status of the population
(confined or free ranging), and longevity of treatment.
Draft CCP/EA April 2003 2-15
Introduction Chapter 2
Immunocontraception
Immunocontraception (PZP injection) is most effective at preventing
pregnancy when hand injected and combined with subsequent
boosts. The PZP vaccination produces reversible infertility lasting
1-4 years (Miller et al. 1999b), however, it requires two injections,
four weeks apart, to be effective for at least two years (McShea et
al.1997). Effectiveness at reducing population number and growth
rate is greatly reduced when dealing with large and open populations
due to the need to treat a large percentage of the females over a
large area. For a large population, contraception rates of less than
50% of does will curb growth in 30 years, but will not reduce the
size. Even rates of greater than 50% require at least a 5-10 year
planning horizon to see significant population declines (Seagle and
Close1996). Therefore, the cost, effort, expertise, manpower, and
handling time will continue for years before achieving any results.
Another obstacle to PZP immunocontraception is the adjuvant used
for the initial injection (an adjuvant is a microbial aid necessary for
boosting the vaccine once inside the animal’s bloodstream).
Complete Froine’s, the most commonly used, contains heat-killed
tuberculin cells, which causes subjects to test false positive for TB.
The FDA, which has jurisdiction over its commercial use, currently
does not permit use of this adjuvant on other than tightly controlled
or isolated populations and in combination with ear-tagging (in order
to prevent the public from consuming escaped deer). There are two
other adjuvants undergoing field tests but both are not yet effective
as boosters and still pending FDA approval (Rick Naugle, Humane
Society of the U.S., August 28, 2000, personal communication).
Steroidal implants
Subcutaneous steroidal implants have been used during the past 25
years with varying rates of effectiveness in reducing deer
pregnancy (and now remote delivery of this treatment is possible)
but the long-term effectiveness is uncertain. In addition, the same
factors that confound the PZP method at the population level apply
(Connecticut Department. of Environmental Protection, Wildlife
Bureau, 1988). Because of the uncertainty of long-term health
effects on deer and subsequent impacts on the food-web (including
human consumption of treated deer), the FDA will not approve
application on free-ranging deer at this time (DeNicola et al. 2000).
Oral Delivery of Contraceptives
Oral delivery of contraceptives has a number of concerns that make
this method ill-advised and impractical: it is not species-specific
(risks ingestion by non-target species), bait and supplies are wasted
on non-target species, deer sometimes reject treated bait, and it is
difficult to manage dosage control. Currently, the method is not
working at the field or captive level. Oral vaccinations through live-vector
delivery is a relatively new method, and is species-specific,
but is not long-acting and so must be delivered on a frequent and
regular basis (Alan Rutberg, Humane Society of the U.S., 2000).
2-16 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex
Chapter 2 Alternatives
GNRH Vaccine
Another field method currently being tested is the GNRH vaccine.
This shuts down the whole reproductive hormone system of both
sexes and its effects are dramatic, even on behavior and antler
development. This is a new method and the affect on deer and their
behavior needs further evaluation prior to application in the field
(Ibid.).
Sterilization
Sterilizations must be done annually, the number of which must be
calculated based on the number of fertile females in the herd. Great
care must be taken to reduce the number of sterilizations in time to
prevent a population crash and bottleneck (Boone and Wiegert 1994).
Again, this option is not effective for open populations unless
performed at a landscape level.
No matter which birth control method is used, more than 50% of the
females will need to remain infertile to effect a reduction in
population size (Hobbs et al. 2000, Seagle and Close 1996). All of the
above described techniques are compromised at the individual and
population levels due to the openness of the population. Because
these operations entail multiple captures, considerable handling
time, facilities for holding captured animals or conducting surgery,
risk to personnel and animals, trauma losses, and constant or
recurring expense means that at this stage of development they are
not viable methods in the field. This situation may change in a few
years as applications of these techniques are improved upon.
Live Trapping and Relocation
The live trapping and relocation approach entails transporting
captured animals to a new location outside the impacted area.
Disadvantages, however, far outweigh the advantages. Capture and
handling of deer involves risk to deer and handlers. Deer are
susceptible to capture myopathy, a form of muscle dysfunction that
is stress-related and can result in delayed mortality. Trauma losses
can amount to about 4% of capture and transfer efforts (Wildlife
Information Publication, Virginia Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries, 1999). The mortality potential attendant to handling is
amplified by placing individuals in unfamiliar surroundings (Cypher
and Cypher 1988).
Finding suitable release sites is increasingly more difficult as most
locations cannot accommodate more deer and are experiencing their
own population management problems. A further complication to
this alternative is the recent increase in Lyme-Disease associated
with the Northern Virginia deer population. Northern Virginia deer
are infested with a type of Lyme Disease-bearing ticks not found in
more distant populations (Dan Lovelace, Virginia Department of
Game and Inland Fisheries July 2000, personal communication).
Draft CCP/EA April 2003 2-17
Introduction Chapter 2
Habitat Management
This approach manipulates the existing habitat to induce behavioral
changes in deer and reduce human/deer conflicts. An example
would be to lower the biological carrying capacity by removing
forage species, and/or changing landscape elements such as water
features or forest edge. This alternative has an appeal for its
humane and nonlethal approach but is incompatible with one of the
primary management goals for the refuge, which is to promote and
maintain its grassland habitat and vegetation cover.
2-18 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex
Chapter 2 Alternative A
Part 1: Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge
Alternative A - Current Management
Under the Current Management Alternative, there would be very
little or no change in our current anticipated baseline management
programs at Assabet River Refuge. The Current Managment
Alternative presents the current range of public recreation
opportunities, which are severely restricted due to a number of
physical safety hazards(see Chapter 3: Part 1 Physical Safety
Hazards). The refuge would continue operations and maintenance
activities within its current staffing and funding levels and the
refuge boundary would remain at 2,230 acres.
Habitat and Wildlife Populations
We would continue current population baseline surveys (woodcock,
marsh birds, breeding birds, whip-poor-will, hawk and anuran
surveys) as long as funding for these activities is available through
the Region’s Biological program. See Table 2-3 for a complete list
and description of current wildlife surveys at Assabet River Refuge.
Table 2-3. Wildlife Surveys at Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge
Survey Purpose Points Observation Other Information
Landbird
Breeding
Survey
• occurrence of species
• occurrence within
habitats
• relative abundance
• changes in populations
51 points
refuge-wide
late May to mid-June
for 10 days
1 time/season
observation made in 5
minute intervals
began in 2000
habitat is classified at
each point
birds are identified by
sight and sound
Marsh Bird
Callback
Survey
• identify species presence
• monitor change in
abundance
• evaluate species
response to habitat
modifications
13 points in
ponds,
marshes and
emergent
vegetation
early May - mid July
3 times/season
began in 2000
birds are identified by
sight and sound
callback tapes are
used
American
Woodcock
Survey
• presence and abundance 22 points in
fields, clear
cuts,
meadows, etc.
mid-April to mid-May
1 time/season
observations made in 2
min intervals
began in 2000
Anuran
Call Counts
• occurrence, abundance,
and presence
at least 14
points in wet
meadows,
pools, and
along river
mid-March- mid-July
4 times/season
5 minute observation
period
began spring of 2000
Whip-poor-wil
• presence and abundance ~10 points 1 time/season began in 2002
Migrating
Hawks
• presence and abundance fixed location daily during spring
and fall migration
began in 2001
Draft CCP/EA April 2003 2-19
Part 1: Assabet River NWR Chapter 2
We would continue cooperating in current, partner-based,
monitoring programs for contaminants (USFWS Ecological
Services, EPA, MADEP) and water quality/flow levels (USGS,
MADEP, the Organization for the Assabet River, and the SUASCO
Watershed Association). We would also continue to seek any
information compiled by others related to habitat and wildlife
populations within the refuge and surrounding ecosystem.
We would protect nesting,
wintering and migration habitat
for the Federal trust resources,
in particular, migratory bird
species. Approximately 60-70
acres of presently existing old-field
grass/shrub habitat would
be maintained by mowing.
Maintenance of this grassland/
old-field habitat by use of fire
would be evaluated (Map 2-1).
The existing wetlands on the
Refuge (approximately 500
acres) would continue to be
protected. At some time prior to
its transfer to the Service,
beaver colonies and dams were
removed from the Taylor Brook
wetland complex down-gradient from Puffer Pond. The wetland
hydrology has been compromised with the removal of the beavers.
In addition, water flow through the wetland area up-gradient of
Puffer Pond has been restricted by existing culverts and long-term
sedimentation. Approximately 40-50 acres of the wetland complex’s
wildlife values have been degraded as the result of these actions. We
would work toward installing a water-control structure on the
Taylor Brook culvert at Patrol Road, and completing engineering
evaluations of the up-gradient wetland hydrology in order to restore
these portions of the wetland. Map 2-1 depicts the general areas
within the refuge where these activities would occur. The remaining
current mix of wetland and upland habitats would be protected, but
allowed to mature under natural successional processes.
We have evaluated the suitability of bunkers as bat habitat. Three
bunkers (318, 320, and 321) adjacent to the Taylor Brook wetland
have been evaluated. Bunker doors have been removed or secured in
the open position, and temperature and humidity data is measured.
Grating or fencing has been installed on bunker openings where
parameters are within the range suitable for bats, to prevent human
intrusion, and bunkers are monitored for bat use (presence/absence,
species and numbers). Under this alternative we would continue
these efforts.
We would identify other research needs to the Service’s Regional
Research Coordinator, and to other potential research partners
(e.g., USGS, Biological Resources Division and universities).
Assabet NWR. Puffer Pond. USFWS Photo
2-20 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex
Chapter 2 Alternative A
We would selectively remove existing fencing, roads and dirt trails
that are not needed for refuge management, visitor use or fire-control
purposes.
Invasive and Overabund