Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan January 2005

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Assabet River National
Wildlife Refuge
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
January 2005
This goose, designed by J.N. “Ding”
Darling, has become the symbol of
the National Wildlife Refuge
System
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principle federal agency for conserving,
protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife in their habitats for the continuing benefit of
the American people. The Service manages the 96-million acre National Wildlife Refuge
System comprised of 544 national wildlife refuges and thousands of waterfowl production
areas. It also operates 65 national fish hatcheries and 78 ecological services field stations.
The agency enforces federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores
significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers
the Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign governments with their conservation
efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program which distributes hundreds of millions
of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state wildlife agencies.
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long term guidance for management
decisions; set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes;
and, identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program
planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as
such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes.
The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and
maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
Cover Photo: Assabet River NWR © Marijke Holtrop
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background................................................................................ - 1 -
Refuge Overview...................................................................................................................... - 1 -
Purpose and Need for a CCP................................................................................................. - 1 -
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission ................................................................................ - 3 -
Refuge System Mission .......................................................................................................... - 4 -
Laws.......................................................................................................................................... - 4 -
National and Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding this CCP............... - 5 -
Gulf of Maine - Ecosystem Priorities................................................................................ - 5 -
North American Waterfowl Management Plan .............................................................. - 5 -
Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plans.................................................................... - 7 -
Regional Wetlands Concept Plan- Emergency Wetlands Resources Act................... - 9 -
Our Irreplaceable Heritage - Protecting Biodiversity in Massachusetts, 1998 ......... - 9 -
Existing Partnerships ............................................................................................................. - 9 -
Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process....................................... - 11 -
Wilderness Assessment ........................................................................................................ - 12 -
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities .................................................................................. - 13 -
Issues and Concerns Considered Outside the Scope of This Plan ................................. - 14 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions ..................................................................... - 17 -
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting ........................................................................................... - 17 -
Socio-economic Setting ......................................................................................................... - 17 -
Refuge Resources.................................................................................................................. - 18 -
Climate ............................................................................................................................... - 18 -
Topography ........................................................................................................................ - 18 -
Geology............................................................................................................................... - 19 -
Soils..................................................................................................................................... - 19 -
Hydrology.......................................................................................................................... - 20 -
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... - 21 -
Water Quality..................................................................................................................... - 22 -
Other Contaminant Issues ............................................................................................... - 26 -
Physical Safety Hazards................................................................................................... - 27 -
Biological Resources ............................................................................................................. - 28 -
Vegetation and Habitat Types......................................................................................... - 28 -
Vernal pools ............................................................................................................................ - 31 -
Invasive or Overabundant Species.................................................................................. - 31 -
Wildlife Resources................................................................................................................. - 32 -
Migratory Birds ................................................................................................................. - 32 -
Mammals............................................................................................................................ - 33 -
Reptiles and Amphibians.................................................................................................. - 35 -
Fisheries ............................................................................................................................. - 35 -
Invertebrates..................................................................................................................... - 37 -
Threatened and Endangered Species............................................................................. - 37 -
Special Designations ......................................................................................................... - 37 -
Cultural Resources................................................................................................................ - 38 -
Prehistoric Period.............................................................................................................. - 38 -
Historic Period................................................................................................................... - 39 -
Socio-economic Resources.................................................................................................... - 44 -
Population and Demographic Conditions....................................................................... - 44 -
Adjacent Communities and Land Uses.......................................................................... - 44 -
Chapter 4: Management Direction.......................................................................................... - 45 -
Refuge Complex Vision......................................................................................................... - 45 -
Refuge Complex Goals.......................................................................................................... - 45 -
General Refuge Management.............................................................................................. - 59 -
Refuge Access and Fees ................................................................................................... - 59 -
Accessibility....................................................................................................................... - 60 -
Fire Management.............................................................................................................. - 60 -
Land Protection ................................................................................................................. - 61 -
Resource Protection and Visitor Safety ......................................................................... - 62 -
Special Use Permits and Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement ............ - 62 -
Research ............................................................................................................................. - 63 -
Chapter 5: Refuge Administration .......................................................................................... - 65 -
Refuge Staffing ...................................................................................................................... - 65 -
Refuge Funding ..................................................................................................................... - 65 -
Refuge Buildings and Facilities........................................................................................... - 66 -
Step-Down Management Plans ........................................................................................... - 66 -
Maintaining Existing Facilities ........................................................................................... - 67 -
Compatibility Determinations ............................................................................................. - 68 -
Monitoring and Evaluation .................................................................................................. - 69 -
Adaptive Management.......................................................................................................... - 70 -
Additional NEPA Analysis................................................................................................... - 71 -
Plan Amendment and Revision............................................................................................ - 71 -
Literature Cited......................................................................................................................... - 73 -
Glossary...................................................................................................................................... - 79 -
List of Preparers....................................................................................................................... - 89 -
Appendices................................................................................................................................. - 91 -
Appendix A: Relevant Laws..................................................................................................... - 93 -
Appendix B: U.S. Forest Service Content Analysis Team Summary Report ................ - 101 -
Appendix C: Responses to Substantive Comments............................................................ - 157 -
Appendix D: Species Lists...................................................................................................... - 171 -
Appendix E: RONS and MMS............................................................................................... - 201 -
Appendix F: Existing and Proposed Staffing Charts for Assabet River, Great Meadows,
and Oxbow NWRs.................................................................................................................... - 205 -
Appendix G: Final Compatibility Determinations .............................................................. - 209 -
List of Tables
Table 1-1: NAWMP Species Occurring at Assabet River NWR ..................................... - 7 -
Table 1-2: Bird Species of Concern Occurring on Assabet NWR.................................... - 8 -
Table 3-1: Revenue Sharing Payments to Towns within Assabet River NWR........... - 18 -
Table 3-2: Cover Types and Acreage at Assabet River NWR ....................................... - 30 -
Table 3-3: Rare Plant Species at Assabet River NWR ................................................... - 31 -
Table 3-4: Invasive Species at Assabet River NWR........................................................ - 32 -
Table 3-5: State-listed Bird Species at Assabet River NWR ......................................... - 33 -
Table 3-6: State-listed Amphibians and Reptiles at Assabet River NWR ................... - 35 -
Table 4-1: 2004 Massachusetts Hunting Seasons............................................................. - 56 -
Table D-1: Fish of Assabet River NWR........................................................................... - 171 -
Table D-2: Birds of Assabet River NWR ......................................................................... - 171 -
Table D-3: Mammals of Assabet River NWR.................................................................. - 174 -
Table D-4: Amphibians of Assabet River NWR .............................................................. - 175 -
Table D-5: Reptiles of Assabet River NWR .................................................................... - 175 -
Table D-6: Moths of Assabet River NWR........................................................................ - 175 -
Table D-7: Butterflies⁄Dragonflies at Assabet River NWR .......................................... - 177 -
Table D-8: Vascular Plants of Assabet River NWR ....................................................... - 178 -
Table E-1: Projects Currently in the RONS Database and Proposed Projects to be
included for Assabet River NWR .................................................................. - 201 -
Table E-2: Projects Currently Backlogged in the Maintenance Management System
(MMS) for Assabet River NWR..................................................................... - 203 -
Table E-3: Projects Currently Backlogged in the MMS for the Eastern Massachusetts
Refuge Complex ............................................................................................... - 203 -
List of Maps
Map 1-1: Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex................................. - 2 -
Map 1-2: Gulf of Maine Ecosystem ........................................................................................... - 6 -
Map 4-1: Public Uses to be Phased in at Assabet River NWR........................................... - 51 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
This Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) has been prepared for
the Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), which is one of eight
refuges of the Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex (Complex) (see Map
1-1). Concurrently, we are releasing the Final CCPs for Great Meadows
(Concord and Sudbury divisions), and Oxbow NWRs.
We will prepare a separate CCP and Environmental Impact Statement
(CCP/EIS) for Monomoy and Nomans Land Island NWRs beginning later
in 2004. We propose to begin the CCP process for Massasoit in 2005 and
Mashpee and Nantucket NWRs in 2006.
This CCP is the culmination of a planning process that formally began in
January 1999. Numerous meetings with the public, the State, and
conservation partners were held to identify and evaluate management
alternatives. A draft CCP and Environmental Assessment (CCP/EA) was
distributed in July 2003 for public review and comment. This CCP presents
the management goals, objectives, and strategies that we believe will best
achieve our vision for the refuge, contribute to the National Wildlife Refuge
System (Refuge System) Mission, achieve refuge purposes and legal
mandates, support regional conservation priorities, and serve the American
public.
Refuge Overview
Formerly known as the Sudbury Training Annex, Assabet
River NWR is the most recent addition to the Complex,
created in the fall of 2000, when Fort Devens Army base
transferred 2,230 acres to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service). This transfer was made in accordance with the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, with
the purpose of having “particular value in carrying out the
national migratory bird management program.” All acres
within the approved Refuge boundary are acquired. The
large wetland complex and the contiguous forested areas
are important feeding and breeding areas for migratory
birds. Under Army administration, the area was not open to
general public use. Because of this, public access remains a
high priority for local community members.
Puffer Pond at Assabet NWR: Staff photo
Purpose and Need for a CCP
The purpose of a CCP is to provide managers and other interested partners
guidance and direction for each refuge over the next 15 years, thus
achieving refuge purposes and contributing to the mission of the Refuge
System. The plan identifies what role the refuge plays, consistent with
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 1 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Map 1-1: Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Assabet River NWR
- 2 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
sound principles of fish and wildlife conservation, in the protection,
enhancement and restoration of trust resources.
This plan is also needed to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
provide a clear statement of desired future conditions for habitat,
wildlife, visitors and facilities;
provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and partners with a clear
understanding of the reasons for management actions;
ensure management reflects the policies and goals of the Refuge
System and legal mandates;
ensure the compatibility of current and future uses;
review current boundaries of the refuges, and evaluate the need to
revise boundaries to better achieve refuge purposes;
provide long-term continuity and direction for refuge and Complex
management; and,
provide a basis for staffing and operations, maintenance, and the
development of budget requests.
Currently, there is no management plan in place for Assabet River NWR
that establishes priorities or provides consistent direction for managing
fish, wildlife, habitats, and public uses on the refuge. This plan will help to
resolve issues related to control of nuisance and invasive species, public
uses in conflict with wildlife needs, lack of opportunities for wildlife
dependent recreation, and the needs of our federal trust wildlife
species.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
(Refuge Improvement Act; Public Law 105-57) requires that all NWRs
have a CCP in place by 2012 to help fulfill the new mission of the
Refuge System. The Refuge Improvement Act states that wildlife
conservation is the priority of the Refuge System’s lands, and that the
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuge lands
shall be maintained. Additionally, the Refuge Improvement Act identifies
six wildlife-dependent recreational uses that will receive priority
consideration over other recreational uses of the refuge: wildlife
observation and photography, hunting, fishing, environmental education,
and interpretation.
Eastern Bluebird: Photo by
Bruce Flaig
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission
The Refuge System is managed by the Service, under the Department of
the Interior. The mission of the Service is:
“...working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and
plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American
people.”
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 3 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
The Service manages NWRs, waterfowl protection areas, and National
Fish Hatcheries. By law, Congress entrusts the following federal trust
resources to the Service for conservation and protection: migratory birds
and fish, endangered species, interjurisdictional fish, and certain marine
mammals. The Service also enforces federal wildlife laws and international
treaties on importing and exporting wildlife, assists with state fish and
wildlife programs, and helps other countries develop wildlife conservation
programs.
Refuge System Mission
“To administer a national
network of lands and waters
for the conservation,
management, and where
appropriate, restoration of
the fish, wildlife, and plant
resources and their habitats
within the United States for
the benefit of present and
future generations of
Americans.” (Refuge
Improvement Act; Public
Law 105-57)–Mission of the
Refuge System.
The Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands and waters set
aside specifically for the conservation of wildlife and ecosystem protection.
The Refuge System consists of 544 national wildlife refuges that provide
important habitat for native plants and many species of mammals,
birds, fish, and threatened and endangered species, encompassing
over 95 million acres. Refuges offer a wide variety of recreational
opportunities, and many have visitor centers, wildlife trails, and
environmental education programs. Nationwide, over 34 million
visitors annually hunt, fish, observe and photograph wildlife, or
participate in interpretive activities on national wildlife refuges.
In 1997, the Refuge Improvement Act established a unifying mission
for the refuge system, a new process for determining compatible
public uses, and the requirement to prepare a CCP for each refuge.
The new law states that the refuge system must focus on wildlife
conservation. It further states that the National mission, coupled with
the purpose(s) for which each refuge was established, will provide the
principal management direction for each refuge.
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).
Winter at Assabet River NWR: Staff
A primary law affecting refuge management is the National W
Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (Administration Act)
which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to permit any use of
a refuge “...whenever it is determined that such uses are compat
with the major purposes for which such areas were established.”
The Administration Act was amended by the Refuge Improvement
Act. It is also the key legislation on managing public uses, and
protecting the Refuge System from incompatible or harmful hu
ildlife
ible
man
Assabet River NWR
- 4 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
activities to ensure that Americans can enjoy Refuge System lands an
waters.
d
•
•
Additionally, it is Service policy to address how each refuge, with an
approved CCP, can help achieve the goals of the national Wilderness
Preservation System. Thus, concurrent with the CCP process, we have
incorporated a summary of a wilderness assessment into this document
(see Wilderness Assessment section in Chapter 2).
Wood Duck: Photo by Bruce
Flaig
The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 requires that any recreational use of
refuge lands be compatible with the primary purposes for which a refuge
was established and not inconsistent with other previously authorized
operations.
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 provides for the
management of historic and archaeological resources that occur on any
refuge. Other legislation, such as the Endangered Species Act, the North
American Wetlands Conservation Act, the Wilderness Act of 1964 and
particularly the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) all provide
guidance for the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats.
National and Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding this
CCP
Gulf of Maine - Ecosystem Priorities
The Service has 52 ecosystem teams across the country. The Assabet River
NWR is located in the Gulf of Maine ecosystem (see Map 1-2). The
ecosystem priorities that are applicable to the refuge are:
Protect, enhance, and restore populations of migratory bird species of
special concern and their habitats.
Manage service lands to protect, enhance and restore habitats to
maintain biodiversity.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) documents
the strategy between the United States, Canada and Mexico to restore
waterfowl populations through habitat protection, restoration, and
enhancement. Implementation of the plan is at the regional level. Ten
regional habitat “joint ventures” are partnerships involving federal, state,
provincial, tribal nations, local businesses, conservation organizations, and
individual citizens. Units of the Complex are contained within the Atlantic
Coast Joint Venture.
The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture Program identifies seven focus areas in
Massachusetts. One of these focus areas includes the inland rivers of the
Blackstone, Nashua, and the Sudbury-Assabet-Concord Rivers. The
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 5 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Map 1-2: Gulf of Maine Ecosystem
Assabet River NWR
- 6 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Assabet River NWR is part of this focus area, with nationally significant
wetlands that support migrating waterfowl. The Program is developing a
focus area report that identifies important waterfowl resources, threats,
and conservation recommendations.
A draft updated NAWMP document is at:
http://birdhabitat.fws.gov/NAWMP/2003nawmpdraft.htm. In the
Implementation Framework section of this document species priorities are
listed for each region. Table 1-1 includes species identified in the NAWMP
that occur at Assabet River NWR.
Table 1-1: NAWMP Species Occurring at Assabet River NWR
Species Continental
Priority
Breeding
Importance
Breeding
Need
Nonbreeding
Importance
Nonbreeding
Need
Mallard High Mod. Low Moderate Mod. High High
Wood Duck Moderate Mod. Low Mod. Low Mod. Low Mod. Low
Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plans
Partners in Flight (PIF) was initiated in 1990 as a voluntary, international
coalition of agencies, organizations, institutions, industries, and other
citizens dedicated to landbird conservation. The foundation for PIF’s
long-term strategy for bird conservation is a series of scientifically based
bird conservation plans. The goal of each PIF bird conservation plan is to
ensure long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native landbirds.
These plans use information on bird population trends, species’
distributions, and the vulnerability of the species and their habitats to
threats, to rank the conservation priority of birds occurring within a
particular physiographic area.
The PIF approach differs from many existing federal and state-level listing
processes in that it (1) is voluntary and non-regulatory, and (2) focuses
proactively on relatively common species in areas where conservation
actions can be most effective, rather than ocal emphasis on rare and
peripheral populations. A Landbird Conservation Plan for the southern
New England physiographic area was completed in 2000, which includes all
of eastern Massachusetts. This plan identifies 72 priority breeding bird
species, 8 priority winter species, and 7 major habitat types as priorities for
conservation in this area. Of the priority species for this physiographic
area, at least 29 of the priority breeding species have been
recorded as occurring on the refuge and 1 of the 8 wintering
species have been recorded as wintering on the refuge. In the
plan, focal species are selected for each habitat type and used in
developing population and habitat objectives.
Great Blue Heron with fish: Photo
by Bruce Flaig
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
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 7 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
scrub/pine barrens, freshwater wetlands, and grasslands. The list of
priority species, objectives, and conservation actions recommended in the
southern New England Bird Conservation Plan will help direct landbird
management on the refuge.
The North Atlantic Regional Shorebird Plan (NARSP) identifies 38
priority shorebird species based upon a national scoring system that
assesses population trends, relative abundance, threats and distribution
patterns. The Service has recorded 3 of these species as occurring on the
refuge. The NARSP builds upon the information in the U.S. Shorebird
Conservation Plan (USSCP). The USSCP is a partnership involving
organizations throughout the United States committed to the conservation
of shorebirds. At a regional scale, the goal of the USSCP is to ensure that
adequate quantity and quality of habitat is identified and maintained to
support the different shorebirds that breed in, winter in, and migrate
through each region. In August 2004, the USSCP was revised based upon
the latest population and habitat information available. The revised list
included 7 highly imperiled shorebird taxa and 23 taxa of high concern.
The refuge supports 1 species of shorebird of high concern.
Additionally, the Service has attempted to assess and integrate all the
information above and compile a list of Birds of Conservation Concern for
Bird Conservation Region 30, which contains the refuge. There are a total
of 32 species listed, 7 of these have been recorded as occurring on the
refuge.
Table 1-2: Bird Species of Concern Occurring on Assabet NWR
PIF BCR 30 NARSP USSCP
Species Priority
Breeding
Wintering Conservation
Concerns
Priority
Shorebird
High Concern
Blue-winged Warbler 􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Wood Thrush 􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Prairie Warbler 􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Baltimore Oriole 􀁺􇨠 􀁺����
Scarlet Tanager 􀁺􇨠
American Woodcock 􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Golden-winged
Warbler
􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Rose-breasted
Grosbeak
􀁺􇨠
Chimney Swift 􀁺􇨠
Eastern Wood-pewee 􀁺􇨠
Black-and-white
Warbler
􀁺􇨠
Hairy Woodpecker 􀁺􇨠
Eastern Towhee 􀁺􇨠
Purple Finch 􀁺􇨠
Canada Warbler 􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Blackburnian
Warbler
􀁺􇨠
Assabet River NWR
- 8 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
PIF BCR 30 NARSP USSCP
Species Priority
Breeding
Wintering Conservation
Concerns
Priority
Shorebird
High Concern
Bobolink 􀁺􇨠
Whip-poor-will 􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Northern Parula 􀁺􇨠
Yellow-breasted Chat 􀁺􇨠
Red-shouldered
Hawk
􀁺􇨠
Northern Harrier 􀁺􇨠
Vesper Sparrow 􀁺􇨠
Sharp-shinned Hawk 􀁺􇨠
Barred Owl 􀁺􇨠
Cooper’s Hawk 􀁺􇨠
Osprey 􀁺􇨠
Savannah Sparrow 􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Great Blue Heron 􀁺􇨠
Common Snipe 􀁺􇨠
Killdeer 􀁺􇨠
Regional Wetlands Concept Plan- Emergency Wetlands Resources Act
In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act to
promote the conservation of our nation’s wetlands. This act requires
identification of the location and types of wetlands, and which lands should
be targeted for state and federal land acquisition efforts. In 1990, the
Northeast Regional Office of the Service completed a Regional Wetlands
Concept Plan to identify wetlands in the region. The Regional Plan
identifies a total of 850 wetland sites and complexes in the region. 1,800
acres of wetlands associated with the Sudbury, Assabet and Concord
Rivers were identified as being regionally valuable for wildlife, fisheries,
and recreation.
Our Irreplaceable Heritage - Protecting Biodiversity in Massachusetts,
1998
This report recommends that the state develop a
biodiversity protection strategy that outlines how all native
biodiversity will be conserved. It also identifies and
describes eight types of natural communities that may
require immediate conservation attention because of their
potential vulnerability and large number of rare species
they contain. Seven of the eight communities listed in the
report occur within the Complex boundary.
Volunteer cleanup at Assabet NWR: Staff Photo
Existing Partnerships
Throughout this CCP, we use the term “partners”. In
addition to our volunteers, we receive significant help from
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 9 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
the following partners:
• Ecological Services, New England Field Office (Service)
• Friends of the Assabet River NWR
• Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of
State Parks and Recreation
• Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game (DFG), Division of
Fisheries and Wildlife (MassWildlife)
• New England Wildflower Society
• Organization for the Assabet River (OAR)
• Stow Conservation Trust
• SuAsCo Watershed Community Council
• Sudbury Foundation
• Sudbury Valley Trustees (SVT)
The Friends of the Assabet River NWR provide considerable time and
effort toward accomplishment of refuge and Service goals. They
participate in environmental education and outreach, land protection,
biological surveys, habitat management, and fund raising projects. During
fiscal year 2003, the Friends of Assabet River NWR contributed a total of
3,206 volunteer hours to the refuge. Without their assistance, much of the
work necessary to open the refuge would not be done yet.
Assabet River NWR
- 10 -
Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning
Process
Given the mandate in the Refuge Improvement Act to develop a CCP for
each national wildlife refuge, the Complex began the planning process in
1998. We started by forming a core planning team of refuge staff and
regional office planners. We placed a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an
EIS in the January 1999 Federal Register to officially kick-off our planning
effort for all eight of the Complex refuges.
First, we collected information on our biological and habitat resources.
While in the process of collecting information, we initiated the public
scoping and involvement part of the process. We held meetings with each
town’s board of selectmen and state and federal agencies. Many of these
partners provided information on natural resources and public uses on
refuges in the Complex. In February of 1999 we held open houses in each
unity for public comment on different issue
including current and future management
strategies, land protection and public uses
were pleased with the participation at many of
our meetings, which ranged from 30 people to
over 100.
town to provide an opport s
. We
artners
We recognized that attending our open houses
will be difficult for many and designed an issues
workbook to encourage additional comment. Over
8,000 people representing a variety of interests
received workbooks. Workbooks were also
available at open houses and at the refuge
headquarters. We received over 660 responses.
Using the information collected from our p
and through public comment we identified
significant issues to be addressed in the plan. In
August of 1999, we distributed a planning update
to everyone on our mailing list describing the key
issues identified for each refuge. Once key issues were determined and
refined, we developed alternative strategies to resolve each one. We
derived the strategies from public comment, follow-up contacts with
partners and refuge staff. After a reasonable range of alternatives was
identified, we evaluated the environmental consequences of each
alternative.
In February of 2001 we recognized that producing a CCP/EIS for the
entire Complex would be far too cumbersome to be efficient. At that time,
we published an NOI to prepare a CCP/EA for five of the refuges in the
Complex, Assabet River, Great Meadows, Oxbow, Mashpee and Massasoit
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 11 -
Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
NWRs. Additional issues and a need for more information prompted us to
later split Mashpee and Massasoit NWRs from the draft as well.
The Service solicited comments on the draft CCP/EA for Great Meadows,
Assabet River, and Oxbow NWRs from July 20 to September 3, 2003. We
contracted with the U.S. Forest Service’s Content Analysis Team (CAT) to
compile the nearly 2,000 comments that we received. The CAT developed a
summary report of comments (Appendix B) as well as a database of
individual comments. We utilized the original comments received, CAT
report and comment database to develop a list of comments that required
responses. Editorial suggestions and notes of concurrence with or
opposition to certain proposals were noted and included in the decision
making process, but do not receive formal responses. We have included our
responses to requests for additional information or clarification, provisions
of additional information, and specific concerns as Appendix C. We have
made changes to the CCP where appropriate.
The final product of the process is three stand-alone CCPs, one
for each refuge. Implementation of the CCPs can occur once the
Finding of (No) Significant Impact (FONSI) is signed.
Each year, we will evaluate our accomplishments under the C
Monitoring or new information may indicate the need to change
our strategies. The collection of additional data at Assabet River
NWR will likely require modification and specification of the
wildlife and habitat management strategies. We will modify the
CCP documents and associated management activities as needed, follo
the procedures outlined in Service policy and NEPA requireme
CCPs will be fully revised every 15 years or sooner if necessary.
CPs.
wing
nts. The
Wilderness Assessment
he planning team conducted a Wilderness Assessment, as required by
ork
Blue Iris: Photo by Marijke Holtrop
T
Refuge Planning Policy, to determine if any lands and waters in fee title
ownership were suitable to be proposed for designation as a Wilderness
Area. During the inventory stage, we determined that the Assabet River
NWR does not fulfill the eligibility requirements for a Wilderness Study
Area as defined by the Wilderness Act. The refuge and its surrounding
area have been altered in some way by man, with the imprint of man’s w
generally noticeable. The refuge does not have 5,000 contiguous acres, and
is not of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an
unimpaired condition. Furthermore, permanent roads are contained within
the refuge. Therefore, suitability of the refuge for Wilderness Designation
is not analyzed further in this document.
Assabet River NWR
- 12 -
Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
Issues, concerns, and opportunities were brought to the attention of the
refuge planning team through early planning discussions with local
governments, state, and federal representatives, and through the public
scoping process. We received comments from the public both verbally at
open houses and in writing, through Issues Workbooks and individual
letters. In addition issues were identified by the Service and from
comments received on the Draft CCP/EA. Many issues that are very
important to the public often fall outside the scope of the decision to be
made within this planning process. In some instances, the Service cannot
resolve issues some people have communicated to us. We have considered
all issues throughout our planning process, and have developed plans that
attempt to address the important issues where possible.
Habitat and Wildlife Management
Many people were interested in our management programs. The refuge has
begun additional surveys and inventories to collect baseline information.
Our efforts at the refuge will help us develop a Habitat Management Plan
(HMP) which will provide a detailed description of our goals and objectives
for habitat management on the refuge.
Individuals and groups expressed a great deal of interest in how we
manage migratory birds and upland habitats on the refuge. The public is
concerned about what will happen with fencing that currently surrounds
the refuge and how it impacts wildlife movement. The fencing was not
removed when the property was transferred to the Service.
Control of Invasive, Injurious, and Overabundant Plant and Animal
Species
Invasive species, including Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum),
black locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia), and spotted knapweed (Centaurea
maculosa) and are a concern at the refuge. These species limit the
productivity of wildlife habitat. Management to control invasive species was
mentioned as a watershed-wide priority to some conservation associations.
We continue our efforts to control known invasives on the refuge.
Hunting
Requests were made at public meetings and through written comments
both to allow and not to allow deer hunting on the refuge. We received a
petition requesting consideration of bow hunting at Assabet River NWR.
There were suggestions to provide lawful hunting opportunities on the
refuge to control deer populations and deter poaching. Cooperation with
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 13 -
Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
local towns and hunting groups was a suggestion. Others opposed hunting
of any kind on the refuge.
Management of Public Use and Access
The Complex Headquarters and visitor contact station is located in
Sudbury, MA. The need for environmental educational programs in
local schools as well as additional interpretive opportunities where t
public can learn about the refuge was also raised.
he
We do not have a consistent process for collecting and documenting
visitation at the refuge. The refuge will be opened in phases
beginning in the fall of 2004. Trespass has been occurring at the
refuge.
Resource Protection and Visitor Safety
Many people voiced concern for additional protection for cultural and
historical resources. Other concerns included the need to control
poaching, trespassing and other refuge regulations violations. We
need to address use of existing structures, if possible, and determine
where a number of buildings need to be removed. To date, 18
buildings have been removed from the refuge. There is still a large amount
of material to be removed from the refuge, including razor wire, and holes
to be filled.
Trailmarker: Photo by Karla
Thompson
Infrastructure and Operations and Maintenance
We heard from some people that the Complex doesn’t have the resources
and staff needed to support programs and maintenance of the refuge. A
new biological position was added to the Complex in 2004 and additional
positions have been identified to be filled as funding allows.
Issues and Concerns Considered Outside the Scope of This Plan
Some external threats to the refuges such as water quality and
contamination were identified by the public.
Poor water quality in the Concord, Sudbury and Assabet Rivers prompted
concern among citizens. The Concord and Sudbury Rivers both are
reported to have high levels of contamination, and the Assabet River
suffers from excessive nutrient loading. In these watersheds, the Service is
currently involved in watershed-wide efforts and partnerships to review
and reduce impacts to the communities and to refuge resources. Service
contaminants specialists represent wildlife interests in contaminants
cleanup efforts that directly affect refuge lands, such as lands transferred
to the Service or rivers that flow into the refuges, and refuge staff
Assabet River NWR
- 14 -
Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
participates in advisory committees that comment on permits and plans
that affect water quality.
Some Towns wish to develop water supply wells on refuge property.
Some towns requested access for the purpose of drilling water supply wells.
Wells have been shown to draw down the surrounding water table. A 1994
study by the Massachusetts Office of Water Resources identified that
“wells can have a significant impact on nearby (surface) water bodies and
may affect specific biological resources.” Concerns were
raised by the public during CCP scoping that disturbance
to wildlife, and other impacts due to the wells, or access to
the wells, could occur.
Chemical control of mosquitoes on National Wildlife
Refuges nationwide is being evaluated by the Service.
The Service has developed a draft national mosquito
policy for refuge managers to apply when determining
how and when mosquito populations may be managed on
lands administered within the Refuge System. The draft
science-based policy indicates that mosquito populations
will essentially be allowed to function unimpeded as part
of the wetland ecosystem. Mosquito populations may be reduced in certain
circumstances. We work with state and local public health departments
and mosquito abatement agencies to monitor and if necessary contain
mosquito-borne diseases. Mosquito spraying to control larval mosquitoes
on Assabet River NWR has not occurred. The decision to restrict mosquito
control on the refuge is consistent with the current draft policy. Any
future Service policy will be applied to Assabet River NWR.
Hazards at Assabet NWR: Staff photo
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 15 -
Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
(This page intentionally left blank)
Assabet River NWR
- 16 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting
Assabet River NWR, formerly referred to as the U.S. Army’s Fort Devens
Sudbury Training Annex, is a 2,230-acre parcel of land located
approximately 20 miles west of Boston, and 4 miles west of the Complex
headquarters. It is located in portions of the towns of Hudson, Maynard,
Stow and Sudbury and covers approximately 3.5 square miles. The Assabet
River NWR consists of two separate pieces of land. The larger northern
section is just north of Hudson Road. The southern section is located to the
south of Hudson Road.
The land, centered in a developed area, has been protected by the Army for
the last 58 years. That protection has allowed the maturation
of extensive, structurally diverse wetland habitats, whose
ecological integrity is enhanced by its surrounding upland
forests and grasslands. The refuge provides significant
habitat for migrating and resident wildlife. Along with
providing habitat to numerous species considered threatened
or endangered by the state of Massachusetts, the refuge also
includes several rare wetland types and a number of vernal
pools, which are considered to be habitats of special concern.
More specifically, approximately 70 percent of the refuge land
is forested with white pine (Pinus strobus) and mixed
hardwoods dominating. Approximately 22 percent is
considered wetland habitat, including a remnant Atlantic white cedar
swamp, 6 dwarf-shrub bogs, 2 minerotrophic peatland bogs, a collection of
vernal pools and historical cranberry bogs, and grass and shrubland
habitats in the remaining areas.
Assabet River NWR: Staff photo
Socio-economic Setting
The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of June 15, 1935, as amended, provides
annual payments to taxing authorities, based on acreage and value of
refuge lands located within their jurisdiction. Money for these payments
comes from the sale of oil and gas leases, timber sales, grazing fees, the
sale of other Refuge System resources, and from Congressional
appropriations. The Congressional appropriations are intended to make up
the difference between the net receipts from the Refuge Revenue Sharing
Fund and the total amount due to local taxing authorities. The actual
Refuge Revenue Sharing Payment does vary from year to year, because
Congress may or may not appropriate sufficient funds to make full
payment.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 17 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
The Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments are based on one of three different
formulas, whichever results in the highest payment to the local taxing
authority. In Massachusetts, the payments are based on three-quarters of
one percent of the appraised market value. The purchase price of a
property is considered its market value until the property is reappraised.
The Service reappraises the value of refuge lands every five years, and the
appraisals are based on the land’s “highest and best use”. On wetlands and
formerly farmland-assessed properties, the full entitlement Refuge
Revenue Sharing Payments sometimes exceed the real estate tax. In other
cases, Refuge Revenue Sharing payments may be less than the local real
estate tax.
Table 3-1: Revenue Sharing Payments to Towns within Assabet River NWR
Year Hudson Maynard Stow Sudbury*
2003 $775 $13,823 $19,112 $35,474
2002 $806 $14,382 $19,885 $36,909
2001 $863 $15,395 $21,286 $39,510
2000 $846 $15,083 $20,854 $33,393
*Refuge revenue sharing payments for Sudbury include payments for lands in Great
Meadows NWR.
The fact that refuges put little demand on the infrastructure of a
municipality, must be considered in assessing the financial impact on the
municipality. For example, there is no extra demand placed on the school
system or utilities; and little demand on roads, police and fire protection,
etc. However, visitation to the refuge often benefits local businesses. The
refuge controls uses only on the properties it owns.
Refuge Resources
Climate
Assabet River NWR experiences moderately cold, moist winters and warm,
damp summers with an annual mean precipitation of 44 inches per year.
Precipitation is fairly well distributed throughout the year. The driest
months are July and October, with mean precipitation of 3.3 inches, and the
wettest months are March and November with mean precipitation of 4.7
inches. Winter precipitation is usually in the form of snow and ice storms.
Due to its proximity to the Atlantic Ocean, the refuge experiences the
influence of tropical storms and hurricanes and their associated gusty
winds and torrential rains. July is the warmest month, with an average
temperature of 72 degrees Fahrenheit (U.S. Army 1995).
Forested Wetland: Photo B
Emily Holick
y
Topography
The refuge is located near the western boundary of the seaboard lowlands
of the New England-maritime province, and is dominated by broad flat
plains with elevations of 190-200 feet above mean sea level (msl). Overall,
Assabet River NWR
- 18 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
elevations on the refuge range from approximately 170 to 321 feet above
msl (U.S. Army 1995). Hills are located across the refuge, but predominate
across the northern boundary and the central area of the northern portion
of the property. In general terms, the topographic features on the refuge
may be described as being approximately: 81 percent lowlands, 16 percent
hills and 3 percent open water (U.S. Army 1980).
Geology
The Wisconsin stage glaciation has shaped the landform of the refuge, and
the northeast in general. Eight surface depositional types are found on the
refuge, and six of these are from glacial action: kames, kame terraces, k
fields, outwash plains, ground moraines and drumlins. The remaining two
sediment deposits are alluvium swamps. Glacial tills are compact, unsor
mixtures of clay, silt, sand, gravel and boulders. The hilly portions of the
refuge tend to be till, with the flatter areas being glacial outwash. The till
may reach thicknesses of up to 40 feet in moraine areas, and up to 80 feet in
drumlins. Alluvium is generally fine gravel, and the swamps are
predominately sand, silt and organic matter. Kames are irregularly shaped
mounds of poorly sorted sands and gravels. Kame fields are simply
described as areas of closely spaced kames. Kame terraces were formed by
glacial meltwater depositing suspended matter between ice sheets. Vose
Hill and the hill immediately south of Tuttle Hill are mapped as drumlins,
glacially formed accumulations of till indicating by their orientation the
direction of ice flow (USGS 1956). A million-year old river valley underlies
Lake Boon, White Pond and the southern portion of the refuge (U.S. Army
1995).
Diverse habitats fill Assabet
NWR such as this area near
Taylor Brook: Photo by
Marijke Holtrop
ame
ted
s
The deeper lying bedrock is igneous and metamorphic rock of the
Precambrian and Paleozoic ages. Depth to bedrock across the refuge is
generally in the range of 40 to 100 feet below the ground surface. Primary
formations found on the refuge include the Precambrian Marlboro schist;
the Devonian age Salem and Dedham granodiorites; the carboniferous
Nashoba gneiss; and, the Gospel Hill gneiss. Bedrock outcrops occur in
several irregularly distributed areas across the refuge (U.S. Army 1995).
Soils
Soils across the refuge are comprised of a diverse range of types reflecting
varied glacial and alluvial depositional processes. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service soil maps indicate
the more common soils include those of the Carver, Windsor, Merrimac,
Paxton, Deerfield, Montauk, and Charlton-Hollis series in the uplands; and,
the Swansea and Freetown series in wetlands (USDA 1995).
The Carver soil series consists of nearly level to steep, deep (5+ feet),
excessively drained soils on glacial outwash plain, terraces, and deltas.
They are very friable or loose loamy coarse sands, with very rapid
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 19 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
permeability. They tend to be droughty, with severe concern for seedling
survival and slight concern for erosion in well managed forest cover.
Windsor soils are found in nearly level to very steep conditions; are up to
5+ feet deep; excessively drained soils on glacial outwash plains, terraces,
deltas and escarpments. They formed in sandy glacial outwash, and have a
very friable or loose loamy sand or loamy fin sand surface soil. They have
rapid permeability and tend to be droughty, but concern for seedling
mortality is listed as being slight.
Merrimac soils occur in level to steep slopes; are up to 5+ feet deep; and,
are excessively drained soils found on glacial outwash plains, terraces, and
kames. They formed in water-sorted, sandy glacial material, and are
friable, fine sandy loams and sandy loams in the surface. They are
moderately rapid in permeability, with few limitations for most uses, and
moderate risk for seedling mortality.
Paxton soils are deep (5+ feet), well drained soils found on glacial drumlins.
They formed in compact glacial till. These soils are friable fine sandy loams,
with a very stony surface. They have slow or very slow permeability and
moderate risk for seedling mortality.
The Deerfield series are deep, well drained, loamy fine sand soils. They are
found on glacial outwash plains, terraces, and deltas. These soils may have
a seasonal high water table at 18 to 36 inches and moderate seedling
mortality risk.
Montauk soils are well drained and found on drumlins. They formed in
compact glacial tills, and are friable, fine sandy loams, with moderately
rapid permeability. Montauk soils are stony to extremely stony, with a
slight seedling mortality risk.
The Charton-Hollis-rock outcrop complex soils are well drained, with (on
average) approximately 10% bedrock outcrops.
The Swansea and Freetown series are very poorly drained wetland soils.
They formed in depressions and flat areas of glacial outwash plains and
terraces, and may be 50 inches to many feet of black, highly decomposed
organic material over sandy mineral materials. They have a water table
that is at or near the surface most of the year (USDA 1995).
Hydrology
Most of the northern section and westernmost parts of the southern section
of Assabet River NWR fall within the Assabet River drainage basin. The
majority of the northern portion of the refuge drains northward through
Taylor Brook and its tributaries, including Honey Brook. Two small,
intermittent streams also flow from the northern/northwest portion of the
Assabet River NWR
- 20 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
refuge into the Assabet River. The central and eastern areas of the
southern portion of the refuge are within the Sudbury River drainage
basin. Marlboro Brook drains from the southeastern portion of this section
of the refuge into Hop Brook, a tributary of the Sudbury River, just above
Stearns Millpond. The western portions of this section of
the refuge drain toward White Pond, which has no surface
outlet, but is thought to drain underground to Lake Boon
and thence to the Assabet River (U.S. Army 1995).
The water table under much of the refuge is shallow, as
indicated by the extensive swamps, bogs, and water-holes
found on the property. Groundwater discharge is thought to
be supplying much of the flow occurring through the
outwash plains underlying the lowlands of the site (U.S.
Army 1995). The poorly drained lowlands soils have
supported the establishment of extensive and diverse
wetland habitats, which include forested and shrub-dominated
wetlands, bogs, emergent wetlands, open-water bodies in the
form of several lakes and ponds, an abandoned cranberry bog, and
scattered seasonally-flooded vernal pools (USFWS 1995).
Taylor Brook: Photo by Marijke Holtrop
Air Quality
The Massachusetts annual air quality report for 1999 (MADEP, 2000), and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) air quality planning
and standards web page (EPA, 2001), contain the most recent data
available for air quality in this area. The nearest data appear to be limited
to those from monitoring sites in the City of Worcester and the Town of
Stow. The Stow monitoring site has been located on the Assabet River
NWR since 1999, and prior to that time was located nearby on the Great
Meadows NWR in Sudbury.
The pollutants for which state-wide data are available are ozone (O3),
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), lead (Pb), sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and particulate matter (both 2.5 microns (PM2.5) and 10 microns
(PM10)).
The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) determined by
USEPA set the concentration limits that determine the attainment status
for each criteria pollutant. Massachusetts does not attain the public health
standard for two pollutants – ozone (O3) for the entire state and CO in a few
cities (MADEP 2000), including parts of Worcester and Middlesex counties
within which the refuge is located (USEPA 2001).
There are two ozone standards based on two different averaging times, 1-
hour and 8-hour. In 1999, there were 85 exceedances of the 8-hour standard
occurring on 22 days, and 5 exceedances of the 1- hour standard occurring
on 4 days on a state-wide basis. The 12-year trends for ozone readings in
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 21 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
the state have been generally decreasing toward better quality since 1988.
Massachusetts has made significant progress in attaining the CO standard
by implementing air pollution control programs. The last violation of the
CO NAAQS occurred in Boston in 1986. The Boston metropolitan area was
redesignated to attainment of the CO federal air quality standard by the
USEPA in 1996. Lowell, Springfield, Waltham, and Worcester remain in
non-attainment of the CO standard. MADEP is currently preparing a
request to the USEPA to redesignate these areas to attainment for CO
because monitoring data has been below the standard for many years. The
redesignation request, which includes technical support and a maintenance
plan, will be subject to public review and comment prior to being submitted
to the USEPA.
In recent years there has been concern regarding the aerial deposition of
mercury from atmospheric sources outside the northeast region (see for
example Sweet and Prestbo 1999). Researchers have speculated that this
may be the source of mercury levels found in some species and age-classes
of fish in New England above the 1 part per million standard established by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) (see discussion in the
water quality section below).
The annual average concentration of lead in the air decreased substantially
since 1985 from more than 300 ug/m3 to less than 0.05 ug/m3 (the annual
average NAAQS for lead is 1.5 ug/m3). Massachusetts is well below the
standard. This result is attributed to the use of unleaded gasoline in motor
vehicles, which are the primary source of airborne lead emissions (MADEP
2000). While air quality concentrations of lead have dramatically decreased,
there may still be concern regarding residual lead levels in soils along
heavily traveled roadways deposited prior to the change to unleaded
gasoline usage.
Water Quality
The waters of the Assabet River have been designated as Class B, warm
water fisheries by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Class B waters
are defined as being suitable for “protection and propagation of fish, other
aquatic life, for wildlife, and for primary and secondary contact recreation”
(MADEP 1998). All sections of the Assabet River are included in the
MADEP 303(d) list of waters as failing to meet the Class B standards,
primarily due to elevated levels of phosphorus and nitrogen, and low
dissolved oxygen concentrations (OAR 2000). The source of nutrient input
is thought to be associated with discharges from seven municipal
wastewater treatment facilities, storm water runoff from lawns and
agricultural lands and releases from nutrients previously settled in the
sediments of the river bottom (OAR 2000). Environmental consulting firms
working for the Army have conducted four studies of contaminants in
surface water, sediment and fish of Puffer Pond since the mid-1980s.
Assabet River NWR
- 22 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Summaries of these studies (taken from U.S. Army 1995) are presented
below:
Dames & Moore – 1984
In 1984 Dames & Moore (D&M) collected background samples of surface
water and sediment (D&M 1986). One of the samples was collected
upstream of Puffer Pond, and one of them was collected downstream.
Phenols were detected in upstream surface water, and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) were detected in downstream sediment. D&M
reported that the observed PAH compounds may have resulted from
widespread distribution of coal ash at the installation. D&M conducted an
expanded second round of surface water and sediment
sampling, to better define the pattern of contaminant
distribution. On the basis of the second-round sampling
results, D&M concluded that “no significant
contamination sources exist in the Puffer Pond area”
(D&M 1986, p. 2-32).
U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency – 1991
The potential presence of contaminants in and around
Puffer Pond led the Fort Devens preventive medicine
service to request a study of the pond by the U.S. Army
Environmental Hygiene Agency (AEHA), “to determine
if there is contamination that will compromise the health
of people fishing in Puffer Pond” (AEHA 1991). AEHA conducted its study
of Puffer Pond in April of 1991. They collected surface water and sediment
samples at four locations in the pond, and fish at one location. Sixteen fish
were collected, only one of which was from the predator trophic level (a
large pickerel). The fish were filleted, and the samples were analyzed for
metals, pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The surface
water and sediment samples were also analyzed. In the surface water
samples, cadmium, lead, silver, and zinc exceeded USEPA water quality
criteria for the protection of aquatic life. In sediment, the concentrations of
all metals were “extremely low compared to sediments from other Army
installations around the country and background soil concentrations in the
eastern united states” (AEHA 1991, p. 5). The mercury concentration (1.2
ug/g) in the pickerel sample exceeded the USFDA action level (1.0 ug/g).
All other analytes in all fish samples were within safe levels for human
consumption. AEHA (1991, p. 6) concluded that: (a) “no contamination was
detected from past practices”; (b) exceedence of the USFDA action level by
mercury in one fish sample may not be representative of the fish population
in Puffer Pond; and, (c) that more fish should be sampled before releasing a
health advisory. AEHA recommended that the additional fish sampling be
conducted as part of investigations then being planned by the U.S. Army
Toxic and Hazardous Materials Administration (USATHAMA). As a result
Reflections: Photo by Emily Holick
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 23 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
of the AEHA findings, Fort Devens issued a catch-and-release advisory for
Puffer Pond.
OHM Corporation - 1992
OHM Corporation (OHM) prepared a work plan (August 1992) for a Puffer
Pond fish study to be conducted under contract to USATHAMA. The work
plan incorporated a discussion of the methods and results of an ecological
survey of Puffer Pond fish conducted by OHM in the spring of 1992. Using
hook and line, on April 24 OHM caught and released 23 largemouth bass,
and on May 1 OHM caught and released three pickerel, three largemouth
bass, two black crappie, and two yellow perch. OHM visually inspected the
fish, looked for swimming eccentricities, and observed nesting patterns
along the shoreline. They found no deformities, behavioral problems, or
other indications of stress or disease. OHM concluded that Puffer Pond
contained a diverse and balanced fish population with no overt signs of
stress.
OHM’s work plan expanded the goals of the Puffer Pond fish studies to
address ecological risks as well as human health risks. The plan was to
make comparisons to background ponds, using fish data from the Service,
the MADEP, and the published literature. OHM presented criteria for
selecting background data from the identified sources.
The field program was conducted in October 1992. OHM collected fish
using a shrimp trawl instead of seines, because of flood conditions and
because of cold water and air temperatures. The flood conditions prevented
OHM from collecting largemouth bass or any other top predator species.
Black crappies were collected, and they were used to represent the
predator trophic level. Fish background data provided to OHM were
rejected as insufficient or inappropriate, on the basis of the selection
criteria established in the work plan. OHM concluded from its quantitative
human health and ecological risk assessments that the observed conditions
do not pose a risk to human receptors (OHM April 1994, p. 5-9) and that the
concentrations of analytes observed in the fish tissue “do not appear to be
affecting the ecological health of Puffer Pond” (OHM 1992, p. 6-5).
Ecology and Environment - 1993
E&E conducted a bioaccumulation study at Puffer Pond to evaluate the
extent of fish contamination and to fill data gaps in previous investigations.
Sampling of surface water, sediment, and fish was conducted in Puffer
Pond and in a background pond in November, 1993. Ministers Pond,
located northeast of the junction of Routes 117 and 62 near the center of
Stow, was selected as the background pond to use for comparing Puffer
Pond sampling results. It generally met the following criteria:
• no or minimal potential site-related impacts;
Assabet River NWR
- 24 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
•
•
a central Massachusetts location; and
morphology, pH, alkalinity, trophic status, and watershed
characteristics similar to Puffer Pond.
Surface water and sediment sample pairs were collected at six locations in
each pond. Fish samples were collected at four locations in each pond, using
gill nets, angling, and electroshocking. Chain pickerel were sampled as
predators, yellow perch as foragers, and bullheads as bottom feeders.
During actual sampling, four bullheads were the only bottom feeders
collected in Ministers Pond. In the predator and bottom feeding levels,
fillet concentrations were used to calculate human health risks, and whole
fish concentrations were used to determine ecological risks. In the forager
level, only whole fish samples were analyzed.
In water samples from Puffer Pond, arsenic, cadmium, and lead were
detected at concentrations above the screening values. Concentrations of
those metals were below the screening values in all of the background pond
surface water samples. However, the maximum lead concentration in the
Puffer Pond samples was only slightly higher than the maximum
concentration detected in the background pond.
In sediment samples, arsenic concentrations exceeded the screening value
in all Puffer Pond samples, whereas only one of the background samples
exceeded the arsenic screening value. Concentrations of cadmium, lead,
silver, and the pesticides DDD and DDE exceeded the
respective screening values at approximately the same
frequencies in samples from both ponds.
Mercury was not detected in surface water or sediment
from either pond at concentrations above the laboratory
method detection limits (0.2 ug/l and 0.1 ug/g, respectively).
Although mercury was not detected in surface water or
sediment, it was detected in 14 of 24 fish from Puffer Pond
and in 17 of 19 fish from Ministers Pond. Mercury exceeded
the USFDA action level (1.0 mg/kg) in only one fish (a
yellow perch from Puffer Pond), at a concentration of 1.12
mg/kg. Concentrations of mercury, arsenic, chromium, and lead in Puffer
Pond fish samples “were not statistically different from local background
conditions” (E&E 1994).
Beaver activity: Photo by Marijke Holtrop
E&E concluded that potential human health risks associated with eating
fish from Puffer Pond are negligible and that potential ecological and
human health risks are no greater than those posed by Ministers Pond or
other similar ponds in the area. Despite low environmental concentrations,
mercury is bioavailable to aquatic organisms. The fish are a primary food
source for piscivorous wildlife and “may result in allowing the contaminants
to magnify in the food chain as they are generally consumed whole” (E&E
1994).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 25 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Other Contaminant Issues
The USEPA designated the Fort Devens Sudbury Training Annex as a
national priorities list (NPL) superfund site in 1990 based on environmental
studies that had been conducted by the Army. Under USEPA and MADEP
oversight, the Army completed investigations and, where necessary, clean-up
actions at 73 locations that were identified through record searches,
interviews with past and current employees and field sampling results as
being potentially contaminated. Facility-wide investigations of
groundwater hydrology and quality, background soil contaminant
concentrations and surface water and sediment quality were conducted. In
addition, a site-wide investigation of potential arsenic contamination in soil,
water, sediment, plants and soil invertebrates was completed (USEPA
2000).
The 73 specific sites investigated included individual, abandoned empty
drums, disturbed ground and vegetation, underground fuel storage tanks,
demolition grounds, solvent and waste dumps, test clothing burial areas,
refuse dumps, old gravel pits, chemical disposal sites, etc. The U.S. Army’s
master environmental plan, revised and reissued in December 1995
provided a status report of Army actions on these sites (U.S. Army 1995).
The USEPA issued a final close out report for the 73 sites at the Fort
Devens Sudbury Training Annex in September 2000 (USEPA 2000). Of the
73 sites investigated on the Fort Devens Training Annex, USEPA and
MADEP determined:
• 18 were classified no contamination found;
• 11 were classified no contamination found following an enhanced area
reconnaissance;
• 9 were classified as posing no risk to humans or wildlife following
preliminary risk assessments;
• 5 were classified as having no contamination found following a full risk
assessment;
• 12 were classified as posing no risk to humans or wildlife following a full
risk assessment;
• 16 sites were subjected to removal actions, with confirmatory sampling
indicating there was no residual risk to humans or wildlife;
• 1 site was considered to be free of risk to humans and wildlife, but an
additional set of testing results were to be evaluated for confirmation;
and,
• 1 site (A7) was classified as no further action following construction of a
full, lined and capped landfill at the site. Long-term monitoring by the
Army for groundwater quality, landfill cap integrity and site fencing
condition is required at site A7.
The USEPA final close out report is available at the refuge headquarters in
Sudbury. Formal de-listing of the property from the national priority list
has occurred.
Assabet River NWR
- 26 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
The Service accepted the transfer of the Sudbury Training Annex subject
to our complying with certain long-term institutional controls. These
institutional controls were established by the Army and USEPA in
consultation with MADEP and the Service. They restrict the Service from
conducting any actions that will impair the integrity of the landfill cap,
liner, topography, etc. at site A7, and from allowing the construction of
residences within 50 feet of the center line of the former World War II era
railroad beds and the former internal Army fence line/firebreak along what
the Army called the Patrol Road.
According to the bioaccumulation study at Puffer Pond, mercury, zinc and
DDT degradation products are present in fish tissue from Puffer Pond;
however, the levels were generally below available regional and national
background fish tissue levels. This report concluded that the site-related
human health and ecological risks associated with the use of Puffer Pond
are not likely to be greater than those associated with the use of any other
local pond. Puffer Pond is listed in the Massachusetts Department of Public
Health freshwater fish consumption advisory list for mercury hazard. The
advisory states that “the general public should not consume any fish from
this water body.”
Physical Safety Hazards
Assabet River NWR has been closed to the public due to a number of
unmitigated safety hazards. These include:
• at least 33 open, hand-dug farm wells that pre-date the Army,
• some concertina wire,
• some smooth communication wire in the woods.
Most of the concertina wire, the large utility pole
physical fitness obstacle course and fencing have all
been removed by or with help from the Friends of the
Assabet River NWR. We do not need to remove the
bunkers as they are covered with vegetation and have
blended into the habitat.
Open wells, like this one, are being secured: Photo
by Marijke Holtrop
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 27 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Biological Resources
Vegetation and Habitat Types
Service biologists completed a survey and evaluation of the habitat of
portions of what then was still the Fort Devens Sudbury Training Annex in
1992 (USFWS 1995). Short duration site visits, wetland mapping produced
by the Service’s national wetland inventory team, forest cover mapping
completed by the Fort Devens Natural Resource
Management Office (NRMO), aerial photographs and
other existing data were used in the evaluation. The
focus of this evaluation was the eastern portion of the
property north of Hudson Road.
The report notes that aerial photos, extensive stone
walls, successional second-growth forests, old cranberry
bogs and discussions with knowledgeable people all
document the fairly extensive farming history of the
land prior to the Army’s acquisition in the early 1940’s.
The presence of diverse wetland and upland habitat of
high value to wildlife species was noted. Others have
suggested that the diversity of habitat found on the
refuge is due to the presence of highly varied
topography, soils, drainage patterns, and the Army’s
ownership and management of the property over a 50
year time span.
Although only portions of what is now the refuge were
evaluated, the report found 476 acres of wetland h
North of Hudson Road, approximately 291 acres (67
were forested or mixed forested/shrub cover; 29 acr
(7%) were shrub dominated; 41 acres (9%) were
shrub/emergent herbaceous cover; 62 acres (14%) were
open water ponds; and 14 acres (3%) were former
cranberry bogs. The report indicated the portion of the
property south of Hudson Road contained
approximately 39 acres of wetlands (~9% of the area).
Approximately 87% of these wetlands were forested and the remainder was
shrub-dominated wetland habitat.
Grasses: Photo by Emily Ann Hollick
abitat.
%)
es
The forested wetlands are dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum) with
black ash (Fraxinus niger), swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor), and some
eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) and white pine present. Understory
shrubs included sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), swamp azalea
(Rhododendron viscosum), european buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula),
winterberry (Ilex verticillata), and maleberry (Lyonia ligustrina). At least
one remnant Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) wetland was
Assabet River NWR
- 28 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
also noted. Shrub-dominated wetlands were characterized as including
speckled alder (Alnus serrulata), silky dogwood (Cornus ammomum),
gray stemmed dogwood (Cornus racemosa), elderberry (Sambucus
canadensis) and black chokeberry (Aronia melanocarpa), buttonbush
(Cephalanthus occidentalis), meadowsweet (Spiraea latifolia), steeplebush
(Spiraea tomentosa), and others. Emergent wetland type vegetation
included broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia L.), sedges (Abildgaardia), blue-joint
grass (Hemarthria), boneset (Tamaulipa), joe-pye-weed
(Eupatorium), purple loosestrife, pickerel weed (Pontederia cordata L.),
arrowhead (Sagittaria L.), smartweed (Polygonum), spike rush
(Eleocharis R. Br.), waterlily (Nymphaea), and many submergent plants.
Though historically much of the area was logged for agriculture, a majority
of the upland areas within the refuge have succeeded back to forest. Mixed
white pine and oak hardwoods dominate. Common hard woods included
red maple, white oak (Quercus alba), red oak (Quercus rubra), quaking
aspen (Populus tremuloides). Other frequently encountered species
included birches, beeches, American elm (Ulmus americana), black cherry
(Prunus serotina var. serotina), and shagbark hickory (Carya ovata var.
ovata). The understory was commonly mixes of sassafras (Sassafras
albidum), blueberries and dogwoods. The cleared fields that were once
utilized as agricultural land are now in successional transition into forests.
These meadows, shrub thickets and immature forests have the potential to
provide food and cover to many species of migratory birds and other
wildlife. Approximately 70% of the portions of the Army property surveyed
were in forest at the time (USFWS 1995).
The former ammunition bunkers that were once employed as storage
facilities have become well revegetated. The bunkers, measuring
approximately 75 feet long and 40 feet wide, are
surrounded by dry, sandy, disturbed soils, which
had good growth of cherry, white pine, oak,
aspen, sweetfern, sedges, mosses and other p
species.
lant
Approximately 3% of the Army lands included in
the survey were primarily in native and
introduced grasses, including approximately 30
acres at the Army Taylor Drop Zone.
The Service’s evaluation summarized the
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping
based on 1975-77 aerial photography, and an
earlier forest cover type mapping done for the
NRMO by Leupold Forestry Service using 1980
aerial photography. B.H. Keith Associates of Conway, NH prepared a
wetland cover type map for all of the Sudbury Training Annex for the
NRMO in April, 1983 using 1980 aerial photography. However, the wetland
Sunset with geese: Photo by Paul Olsen
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 29 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
classification scheme used by B.H. Keith does not conform to the NWI
classifications, and it was not used for the Service’s evaluation. See Table 3-
2 for the 1,647 acres the Service evaluated. In 1991, Aneptek Corporation
completed an inventory of wildlife species and their habitats on portions of
the Army’s Sudbury Training Annex, which were in use by the Army’s
Natick Research, Development and Engineering Center, Natick, MA
(Aneptek 1991). The Aneptek evaluation included the areas around the
Army family housing on Bruen Road and the Taylor Drop Zone on the
northern portion of what is now the refuge. The family housing area abuts
the portion of the refuge located south of Hudson Road. Detailed
inventories of the plant and animal communities found in these two areas
are provided in the Aneptek report. Where species observations made at
the Taylor Drop Zone have not been superceded by more recent or more
encompassing evaluations, Aneptek’s records are included in the Service’s
developing species lists for the Assabet River NWR (Appendix D).
Table 3-2: Cover Types and Acreage at Assabet River NWR
Cover Type Acreage Percent
White Pine 191 12
White Pine – Hardwoods 123 7
White Pine – Oak 561 34
Oak Hardwoods 73 4
Mixed Oak 159 10
Cherry Hardwoods 11 <1
Red Maple – Ash 37 2
Grasses – Forbs 54 3
Developed 1 <1
Wetlands 437 27
In 1992, Dr. David Hunt completed a very thorough survey of the plant
communities found on the portions of the training annex located north of
Hudson Road for the NRMO (Hunt, 1992). Habitats spanning the full range
of elevations, slopes, and combination of the diverse mix of 34 soil types
found on the area were surveyed. A total of 667 species (in 681 taxa) were
identified with certainty; 72.4% of these were native plant species and
21.6% were characterized as being introduced. For the remaining 6% (41),
Dr. Hunt believed 37 should be considered native and 4 introduced.
Although not found during this survey, Hunt indicated an additional 99
plant species were likely to occur on what is now the northern portion of the
refuge (USFWS 1995).
High plant diversity found on the property was attributed to the broad
range of soil types and the mix of introduced species. Several dwarf shrub
bogs, open canopied minerotrophic peatlands and areas of exposed sand, an
Atlantic white cedar swamp, and a small sandybottom kettlehole pond were
found to contain exceptionably high plant diversity.
Assabet River NWR
- 30 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
A total of 8 rare plant species were documented on the property, including
a state-listed endangered species (se), a state threatened species (st), two
species listed by the state as being of special concern (sc), and three state
watch list (wl) species and are shown in Table 3-3. Special concern species,
a lady’s tresses (Spiranthes vernalis) listed in the Aneptek report as
occurring on the property, was not found by Hunt. Hunt found the more
common lady tresses (S. cernua) within the same location as the Aneptek
record, and believed the earlier identification may have been incorrect.
Included in the species found by Hunt were an additional 34 species (26
native and 6 introduced), which he characterized as being uncommon in
eastern Massachusetts.
Table 3-3: Rare Plant Species at Assabet River NWR
Common name Scientific name Status1
Midland Sedge Carex mesochorea SE
Few Fruited Sedge Carex oligosperma ST
New England Blazing Star Liatris borealis SC
Philadelphia Panic Grass Panicum philadelphicum
var. philidelphicum
SC
Small Beggar-Ticks Bidens discoidea WL
Lacegrass Eragrostis capillaries WL
Northern Starwort Stellaria clycantha WL
1 SE – state-listed endangered, ST – state-listed threatened, SC – state-listed
species of special concern, WL – state watch list
Vernal pools
Vernal pools are a priority habitat type within the state of Massachusetts.
Several vernal pools have been identified on the Assabet River NWR
(Dineen 2001). Additional surveys to locate vernal pools were initiated in
the spring of 2001. Vernal pools are temporary freshwater depressions
which hold spring rains and snowmelt waters, and then typically dry
out during late summer. Vernal pools are critical breeding habitat for
amphibian and invertebrate species due to the lack of predatory fish.
The vernal pools of Assabet River NWR are confirmed breeding
habitat for the blue-spotted salamander (Ambystoma laterale), which is
a state species of special concern, and spotted turtles (Clemmys
guttata), have also been observed on the refuge (Meyer and
Montemerlo, 1995).
Vernal Pool: Photo by Rob Vincent
Invasive or Overabundant Species
Hunt found that the number of exotic plant species was lower than
expected, in part due to the undisturbed nature of the former Sudbury
Training Annex. However, Hunt identified 19 species on the property that
are included in a listing of “nonnative, invasive and potentially invasive
plants in New England” prepared by Dr. Leslie J. Mehrhoff of the
University of Connecticut (UCONN 2000). No surveys have been
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 31 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
completed to determine the extent of occurrence for any of these species on
the refuge (see Table 3-4).
Table 3-4: Invasive Species at Assabet River NWR
Scientific name Common name
Acer platanoides Norway Maple
Cyanchum nigrum (L.) Pers. Black Swallowwort
Berberis thunbergii DC Japanese Barberry
Catalpa speciosa (Warder ex
Barney) Warder ex Engelm
Catawba Tree
Myosotis scorpioides L. True Forget-Me-Not
Lonicera X bella Zabel Bella Honeysuckle
Lonicera japonica Thunb. Japanese Honeysuckle
Lonicera moorwii Gray Morrow Honeysuckle
Celastrus orbiculata Thunb. Asiatic Bittersweet
Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin.
Ex Steud. (= P. communis)
Spotted Knapweed
Iris pseudacorus L. Yellow Iris
Robinia pseudo-acacia L. var.
pseudo-acacia
Black Locust
Polygunum cuspidatum Siebold &
Zucar
Japanese Knotweed
Rumex acetosella L. Sheep Sorrel
Lysimachia nummalaria L. Moneywort
Rhamnus frangula L. European Buckthorn
Rosa multiflora Thunb. Multiflora Rose
Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle Tree-of-Heaven
Wildlife Resources
Migratory Birds
Comprehensive surveys for wintering, breeding, and migrating birds have
not yet been completed on the refuge. However, refuge staff initiated
breeding American woodcock (Scolopax minor), breeding land-bird, and
breeding marsh bird surveys in 2000. The latter two surveys
are following protocols of Service region-wide studies. The
American woodcock surveys also follow standardized
protocols, but it is not currently a part of a region-wide study.
Canada Geese: Photo by Paul Buckley
The Service Region 5 Landbird Breeding Survey conducted
on Assabet River NWR is similar to the national breeding
bird survey in which singing males are seen or heard at
designated points along a route that traverses the refuge
during the breeding season (May-July). This survey was
initiated in the spring of 2000 and resulted in an initial species
list of breeding land birds. The landbird survey is designed to
continue for at least 5 years, at which time the data will be
Assabet River NWR
- 32 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
analyzed to determine the frequency at which the subsequent surveys need
to be conducted to accurately monitor refuge populations.
The Service Region 5 Marshbird Callback Survey was conducted at the
Assabet River NWR for the first time in 2000. This survey follows a
national protocol which will assist with the monitoring of marshbirds
throughout the nation. The Marshbird Callback Survey specifically targets
the secretive birds of wetlands that are generally missed during landbird
surveys.
In addition, several other series of migratory bird inventories have been
conducted on the refuge. Aneptek surveyed the areas at and around the
Army’s Capehart family housing area and the Taylor Drop Zone two to
three times per week in June and July, 1991. They identified a total of 54
species using the mix of habitat at the drop zone. Ron Lockwood, a
volunteer master birder, has conducted extensive observations on the
refuge since 1999. The refuge supports four state-listed species (Table 3-5).
Additionally, an occasional federally-threatened bald eagle is sighted flying
over the refuge. Additional observations are continuing. For a complete list
of migratory birds see Appendix D.
Table 3-5: State-listed Bird Species at Assabet River NWR
Scientific name Common name Status1 Reference
Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned Hawk SC Lockwood, 1999
Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s Hawk SC Lockwood, 1999
Dendroica striata Blackpoll Warbler SC Lockwood, 1999
Parula americana Northern Parula ST Lockwood, 1999 & 20000
1 SE – state-listed endangered, ST – state-listed threatened, SC – state-listed species of
special concern, WL – state watch list
Mammals
Comprehensive surveys for mammal species have not yet been conducted
on the refuge. However, two surveys have been completed on portions of
the refuge. Aneptek (1991) inventoried the Taylor Drop Zone and nearby
habitat, identifying mammals by sight, vocalization, track and scat through
the months of June and July, 1991. A number of pitfall traps and two
overnight 15-set Sherman trap transects across a variety of habitats at the
Drop Zone were also run. A total of 14 mammalian species were recorded
from this portion of what is now the refuge. Thomas (1992) surveyed small
mammal species at seven locations on the Sudbury Training Annex from
April 14 to December 10, 1992. Meyer and Montemerlo, 1995, recorded
mammals from the portion of the former Sudbury Training Annex south of
Hudson Road in June and July, 1995. Additional observations have been
recorded by refuge personnel over the years. Twenty five mammalian
species have been recorded on the refuge to date (Appendix D).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 33 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Species concentrated within the early successional open-land areas include
northern short-tailed shrews (Blarina brevicauda), meadow voles
(Microtus pennsylvanicus), and meadow jumping mice (Zapus hudsonius).
Forested lands are likely to support such species as eastern gray squirrels
(Sciurus carolinensis), red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), white-footed
mice (Peromyscus leucopus), southern red-backed
voles (Clethrionomys gapperi), porcupine (Erethizon
dorsatum) and fisher (Martes pennanti). Other species
that occupy a variety of habitat types include whitetailed
deer (Odocoileus virginianus), coyote (Canis latrans),
red fox (Vulpes vulpes), raccoon (Procyon lotor), eastern
cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), woodchuck (Marmota
monax), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), striped
skunk (Mephitis mephitis), several species of moles and
bats. Other species present include flying squirrels
(Glaucomys volens), bobcat (Lynx rufus), beaver (Castor
canadensis), moose (Alces alces) and mink (Mustela
vison).
Beaver activity at Assabet River NWR: Photo
by Marijke Holtrop
In December, 2002, The Friends of the Assabet River NWR received a
grant from Sudbury Foundation for training 17 team members with
researcher Sue Morse of Keeping Track VT. The Assabet Keeping Track
(AKT) received training in identifying track and sign of nine focal species
and in establishing and running a baseline wildlife monitoring program on
the Assabet River NWR.
The focal species of the AKT program are black bear (Ursus americanus),
bobcat (Lynx rufus), fisher, mink, red and grey fox (Urocyon
cinereoargenteus), moose, river otter (Lutra canadensis) and porcupine.
Keeping Track VT's protocol was followed by starting with a thorough
reconnaissance of the refuge resulting in four established transects for the
collection of data. Data collection is follows specific guidelines and includes
photographing tracks and signs when they are found. Each transect is
approximately 60' wide and 2 miles long. The AKT team walks each
transect four times a year corresponding to the various seasons of the year,
with the first transect taking place in the spring of 2004.
AKT provides data to the Service and Keeping Track VT where data from
all Keeping Track teams is collected and analyzed. AKT has documented
the presence of bobcat, fisher, mink, otter and red fox on the refuge with
sightings of bear and moose in the area. AKT maintains a website
(www.pbase.com/akt) with photos of monitoring activities.
Assabet River NWR
- 34 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Reptiles and Amphibians
Comprehensive surveys of amphibians and reptiles have not yet been
completed at the refuge. However, the refuge staff initiated an annual call-count
survey for anuran species (frogs and toads) in 2000. The survey is
part of a standardized study being conducted on several refuges in the
Service’s northeast region. The survey is planned to continue to detect
population changes. Aneptek (1991) inventoried amphibians and
reptiles within the habitats surrounding the former Taylor Drop
Zone during June and July of that year. Three reptilian and seven
amphibian species were recorded during their surveys. In addition,
Meyer and Montemerlo (1995) surveyed the portion of the refuge
south of Hudson Road for amphibian and reptilian species in June
and July of that year.
Painted Turtle: Photo by David Flint
A complete listing of species recorded to date is included in
Appendix D. One state-listed amphibian, the blue spotted
salamander (Ambystoma laterale), and three state-listed reptilian
species, one of which is state threatened, have been reported from
the refuge to date. Table 3-6 identifies these state-listed species.
Table 3-6: State-listed Amphibians and Reptiles at Assabet River NWR
Scientific Name Common Name Status1
Ambystoma laterale Blue Spotted Salamander SC
Clemmys guttata Spotted Turtle SC
Terrapene carolina Eastern Box Turtle SC
Emys blandingii Blanding’s Turtle ST
1 SE – state-listed endangered, ST – state-listed threatened, SC – state-listed
species of special concern, WL – state watch list
Fisheries
The aquatic resources at Assabet River NWR include the Assabet River,
Taylor Brook, Puffer Pond, Willis Pond, Cutting Pond and several other
smaller ponds. Approximately one mile of the Assabet River parallels the
northwestern boundary of the refuge, although there is a strip of privately
owned land between the refuge boundary and the river’s edge. Elizabeth
Brook is the largest tributary of the Assabet River (Stow 1997), and flows
into the Assabet on the opposite bank from the refuge.
The Assabet is characterized by a warmwater fishery in the section below
and above the stretch along the refuge. According to a Massachusetts
Division of Fisheries and Wildlife survey done in July 1997, water
temperatures of the Assabet River in the towns of Maynard, Stow and
Acton ranged from 25° to 27.2° C. Bottom type consisted of gravel, rubble
and boulder with some silt and sand in the pools. Gamefish species captured
during the State of Massachusetts 1997 survey included largemouth bass
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 35 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
(Micropterus salmonoides) and chain pickerel (Esox niger). Other fish
documented included yellow perch (Perca flavecens), pumpkinseed
(Lepomis gibbosus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), redbreast sunfish
(Lepomis auritus), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), white sucker
(Catostomus commersoni), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas),
fallfish (Semotilus corporalis), creek chubsucker (Erimyzon oblongus),
yellow and brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus) and American eel
(Anquilla rostrata). See Appendix D for a complete listing of fish species.
Fishing in the Assabet River is regulated by the State of Massachusetts
fish and wildlife laws.
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health Fish Consumption
Advisory for this river is the statewide advisory “for pregnant women not
to consume fish caught in freshwater due to elevated levels of mercury in
fish flesh” (MDFW 1999).
Puffer Pond is a natural pond, most likely of glacial origin. It is
approximately 30 acres (OHM 1994), and lies wholly within the refuge
boundary. The northern end of the pond is bounded by a scrub/shrub
emergent wetland, with the remainder undeveloped and forested. It is a
warmwater pond with a maximum depth of approximately 2.5 to 3 meters
(OHM 1994). Taylor Brook is the outlet of Puffer Pond and flows into the
Assabet River. Aquatic vegetation consists of yellow water lily (Nuphor
varigatum), coontail (Ceratophyllum spp.), anacharis (Elodea spp.) and
cattails (Typha latifolia). The pond bottom consists of sandy/silt muck
containing coarse organic particulate matter along the shoreline, grading to
a more silty muck towards the central, deeper portions of the pond (OHM
1994).
Fish species found in Puffer Pond include chain pickerel, yellow perch,
brown bullhead, largemouth bass, golden shiner, black crappie, and bluegill
(OHM 1994). A listing of fish species found in the Assabet River and on the
refuge is provided in Appendix D. All the fish caught during the 1994
bioaccumulation study generally appeared in good health and were
relatively abundant due to the high quality habitat found in the pond.
Relatively large numbers of forage fish were found in Puffer Pond (OHM
1994).
A portion of the northern shoreline of Willis Pond is on the refuge
boundary. Willis Pond is approximately 68 acres (Ackerman 1989). It is
shallow, averaging around five feet deep. Fish species found in Willis Pond
include sunfish (Enneacanthus obesus), largemouth bass, rock bass
(Amblophites rupestris), yellow perch and chain pickerel (Cutting 2000).
There is a report of smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) being caught
from Willis Pond (Ackerman 1989).
Cutting Pond is privately owned; however, its western edge borders the
Assabet River NWR. It is less than twenty acres, and averages
Assabet River NWR
- 36 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
approximately three feet deep, although there are some springs in the pond
(Cutting 2000). Cutting Pond is man-made, and has had no public access.
Approval was given to purchase land around the pond at the April 2004
Sudbury Town meeting, and public access will be provided in the future.
Yellow perch, largemouth bass, chain pickerel, and sunfish inhabit the pond
according to the current owner, Mr. John Cutting.
Invertebrates
Comprehensive surveys for invertebrate species across the entire refuge
have not yet been conducted. Aneptek (1991) surveyed the Taylor Drop
Zone and its surrounding habitat in June and July of that year for
invertebrate species. One hundred and ten taxa of annelids, mollusks,
crustaceans, arthropods, and insects were found. Identification was made
to the family and, in some cases, to the genus level.
Mello and Peters (1992) completed a survey of the lepidoptera in
portions of what is now the northern portion of Assabet River NWR.
Efforts were concentrated in the areas bordering Willis Pond and
along Puffer Road, and included both deciduous upland habitat and
the edges of a small wet meadow draining into Taylor Brook. Eighty
five species of moths were recorded. No state-listed species were
documented. The fact that night-light traps were not used and cool
weather encountered during the survey period may have reduced the
number of species observed (Mello and Peters 1992). Additional
surveys were recommended, particularly within the Atlantic white
cedar swamp area.
Threatened and Endangered Species
With the exception of occasional (most likely wintering) bald eagles,
no federally listed threatened or endangered species are currently
known from the Assabet River NWR. A small number of New
England blazing stars (a federal candidate species in 1992) were
recorded in 1992, but were not found by the New England Wildflower
Society during a 1999 re-survey for the Massachusetts Natural Heritage
and Endangered Species Program (NHESP).
Monarch Butterfly: Photo by
Veronique Schejtman
Although surveys of the refuge are far from complete, 8 state-listed plant
species, 4 state-listed birds, and 4 state-listed amphibian and reptilian
species have been recorded to date (see Tables 3-3, 3-5 and 3-6).
Special Designations
Assabet River NWR is included in the Sudbury-Assabet-Concord (SuAsCo)
inland river priority for protection focus area under the NAWMP. The
refuge area is also included within the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act
of 1986 and is included in the USEPA’s priority wetlands of New England
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 37 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
listing (1987). The refuge is identified as being high biodiversity focus areas
in the SuAsCo watershed biodiversity protection and stewardship plan
(Clark 2000).
Assabet River NWR has been designated as a Massachusetts Important
Bird Area (IBA) for its rare and unique habitat communities, including
Atlantic white cedar swamp, a kettlehole pond, several dwarf shrub bogs,
open canopy minerotrophic peatlands, and other sand communities. IBAs
provide essential habitat for at least one or more species of breeding,
wintering or migrating birds. The primary goals of the program are listed
below.
• “To identify, nominate and designate key sites that contribute to the
preservation of significant bird populations or communities.
• To provide information that will help land managers evaluate areas for
habitat management or land acquisition.
• To activate public and private participation in bird conservation efforts.
• To provide education and community outreach opportunities.”
(http://www.massaudubon.org/birds-&-beyond/iba/iba-intro.html)
Cultural Resources
Prehistoric Period
The refuge is located within the southern Merrimack River Basin. The
earliest settlement/land use patterns in this basin during the Paleoindian
period were most likely a widely spaced network of site locations within a
very large territory. By 7,500 to 6,000 years ago (Middle Archaic)
populations were beginning to restrict settlement activities that appear to
correspond with the boundaries of the larger drainages within the
Merrimack Basin (Gallagher et. al. 1986). Perhaps due to an increase in
population, or changes in natural resource distribution, a maximum
concentration of settlement patterns within defined territories occurred
between about 4,500 and 3,000 years ago (Late Archaic). A general period
of environmental stress that affected the entire region occurred after 3,000
years ago (Terminal Archaic and Early Woodland), had a profound affect
on land use activities during that time. A noticeable restructuring of earlier
settlement patterns during the period of 3,000 to 2,000 B.P. (Before
present), is due to this event. Interior, upland environments appear to be
less populated, perhaps because people may have been utilizing coastal
resources more intensely (Gallagher et. al. 1986).
Toward the end of the prehistoric period, it appears that interior river
drainages and some upland settings were a vital part of settlement patterns
by 1,600 to 1,000 years ago (Woodland Period). A return to well defined
river basin territories and the final episode of the prehistoric period seems
to have taken place, although settlement patterns within interior section of
the Merrimack Basin remain unclear (Gallagher et. al. 1986). The move
Assabet River NWR
- 38 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
back into the interior sections may be the result of introduction of
agriculture and the suitability of the inland soil to sustain the new
subsistence mode.
Within the Assabet River NWR, there are a variety of environmental zones
that represent areas of both high and low natural resource potential. Puffer
Pond and the complex of streams and wetlands associated with it is the
most clear general zone of high natural resource potential (Hudson 1889;
Ritchie 1980; Hoffman 1983). This pond, along with Willis Pond, is one of
the few natural lakes or ponds in the western portion of the town of
Sudbury (Gallagher et. al. 1986). It is directly connected to the Assabet
River by Taylor brook. Large areas of marsh and wooded wetlands,
extending the entire length of Taylor Brook form the outlet at the north
end of Puffer Pond to the confluence with the Assabet River, would have
been excellent habitat for a variety of waterfowl, fur-bearing mammals, and
other species exploited by Native Americans.
The central portion of the refuge contains several large areas of wooded
wetlands covering several hundred acres. These wetlands will have
provided seasonally concentrated natural resources suitable to winter
camps for humans. One prehistoric site has been located in the central
wetland portion of the refuge, and with further testing, several more will
likely be found.
The elevated, rocky hills within the refuge will have provided another type
of environment for humans to utilize. This area will have sustained
deciduous forest which will have provided habitat for deer, bear, raccoon
and bobcat, as well as acorns, chestnuts and hickory nuts. Five prehistoric
sites have been identified through limited archaeological testing (Gallagher
et. al. 1986). Most likely more sites located in this environment
representing all the major time periods within Native American history will
be identified. Assabet River NWR offers a wide variety of environmental
zones ideal for Native American settlement throughout history. This area
was a cultural focus of the Merrimack River Basin. The limited
archaeological studies completed, have revealed prehistoric archaeological
sites in all of the various refuge environments (Gallagher et. al. 1986). The
refuge should be considered highly sensitive for such cultural resources.
The refuge has the potential to contribute information that is significant in
understanding Native American settlement patterns and environmental
uses for this region of Massachusetts.
Historic Period
Europeans began to settle the refuge area around 1650. In the beginning,
there were conflicts with the existing Native American groups. These
groups had been decimated by diseases and were beginning to become
concentrated in Christian Indian settlements. All English settlements
were affected by King Philip’s War in 1675, but after the War, with Native
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 39 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
American nations losing political strength, the English were able to develop
and settle the refuge area (Gallagher et. al. 1986).
The people that settled in the refuge area primarily were involved with
farming activities. The community was mostly self sufficient and provided
goods, such as grain, to Boston, which served as a core town for this region.
By 1750, the settlement pattern of the refuge area was influenced by
increasing development. The towns that lie within the refuge supplied
Boston with timber and agricultural products. After the Revolutionary
War, trade networks expanded on an international scale, local centers
began to acquire more economic strength (Gallagher et. al. 1986).
During the 19th century, mills developed which provided economic
opportunities for immigrants. One of the largest mills in the area was
American Woolen Company. This company became the largest wool
manufacturer in the region until the end of World War I. Agriculture was
also still thriving in this region (Gallagher et. al. 1986).
Within the boundaries of the refuge, many farms and residences were built
since the early 19th century. Some, such as the Rice/Vose Tavern and
Puffer House, were 17th and 18th century in origin. The number of
structures remained stable throughout the 19th century, with a settlement
pattern oriented toward the few roadways that traversed the refuge. These
roadways linked the homes to local and regional cores, and served as the
sole transportation network in the peripheral economic zone of the
region. Land use within the refuge was almost exclusively
agricultural and pastoral, with some tracts of woodland. By the early
20th century, many of the older farms were acquired and new houses
were constructed by Finnish immigrants until 1942, when the m
acquired the property (Gallagher et. al. 1986).
Wild Mushroom: Photo by Marijke
Holtrop
ilitary
With the help of Paul Boothroyd of the Maynard Historical
Commission, the Service has been able to acquire information about
some of the structures once located on the refuge. One of the most
historically significant structures is the Rice/Vose Tavern which was
constructed in the early 17th century. During the Revolutionary War,
Captain Joshua Perry of Portsmouth, New Hampshire and his wagon
train of ammunition and supplies, stayed at the tavern on the way to
New York State. The tavern also served as the community meeting
hall. It was in full operation until 1815. The Army dismantled the
tavern at an unknown date, but the foundation remains (Boothroyd,
personal communication).
Several of the houses that were located on the refuge in the earlier part of
the 20th century that were demolished by the Army, were associated with
farming activities. The Hill Farm consisted of two homes that were
demolished by the Army. More research is needed to establish when the
homes were built; however, the homestead encompassed about 109 acres.
Assabet River NWR
- 40 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
The Lent Farm, located along Honey Brook was associated with a saw mill
and a summer camp. This property contained about 92 acres. The Sarvela
Farm, also known as the Haynes Place, earlier belonged to a Puffer and
was known as an old farm. This farm, located both in Stow and Maynard,
contained about 43 acres (Boothroyd personal communication).
The two major roads going through the refuge, Puffer Road and New
Lancaster Road, date back to early colonial times and predate the Great
Road. Also, there are two cranberry bogs, one belonging to the Luarila and
the other the Huikari farms. The bogs are associated with 19th century
agriculture and landscape use (Boothroyd personal communication).
The Paananen Farm, originally owned by the Hendrickson Family,
contains the foundation remains of the barn, silo and two wells. The Olila
farm was close to Puffer Road. Early Colonial history suggests that there
may be small pox graves south of the Rice Tavern on this property. The
Matson Farm was on the corner of Davis Lane. The Matson’s are said to
have worked at Maynard Mills. The Nelson Farm was a dairy farm with a
mill house, greenhouse, and was a very old farm; in the 1850’s it was a girls’
private boarding school run by Miss Hannah Blanchard Wood, youngest
daughter of Dr. Jonathan Wood. At that time, the farm was owned by her
sister married to Henry Brooks (Boothroyd, personal communication).
Assabet River NWR provides a good opportunity to analyze early
American farmsteads. Because the military allowed the land to regenerate
after they acquired the property, soils have remained intact in areas that
were not disturbed by military training. There are both prehistoric and
historic resources that have the potential to add to our understanding of
human history in this area. Further research is necessary to understand a
comprehensive history of the refuge. The refuge has the potential to yield
significant information about land use history and cultural landscapes for
this part of Massachusetts because of the proximity to Boston and lack of
modern development.
Before the military acquired the refuge area, lots were also beginning to be
developed as vacation homes next to Puffer Pond. Many of these lots were
not yet developed at the time of the purchase. While occupied by the
military, the land was used in several ways which included the construction
of weapons storage areas, an elaborate railroad construction to transport
ammunition between the weapons bunkers and Boston, weapons training
areas, chemical testing areas, and other military activities. At times,
portions of the Sudbury Annex (the refuge property) were leased out to
private companies to develop items that will be useful to the military. The
military also allowed the land to regenerate itself from pasture and farm
land (Gallagher et. al. 1986). Most of the old farmstead houses were
demolished by the military and the most of the fields were allowed to revert
through natural succession to forest.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 41 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
The Army’s historic uses of the land area formerly known as the Sudbury
Training Annex have been researched by the U.S. Army Environmental
Center, and its contractors (U.S. Army 1995). The information was
collected through various record searches, interviews, and map reviews. A
summary of that information is presented in this section; a fuller
description of the Army’s land-use history is provided in the U.S. Army’s
1995 Draft Master Environmental Plan, Fort Devens Sudbury Training
Annex, Middlesex County, Massachusetts (prepared by ABB
Environmental Service, Inc., Portland, ME for the U.S. Army
Environmental Center, Aberdeen, MD. December, 1995.)
Prior to the formal formation of the Annex as a military facility in 1942, the
land was privately owned and primarily used as farmland. According to a
Goldberg Zoino and Associates (GZA) report some of the land “was owned
by industrial companies (such as the Diamond Match Company or Maynard
Woolen Mills).” The Annex itself consisted of land falling within the
boundaries of the towns of Sudbury, Maynard, Marlboro, Hudson and Stow
(GZA 1991).
The Annex became government property in 1942, when a formal petition
was filed by the United States to acquire the land by eminent domain
(District Court of United States for District of Massachusetts, Misc. Civil
no. 6507, March 25, 1942). The location was selected for strategic reasons --
it was well out of range of naval guns - and for its close proximity to four
active railroad lines. On August 16, 1942, the area was
designated Boston Backup Storage Facility under the
Commanding General of Boston Port of Embarkation.
Transfer of the then 3,100-acre property occurred on
November 10, 1942 (U.S. Army 1995).
The Annex was originally used to store surplus ammunition
for the war effort. It was named the Maynard Ammunition
Backup Storage Point (MABSP). Initially, the Annex served
as part of the Boston Port of Embarkation system, and was
specifically tied to Castle Island Port, the loading point for
ammunition being transported overseas. When ships were
not available for loading, or a surplus of ammunition had
been received, ordnance will be stored at the MABSP. Provision for the
safe storage of ordnance was ensured by the construction of 50 earth-covered
concrete bunkers located around the central section of the Annex.
Railroad spurs were developed to provide access between bunkers and the
existing main railroad lines (U.S. Army 1995).
One of the U.S. Army’s buildings at the refuge:
Photo by Marijke Holtrop
In 1946, the facility became part of Watertown Arsenal and was referred to
as Watertown Arsenal (Maynard). The facility was apparently used as a
storage depot until 1950, when it was transferred to the first Army and
became a subinstallation of Fort Devens from 1950 to 1952 for storage and
training. In 1952, the facility was again transferred from Fort Devens
Assabet River NWR
- 42 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
management to the Chief of Ordnance, renamed the Maynard Ordnance
Test Station (MOTS) and maintained that name through at least 1957. The
principal use of the Annex from 1952 to 1957 was for ordnance research and
development activities (U.S. Army 1995).
In 1958, control of the Annex was transferred to the Quartermaster
Research and Engineering Center at Natick; and while troop training
activities continued, the Annex was now also available for field testing of
experiments developed by the laboratories at Natick. Other agencies and or
operators also were granted permission to use the Annex for a variety of
activities, primarily related to materials testing and personnel training. The
Capehart Family Housing Area was established by Natick Laboratories in
1962 for its employees. The designation for the Quartermaster Research
and Engineering Center was changed to Natick Laboratories in 1962 and to
United States Army Natick Research and Development Command
(NARADCOM) in 1976, but the same group maintained overall control of
the Annex until 1982 (U.S. Army 1995).
Custody of the entire Annex was transferred back to Fort Devens in 1982.
(Fort Devens is located some 15 miles to the northwest of the Annex). Until
the end of 1994, the mission of Fort Devens was to command and train its
assigned duty units and to support the U.S. Army Security Agency
Training Center and School, U.S. Army Reserves, Massachusetts National
Guard, Reserve Officer Training Programs, and Air Defense sites in New
England. The Annex was used primarily for personnel training activities
for active duty Army units, for the Army Reserve, as well as for the Army
and Air National Guard troops.
The Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-510), and
the subsequent decisions by the BRAC-1991 Commission and Congress
required the closure and realignment of Fort Devens. The Army
realignment action created the Devens Reserve Forces Training Area for
use by Army Reserve and National Guard forces.
The Sudbury Training Annex remained under the
management of the Devens Reserve Forces
Training Area while environmental investigations
and remediation were being completed. On
September 28, 2000, management of approximately
2,230 acres of the property transferred to the
Service for the formation of the Assabet River
NWR. At the time of the transfer of management to
the Service, the Sudbury Training Annex, exclusive
of the Capehart Family Housing area under the
control of the Natick Research and Development
Center, was approximately 2,305 acres in size. The
Army at the Devens Reserve Forces Training
Volunteers removing the former obstacle course:
Photo by Marijke Holtrop
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 43 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Center retained administrative responsibility for approximately 75.67
acres, of which 71.5+/- acres are planned to be transferred to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency and 4.15+/- acres to the U.S. Air Force.
Socio-economic Resources
The group of towns in which the refuge is located is known as the Metro
West section of greater metropolitan Boston.
Population and Demographic Conditions
Population trends vary considerably among the neighboring cities and
towns of Maynard, Sudbury, Hudson and Stow (U.S. Census Bureau 2001).
Overall population levels in the four towns increased from 47,244 to 51,289
(an 8.6% percent increase) between 1990 and 2000. The majority of this
increase occurred in Sudbury. The population of Sudbury increased from
14,358 to 16,841 (a 17.3% increase). Maynard’s population increased from
10,325 to 10,433 (1%), Stow’s increased from 5,328 to 5,902 (10.8%), and
Hudson’s increased from 17,233 to 18,113 (5.1%) (U.S. Census 2001).
The Boston-Worcester-Lawrence metropolitan area population increased
by 363,697 people or 6.7% to a total of 5,819,100 in 2000. The greater
Worcester metropolitan area grew by 33,005 people (nearly a 7% increase)
to a population of 511,389 in the year 2000 (U.S. Census 2001). A more
detailed set of the most recent available U.S. Census (1990) demographic
descriptors for Hudson, Maynard and Sudbury is provided at the U.S.
Census bureau’s web site for the Census 2000 data:
http://factfinder.census.gov (comparable data for Stow was not available).
Adjacent Communities and Land Uses
Stow, Maynard, Hudson and Sudbury have zoned the refuge what is the
equivalent of open-space/conservation. With the exception of the
Massachusetts Fire Fighter Training Academy and a nursery, land use
surrounding the refuge is nearly entirely low-density residential.
Assabet River NWR
- 44 -
Chapter 4: Management Direction
Chapter 4: Management Direction
The Service manages fish and wildlife habitats considering the needs of all
resources in decision-making. A requirement of the Refuge Improvement
Act is to maintain the ecological health, diversity, and integrity of refuges.
The refuge is a vital link in the overall function of the ecosystem. To offset
the historic and continuing loss of riparian and forested floodplain habitats
within the ecosystem, the refuge helps to provide a biological "safety net"
for migratory non-game birds and waterfowl, threatened and endangered
species, and other species of concern.
The vision and goals of the refuge translate the stated refuge purpose into
management direction. To the extent practicable, each goal is supported by
objectives with strategies needed to accomplish them. Objectives are
intended to be accomplished within 15 years, although actual
implementation may vary as a result of available funding and staff.
Refuge Complex Vision
The Complex will contribute to the mission of the Refuge System and
support ecosystem–wide priority wildlife and natural communities.
Management will maximize the diversity and abundance of fish and wildlife
with emphasis on threatened and endangered species, migratory birds, and
aquatic resources. The Complex will have a well-funded and 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.
Refuge Complex Goals
The following goals were developed for the Complex to support the mission
of the Refuge System and the Gulf of Maine Ecosystem Priorities. These
goals provide a general management direction for the refuges. Not all of
the goals are applicable to all eight of the Complex refuges. Each of the
goals is followed by the management strategies that will help refuge staff to
meet the appropriate goals.
Goal 1: Recover threatened and endangered species of the Complex.
There are no known federally listed threatened or endangered species at
Assabet River NWR. A number of the strategies and objectives that are
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 45 -
Chapter 4: Management Direction
listed under Goal 2 will benefit state listed species. If ongoing monitoring
and surveys determine the presence of federally listed species, we will take
any and all appropriate actions.
Goal 2: Protect and enhance habitats that support self-sustaining
populations of federal trust species and wildlife diversity.
Objective 1: Collect and evaluate relevant baseline habitat and wildlife
data to ensure future decisions are based on sound science.
We are currently managing lands for wetland species, forest dwellers and
those species requiring grassland, wetland and old field habitat. However,
due to the relatively small land base we have, it is important for us to
consider how we can best contribute to the overall picture of trust species
of the Atlantic flyway. The Northeast Region of the Refuge System is
currently working on a region-wide strategic plan to
establish management goals for refuges which address
landscape concerns and needs. We are currently gathering
data to better understand the role of these refuges for these
species and will begin additional surveying, monitoring and
researching of our lands. This information is essential for
determining our management focus. Using this information
and guidance from the regional strategic plan, we will draft
an HMP for the refuge which will outline the direction and
details of refuge management. The HMP will include
information required under the Service’s Biological
Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy,
including discussion of historic conditions and restoration of
those conditions if possible (see http://policy.fws.gov/
601fw3.html to view this policy).
Mallard with ducklings: Photo by Joseph Rhatigan
In addition to current management activities, increased staff and funding
resources associated with our management will enable us to take a number
of actions that will lead to the completion of two key step-down plans under
this CCP: the HMP and a Habitat and Wildlife Inventory and Monitoring
Plan (HWIMP).
Strategy 1: Continue to participate in several region-wide and Service-wide
surveys and studies, including information on frogs, shorebirds, marsh
birds, and American woodcock. Breeding bird surveys and participation in
the national frog deformity project will continue as staff and funding allow.
Strategy 2: Update and expand current wildlife inventories to close data
gaps related, in part, to seasonality of use, habitat-type preferences, and,
where practicable, estimates of population numbers. We will survey and
inventory both the Service’s trust resources (migratory birds and federally
listed threatened and endangered species) and resident wildlife, including
state listed threatened and endangered species. We expect to accomplish
Assabet River NWR
- 46 -
Chapter 4: Management Direction
these concurrently; however, if necessary, surveys and inventories related
to the Service’s trust resources may receive priority.
Strategy 3: Monitor water quality. We will rely on partners such as OAR
and SVT to conduct this monitoring. We will
participate in the SuAsCo Watershed Community
Council and other v