Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Great Meadows 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: Marsh Wren by USFWS Staff
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background..............................................................................................- 1 -
Refuge Overview ..................................................................................................................................- 1 -
Purpose and Need for a CCP ..............................................................................................................- 3 -
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission..............................................................................................- 4 -
National Wildlife Refuge System Mission.........................................................................................- 4 -
Laws .......................................................................................................................................................- 5 -
National and Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding this CCP ............................- 6 -
Gulf of Maine - Ecosystem Priorities .............................................................................................- 6 -
North American Waterfowl Management Plan............................................................................- 6 -
Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plans .................................................................................- 8 -
Regional Wetlands Concept Plan- Emergency Wetlands Resources Act ..............................- 12 -
Our Irreplaceable Heritage - Protecting Biodiversity in Massachusetts ...............................- 12 -
Existing Partnerships....................................................................................................................- 12 -
Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process.....................................................- 15 -
Wilderness Assessment.....................................................................................................................- 16 -
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities................................................................................................- 17 -
Issues and Concerns Considered Outside the Scope of This Plan ...............................................- 18 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions...................................................................................- 21 -
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting .........................................................................................................- 21 -
Socio-Economic Setting......................................................................................................................- 22 -
Refuge Resources...............................................................................................................................- 23 -
Climate.............................................................................................................................................- 23 -
Geology and Topography ...............................................................................................................- 23 -
Soils ..................................................................................................................................................- 24 -
Hydrology........................................................................................................................................- 24 -
Air Quality.......................................................................................................................................- 26 -
Water Quality and Quantity...........................................................................................................- 27 -
Aircraft Noise .................................................................................................................................- 28 -
Contaminants..................................................................................................................................- 29 -
Special Designations ...........................................................................................................................- 29 -
Wild and Scenic River Designation ..............................................................................................- 29 -
Biological Resources ...........................................................................................................................- 30 -
Vegetation and Habitat Types ......................................................................................................- 30 -
Invasive Plants................................................................................................................................- 32 -
Wildlife Resources..............................................................................................................................- 32 -
Migratory Birds..............................................................................................................................- 32 -
Mammals .........................................................................................................................................- 33 -
Reptiles and Amphibians ...............................................................................................................- 34 -
Fish...................................................................................................................................................- 34 -
Invertebrates ..................................................................................................................................- 34 -
Threatened and Endangered Species ..........................................................................................- 35 -
Cultural Resources.............................................................................................................................- 35 -
Prehistoric Period ...........................................................................................................................- 35 -
The Historic Period......................................................................................................................... 38 -
Socio-economics ..................................................................................................................................- 39 -
Bedford ............................................................................................................................................- 39 -
Billerica............................................................................................................................................- 40 -
Carlisle .............................................................................................................................................- 40 -
Concord............................................................................................................................................- 41 -
Framingham ...................................................................................................................................- 41 -
Lincoln .............................................................................................................................................- 42 -
Sudbury ...........................................................................................................................................- 42 -
Wayland...........................................................................................................................................- 43 -
Chapter 4: Management Direction .......................................................................................................- 45 -
Complex Vision ...................................................................................................................................- 45 -
Complex Goals ....................................................................................................................................- 45 -
General Refuge Management............................................................................................................- 68 -
Refuge Access and Fees.................................................................................................................- 68 -
Accessibility ....................................................................................................................................- 70 -
Non-Wildlife Dependent Public Uses...........................................................................................- 70 -
Fire Management...........................................................................................................................- 70 -
Land Protection..............................................................................................................................- 71 -
Resource Protection and Visitor Safety.......................................................................................- 72 -
Special Use Permits and Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement..........................- 72 -
Research ..........................................................................................................................................- 73 -
Wild and Scenic River Designation ..............................................................................................- 74 -
Chapter 5: Refuge Administration........................................................................................................- 75 -
Refuge Staffing...................................................................................................................................- 75 -
Refuge Funding..................................................................................................................................- 77 -
Refuge Buildings and Facilities ........................................................................................................- 77 -
Step-Down Management Plans.........................................................................................................- 78 -
Maintaining Existing Facilities .........................................................................................................- 79 -
Compatibility Determinations ...........................................................................................................- 79 -
Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................................................- 80 -
Adaptive Management.......................................................................................................................- 81 -
Additional NEPA Analysis ................................................................................................................- 82 -
Plan Amendment and Revision .........................................................................................................- 82 -
Literature Cited......................................................................................................................................- 83 -
Glossary ...................................................................................................................................................- 89 -
List of Preparers ....................................................................................................................................- 99 -
Appendices ............................................................................................................................................- 101 -
Appendix A: Relevant Laws ................................................................................................................- 103 -
Appendix B: U.S. Forest Service Content Analysis Team Summary Report ..............................- 111 -
Appendix C: Responses to substantive comments ...........................................................................- 165 -
Appendix D: Species Lists ...................................................................................................................- 179 -
Appendix E: RONS and MMS.............................................................................................................- 195 -
Appendix F: Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Staffing Chart .........- 200 -
Appendix G: Final Compatibility Determinations............................................................................- 204 -
List of Maps
Map 1-1: Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex...........................................- 2 -
Map 1-2: Gulf of Maine Ecosystem .....................................................................................................- 7 -
Map 4-1: Public Use at Concord Division.........................................................................................- 55 -
Map 4-2: Public Use at Concord Impoundments ............................................................................- 56 -
Map 4-3: Public Use at Sudbury Division.........................................................................................- 57 -
Map 4-4: Public Use at Sudbury Division.........................................................................................- 58 -
List of Tables
Table 1-1: NAWMP Species Occurring at Great Meadows NWR....................................................- 8 -
Table 1-2: Bird Species of Concern Occurring on Great Meadows NWR.......................................- 9 -
Table 3-1: Revenue Sharing Payments for Towns Associated with Great Meadows NWR.......- 22 -
Table 4-1: Wildlife Surveys at Great Meadows NWR......................................................................- 46 -
Table 4-1: 2004 Massachusetts Hunting Seasons..............................................................................- 66 -
Table 5-1: Proposed staffing increases ...............................................................................................- 76 -
Table D-1: Birds of Great Meadows NWR........................................................................................- 179 -
Table D-2: Butterflies of Great Meadows NWR..............................................................................- 185 -
Table D-3: Fish of Great Meadows NWR .........................................................................................- 187 -
Table D-4: Reptiles of Great Meadows NWR...................................................................................- 187 -
Table D-5: Amphibians of Great Meadows NWR............................................................................- 188 -
Table D-6: Mammals of Great Meadows NWR................................................................................- 188 -
Table D-7: Plants of Great Meadows NWR......................................................................................- 190 -
Table E-1: Projects currently in the RONS database and proposed projects to be included for
Great Meadows NWR...................................................................................................................- 195 -
Table E-2: Projects currently backlogged in the MMS for Great Meadows NWR.....................- 197 -
Table E-3: Projects currently backlogged in the MMS for the Eastern Massachusetts Refuge
Complex ......................................................................................................................................- 198 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
This final Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) has been prepared for
the Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), which is one of eight
refuges of the Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex
(Complex) (see Map 1-1). Concurrently, we are releasing the Final CCPs
for Oxbow and Assabet River 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 NWR in 2005
and Nantucket and Mashpee 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 for public review and comment in July 2003. 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
Established in 1944, the Concord impoundments became the first tract of
land at Great Meadows. The current extent of the refuge includes 3,863
acres and extends into eight towns. The refuge was created under the
Migratory Bird Conservation Act “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for
any other management purpose, for migratory
birds.”
Concord Impoundments of Great Meadows NWR.
USFWS Photo
The refuge is divided into two divisions: the
Concord Division (1,542 acres) and the Sudbury
Division (2,321 acres). The Concord and Sudbury
Divisions provide habitat for a variety of species.
For example, the Concord impoundments are
utilized by many migrating waterfowl, shorebirds,
wading and marsh birds. The upland areas
support woodcock, songbirds, and many raptors.
The marsh habitats are utilized by amphibians and
reptiles. This diversity of habitats contributes to a
number of regional conservation priorities.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
- 1 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Map 1-1: Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex
- 2 - Great Meadows NWR
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
The refuge’s interspersion of wetland, forested upland and old field
habitats is ideally suited for this purpose. The refuge supports a diverse
mix of migratory birds including waterfowl, wading birds, raptors,
shorebirds, passerines, as well as resident mammals, reptiles, amphibians,
fish and invertebrates. The extensive and regionally significant wetlands
occurring on and adjacent to the refuge, including their associated
tributary drainages andheadwaters, have been listed as a priority for
protection under both the North American Waterfowl Management Plan
(NAWMP) and the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986.
The refuge’s geographic position, accessibility to the local
and regional communities, and its diverse biological
resources also makes it highly attractive for natural
resource educational or interpretive programs, and
compatible wildlife dependent recreational uses. An
estimated 500,000 people visited the refuge in 2000.
Purple flower: Photo by Marijke Holtrop
The eight Eastern Massachusetts NWRs are managed as
a Complex, with centrally stationed staff taking on duties
at multiple refuges. Great Meadows is one of two staffed
offices within the Complex and houses the Refuge
Complex Headquarters and administrative personnel.
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. It is a
framework that will assist in achieving refuge purposes and contributing to
the mission of the Refuge System. The plan identifies what role the refuges
play, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife conservation, in
the protection, enhancement and restoration of trust resources. This plan is
also needed to:
• provide a clear statement of desired future conditions for habitat,
wildlife, visitors and facilities;
• provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and partners with a clear
understanding of the reasons for management actions;
• ensure management reflects the policies and goals of the refuge system
and legal mandates;
• ensure the compatibility of current and future uses;
• review current boundaries of the refuges, and evaluate the need to
revise boundaries to better achieve refuge purposes;
• provide long-term continuity and direction for Complex management;
and,
• provide a basis for staffing and operations, maintenance, and the
development of budget requests.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 3 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Currently, there is no general management plan in place for Great
Meadows NWR that establishes priorities or provides consistent direction
for managing fish, wildlife, habitats, and public uses on the refuge. Some
specific plans have been written but are more than 15 years old. 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 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, photography,
hunting, fishing, environmental education, and interpretation.
Wood Duck: Photo by Bruce
Flaig
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission
The Refuge System is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) under the Department of Interior. The mission of the Service is:
“...working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and
plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American
people.”
The Service 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.
National Wildlife Refuge System Mission
The Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands and waters set
aside specifically for the conservation of wildlife and ecosystem protection.
The Refuge System consists of 544 national wildlife refuges that provide
important habitat for native plants and many species of mammals, birds,
fish, invertebrates, 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
- 4 - Great Meadows NWR
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
annually hunt, fish, observe and photograph wildlife, or participate in
interpretive activities on national wildlife refuges.
“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.
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).
A primary law affecting refuge management is the National Wildlife
Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (Administration Act) which
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to permit any uses of a refuge
“...whenever it is determined that such uses are compatible with the major
purposes for which such areas were established.” The Administration Act
was amended by the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. It is also the key
legislation on managing public uses, and protecting the Refuge System
from incompatible or harmful human activities to ensure that Americans
can enjoy refuge system lands and waters.
Additionally, it is Service policy to address how each refuge, with an
approved CCP, can help achieve the goals of the National Wilderness
Preservation System. Thus, concurrent with the CCP process, we have
incorporated a summary of a wilderness assessment into this document
(see Wilderness Assessment section in Chapter 2).
The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 requires that any recreational use of
refuge lands be compatible with the primary purposes for which a refuge
was established and not inconsistent with other previously authorized
operations.
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 provides for the
management of historic and archaeological resources that occur on any
refuge. Other legislation, such as the Endangered Species Act, the North
American Wetlands Conservation Act, the Wilderness Act of 1964 and
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 5 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
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 organized 52 ecosystem teams across the country. The
Great Meadows NWR falls in the Gulf of Maine ecosystem (see Map 1-2).
The ecosystem priorities are:
• Recover populations and habitats of endangered and threatened
species.
• Protect, enhance, and restore habitats for migratory birds, anadromous
and catadromous fishes, and listed species of concern in the Penobscot,
Kennebec and Androscoggin River basins.
• Protect, enhance, and restore coastal habitats for trust resources of
concern.
• Protect, enhance, and restore populations of migratory bird species of
special concern and their habitats.
• Rebuild American shad and river herring populations in coastal rivers
including the Merrimac River.
• Restore and rehabilitate Atlantic salmon populations in the Merrimac
River.
• Manage Service lands to protect, enhance and restore habitats to
maintain biodiversity.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan
The 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. Great
Meadows 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.
Wood Duck. Photo by Bruce Flaig
- 6 - Great Meadows NWR
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 7 -
Map 1-2: Gulf of Maine Ecosystem
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 7 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
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 Great Meadows NWR.
Table 1-1: NAWMP Species Occurring at Great Meadows NWR
Species Continent
al Priority
Breeding
Importance
Breeding
Need
Nonbreeding
Importance
Nonbreeding
Need
American Black Duck High Mod. High High High Highest
Lesser Scaup High Mod. High High
Mallard High Mod. Low Moderate Mod. High High
Northern Pintail High Mod. Low Moderate
American Wigeon Mod. High Mod. Low Mod. Low
Blue-winged Teal Mod. High Mod. Low Mod. Low
Canvasback Mod. High High High
Common Goldeneye Mod. High Mod. High Mod. High
Bufflehead Moderate High High
Gadwall Moderate Mod. Low Mod. Low
Greater Scaup Moderate High High
Grean-winged Teal Moderate Mod. Low Mod. Low
Wood Duck Moderate Mod. Low Mod. Low Mod. Low Mod. Low
Hooded Merganser Mod. Low Mod. High Moderate
Red-breasted Merganser Mod. Low Mod. High Moderate
Ruddy Duck Mod. Low Mod. High Moderate
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.
Least Sandpiper: USFWS Photo
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, 9 priority winter species, and 7
- 8 - Great Meadows NWR
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
major habitat types as priorities for conservation in this area. Of the
priority species for this physiographic area, at least 51 of the priority
breeding species have been recorded as occurring on the refuge and 7 of
the 9 wintering species have been recorded as wintering on the refuge. In
the plan, focal species are selected for each habitat type and used in
developing population and habitat objectives.
Implementation strategies and management guidelines for achieving these
objectives are also included for each habitat type. Priority habitats for
southern New England include maritime marshes, beaches/dunes, mature
forest, early successional 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. Partners in Flight Bird
Conservation Plans
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 23 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 8 species of shorebirds 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, 15 of these have been recorded as occurring on the
refuge.
Table 1-2: Bird Species of Concern Occurring on Great Meadows NWR
PIF BCR 30 NARSP USSCP
Species Priority
Breeding
Wintering Conservation
Concerns
Priority
Shorebird
High
Concern
Blue-winged
Warbler
􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Golden-winged
Warbler
􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Wood Thrush 􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Prairie Warbler 􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Baltimore Oriole 􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Scarlet Tanager
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 9 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
PIF BCR 30 NARSP USSCP
Species Priority
Breeding
Wintering Conservation
Concerns
Priority
Shorebird
High
Concern
American
Woodcock
􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Rose-breasted
Grosbeak
􀁺􇨠
Black-throated
blue Warbler
􀁺􇨠
Chimney Swift 􀁺􇨠
Eastern Wood-pewee
􀁺􇨠
Black-and-white
Warbler
􀁺􇨠
Hairy
Woodpecker
􀁺􇨠
Red-headed
Woodpecker
􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Eastern Towhee 􀁺􇨠
Purple Finch 􀁺􇨠
American Black
Duck
􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Canada Warbler 􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Blackburnian
Warbler
􀁺􇨠
Bobolink 􀁺􇨠
Whip-poor-will 􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Northern Parula 􀁺􇨠
Yellow-breasted
Chat
􀁺􇨠
Glossy Ibis 􀁺􇨠
American
Bittern
􀁺􇨠
King Rail 􀁺􇨠
Northern
Goshawk
􀁺􇨠
Red-shouldered
Hawk
􀁺􇨠
Northern
Harrier
􀁺􇨠
Vesper Sparrow 􀁺􇨠
Least Bittern 􀁺􇨠
Saltmarsh
Sharp-tailed
Sparrow
􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Sharp-shinned
Hawk
􀁺􇨠
Pied-billed Grebe 􀁺􇨠
Cooper’s Hawk 􀁺􇨠
Short-eared Owl 􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Osprey 􀁺􇨠
Purple Martin 􀁺􇨠
- 10 - Great Meadows NWR
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
PIF BCR 30 NARSP USSCP
Species Priority
Breeding
Wintering Conservation
Concerns
Priority
Shorebird
High
Concern
Great Egret 􀁺􇨠
Savannah
Sparrow
􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Common
Nighthawk
􀁺􇨠
Snowy Egret 􀁺􇨠
Little Blue
Heron
􀁺􇨠
Great Blue
Heron
􀁺􇨠
Common
Moorhen
􀁺􇨠
Horned Lark 􀁺􇨠
Cattle Egret 􀁺􇨠
Common Snipe 􀁺􇨠
Killdeer 􀁺􇨠
Peregrine Falcon 􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Hudsonian
Godwit
􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Common Tern 􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Sedge Wren 􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Marsh Wren 􀁺􇨠
American
Golden-Plover
􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Sanderling 􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Greater
Yellowlegs
􀁺􇨠
Semipalmated
Sandpiper
􀁺􇨠
Wilson’s
Phalarope
􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Solitary
Sandpiper
􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Spotted
Sandpiper
􀁺􇨠
Least Sandpiper 􀁺􇨠
Dunlin 􀁺􇨠
Stilt Sandpiper 􀁺􇨠
Short-billed
Dowithcher
􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Red-necked
Phalarope
􀁺􇨠
Red Phalarope 􀁺􇨠
White-rumped
Sandpiper
􀁺􇨠
Western
Sandpiper
􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Lesser
Yellowlegs
􀁺􇨠
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 11 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
PIF BCR 30 NARSP USSCP
Species Priority
Breeding
Wintering Conservation
Concerns
Priority
Shorebird
High
Concern
Baird’s
Sandpiper
􀁺􇨠
Pectoral
Sandpiper
􀁺􇨠
Long-billed
Dowitcher
􀁺􇨠
Black-billed
Cuckoo
􀁺􇨠
Greater Scaup 􀁺􇨠
Common Loon 􀁺􇨠
Horned Grebe 􀁺􇨠
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
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.
American Goldfinch: Photo by Sandy
Selesky
Existing Partnerships
Throughout this CCP, we use the term “partners”. In addition to
our volunteers, we receive significant help from the following
partners:
Concord River Environmental Stream Team (CREST)
Massachusetts Audubon Society
Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game (DFG), Division of Fisheries
and Wildlife (MassWildlife)
Organization for the Assabet River (OAR)
SuAsCo Watershed Community Council
- 12 - Great Meadows NWR
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Sudbury, Assabet and Concord Wild & Scenic River Stewardship Council
Sudbury Valley Trustees (SVT)
The Trust for Public Land
Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program
(NHESP)
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 13 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
(This page intentionally left blank)
- 14 - Great Meadows NWR
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, we began the planning process in 1999. We
started by forming a core planning team of refuge staff and Service
planners from the regional office. We placed a Notice of Intent 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 groups provided
information on natural resources and
public uses on refuges in the Complex. In
February of 1999, we held open houses in
central locations to provide an opportunity
for public comment on different issues
including current and future management
strategies, land protection and public uses.
We were pleased with the participation at
many of our meetings, which ranged from
30 people to over 100.
We recognized that attending our open
houses would be difficult for many and
designed an Issues Workbook to
encourage additional comment. Over 8,000 people representing a variety of
interests received workbooks. Workbooks were also available at open
houses and at the refuge headquarters. We received over 660 responses.
Using the information collected from our partners and through public
comment we identified significant issues to be addressed in the plan. In
August of 1999, we distributed a Planning Update to everyone on our
mailing list describing the key issues identified for each refuge.
Once key issues were determined and refined, we developed alternative
strategies to address 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.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 15 -
Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
In February of 2001 we recognized that producing a CCP/EIS for the
entire Complex would be far too cumbersome to be efficient. At that time,
we published a Notice of Intent to prepare a CCP/EA for five of the refuges
in the Complex; Assabet River, Great Meadows, Oxbow, Mashpee and
Massasoit NWRs. Additional issues and a need for more information
prompted us to later split Mashpee and Massasoit NWRs from this 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 CAT report and comment database
to develop a list of substantive comments that required responses.
Editorial suggestions, along with general notes of concurrence with or
opposition to certain proposals that did not contain factual arguments 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 CCP can occur once the Finding of (No)
Significant Impact (FONSI) is signed.
We will evaluate our accomplishments under the CCP, each year.
Monitoring or new information may indicate the need to change our
strategies. The collection of additional data at Great Meadows NWR will
likely require modification and specification of the wildlife and habitat
management strategies. We will modify the CCP documents and associated
management activities as needed; following the procedures outlined in
Service policy and NEPA requirements. The CCPs will be fully revised
every 15 years or sooner if necessary.
Wilderness Assessment
The planning team conducted a Wilderness Assessment, as required by
Refuge Planning Policy, to determine if any lands and waters in fee title
ownership were suitable to be proposed for designation as a Wilderness
Area. During the inventory stage, we determined that Great Meadows
NWR does not fulfill the eligibility requirements for a Wilderness Study
Area as defined by the Wilderness Act. The refuge and its surrounding
area have been altered in some way by man, with the imprint of man’s work
generally noticeable. The refuge does not have 5,000 contiguous acres or is
not of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an
unimpaired condition. Furthermore, permanent roads are contained within
- 16 - Great Meadows NWR
Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
the refuge. Therefore, suitability of the lands for Wilderness Designation is
not analyzed further in this document.
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
Issues, concerns, and opportunities were brought to the attention of the
refuge planning team through early planning discussions with local
governments, State, and Federal representatives, and through the public
scoping process. We received comments from the public both verbally at
open houses and in writing, through Issues Workbooks and individual
letters. Some issues were identified by the Service and others were raised
during the public review of 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 balance the competing opinions regarding important issues.
Habitat and wildlife management
Many people were interested in our management programs. The Complex
has begun additional surveys and inventories to collect baseline information
on all of the refuges in the Complex. The public is interested in how we
manage the freshwater impoundments at the Concord Division, and
migratory birds and upland habitats on Great Meadows NWR as a whole.
A Habitat Management Plan (HMP) is being developed which will provide
a detailed description of our goals and objectives for habitat management
at the Great Meadows NWR.
Control of invasive, injurious, and overabundant plant and animal
species
Purple Loosestrife: USFWS Photo
Invasive species, including water chestnut, common reed, and
purple loosestrife are a concern on 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 will continue efforts to control known
invasives on the refuge and are experimenting with different control
techniques for various species.
Hunting
Requests were made at public meetings and through written comments
both to allow and not to allow deer hunting on the refuges. Poaching is a
problem on the Sudbury Division of Great Meadows NWR. There have
been suggestions to provide lawful hunting opportunities on the refuge to
control deer populations. Some would like to see waterfowl hunting on the
Concord Division of the Great Meadows NWR. Cooperation with local
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 17 -
Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
towns and hunting groups was a suggestion. Others oppose hunting of any
kind on the refuge.
Management of public use and access
The Complex Headquarters and visitor contact station is located in
Sudbury, MA. The need for environmental educational programs in local
schools as well as additional interpretive opportunities where the public can
learn about the refuge was raised.
Blue Iris: Photo by Marijke Holtrop
Great Meadows NWR supports high visitation annually.
We estimate use at Great Meadows NWR to be around
500,000 visitors per year, with the majority of visitors at
the Concord impoundments. We do not have a consistent
process for collecting and documenting visitation at all
sites nor do we have the funds to initiate such a process at
this time. Several non-wildlife dependent recreational
activities occur on the refuge. Many visitors use trails for
dog walking and jogging.
Resource protection and visitor safety
Many people voiced concerns regarding the need to control poaching,
trespassing and other refuge regulations violations.
Infrastructure and Operations and Maintenance
We heard from some people that the refuge doesn’t have the resources and
staff needed to support programs and maintenance of the refuge.
Issues and Concerns Considered Outside the Scope of This Plan
External threats to the refuge such as water quality and contamination
Poor water quality in the Concord and Sudbury Rivers prompted concern
among citizens. The Concord and Sudbury Rivers both are reported to have
high levels of contamination. In these watersheds, the Service is currently
involved in watershed-wide efforts and partnerships to review and reduce
impacts to the communities and to refuge resources. Service contaminants
specialists represent wildlife interests in contaminants cleanup efforts that
directly affect refuge lands, such as lands transferred to the Service or
rivers that flow into the refuge. Some cleanup efforts are the responsibility
of other agencies. Refuge staff or Service specialists are not often involved
in such regional efforts.
- 18 - Great Meadows NWR
Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
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. The Town of Carlisle
does have reserved water rights on the refuge.
Expanded use of Hanscom Air Field
MassPort operates Hanscom Air Field, sited in Bedford, Concord, Lincoln,
and Lexington. The proposal is to use the airstrip as an auxiliary airport for
the Boston Airport, as well as increasing the number of flights per day. The
Concord impoundments of Great Meadows NWR lie directly west of
Hanscom’s east-west runway. The MassPort plans for expansion of
Hanscom may affect wildlife conditions and visitor experience on Great
Meadows NWR. At issue are noise, overflights above a national wildlife
refuge, fuel dumping that occurs on landing, water quality, and the
concentration of storm water runoff from runways and impervious surfaces.
Although the refuge has no jurisdiction in resolving these issues with
Hanscom Field, we support a restriction on volume of air
travel to and from Hanscom and will work to ensure that noise
impacts on waterfowl, wildlife, and visitors is given more
consideration by MassPort.
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 science-based draft 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
and 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 Great Meadows NWR has not occurred since 1999. The decision to
restrict mosquito control on the refuge is consistent with the current draft
policy. Any future Service policy will be applied to Great Meadows NWR.
Forested Wetland: Photo B
Emily Holick
y
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 19 -
Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Jet Skis on the Concord River
Many residents and the National Park Service oppose the use of jet skis on
the Concord River, particularly with its Wild and Scenic River status. The
Commonwealth of Massachusetts prohibits the operation of watercraft “in
excess of five miles per hour” when the craft is within 150 feet of any
channel, tunnel, pier, mooring, wharf, or other floating structure or
swimming beach” (MA State Forests and Parks regulation 304 CMR
12.34). This regulation is not applicable to waters adjacent to the refuge,
since none of the identified structures are found on the refuge and
swimming is not allowed. Our ability to regulate motorized vessels,
including jet skis, is limited to acts within our refuge boundary that
influence refuge flora and fauna. For example, if a boat travels at excessive
speed and throws a wake onto the refuge which causes waterfowl to fly, the
operator of that boat could be cited. Careless and unreasonable operation
of a vessel, such as the jumping that occurs with many jet skis, can also be
regulated. Jet skis can interfere with wildlife-dependent recreation such as
fishing, hunting, and wildlife observation from canoes. Fishing
recreationists have frequently complained of jet ski disturbance during
their use of the refuge. Some have suggested that this problem could be
countered with better patrolling by the refuge. River patrols have
increased in 2004 and a number of notices of violation have been issued.
Refuge staff will continue to work with all the governmental entities having
some degree of jurisdiction over the rivers and their use, and changes to
address problems could occur in the future.
- 20 - Great Meadows NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting
Great Meadows NWR is located in east-central Massachusetts,
approximately 20 miles west of Boston, in the historic towns of Concord,
Sudbury, Bedford, Billerica, Lincoln, Carlisle, Wayland and Framingham.
The refuge comprises two divisions: lands south of State Route 117
compose the Sudbury Division; lands north of State Route 117 compose the
Concord Division. The refuge contains 3,863 acres,
and stretches 12 miles from State Route 4 in
Billerica to the Framingham/Wayland town line.
The refuge was established in 1944 as “an inviolate
sanctuary, or for any other management purpose,
for migratory birds” (Migratory Bird
Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. §715d). The Refuge
Recreation Act identified refuges as “suitable for
(1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented
recreational development, (2) the protection of
natural resources, and (3) the conservation of
endangered species or threatened species…” (16
U.S.C. §460k-1). The biological resources of the
refuge are valuable to both resident and migrant
wildlife. The refuge lies in the Atlantic flyway and,
as a stopover site for migrating birds, provides vital habitat and food.
Species seen there during migration include green-winged teal (Anas
crecca), least sandpiper (Calidris minutilla), marsh wren (Cistothorus
palustris), swamp sparrow (Melospiza georgiana), and the willow
flycatcher (Empidonax traillii). Several upland locations provide habitat
for the American woodcock (Scolopax minor) and the eastern bluebird
(Sialia sialis).
Entrance Sign: USFWS Photo
The area surrounding the refuge has a long history of conservation that
continues throughout the thousands of acres of conservation land
administered by a variety of state, federal, local, and private landowners.
Additionally, there is a vast amount of information available with regard to
the refuge area that cannot be included here. Information relevant to
refuge management is presented here. Additional sources of information
can be found in A Bibliography of the Biodiversity and Natural History of
the Sudbury River-Concord River Valley, including Great Meadows, the
Estabrook Woods and Walden Woods (Ells 2002).
The refuge also serves as an outdoor classroom for thousands of local
schoolchildren, and at times offers programs for visitors. In the past, the
refuge has hosted an annual bluebird day, American woodcock walks,
orienteering programs, and owl prowls.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 21 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
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.
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 for Towns Associated with Great Meadows NWR
Bedford Billerica Carlisle Concord Lincoln Sudbury* Wayland
2003 $9,141 $11,769 $9,732 $5,255 $157 $35,474 $25,389
2002 $9,511 $2,791 $10,125 $5,468 $163 $36,909 $25,160
2001 $10,181 $2,988 $10,839 $5,853 $174 $29,331 $26,806
2000 $7,796 $1,743 $1,804 $11,283 $134 $23,421 $18,196
1999 $8,887 $622 $2,056 $12,862 $153 $26,699 $20,641
*Refuge revenue sharing payments for Sudbury include payments for lands in Assabet River
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 and a minimal demand on roads, utilities, police and fire protection,
etc. These demands are much less than would occur if the land were
developed. The owner of land adjacent to refuge land, or within the refuge
acquisition boundary, retains any and all the rights, privileges, and
- 22 - Great Meadows NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
responsibilities of private land ownership. The refuge controls uses
only on the properties it owns.
Trailmarker: Photo by Karla
Thompson
All open space near metropolitan Boston’s population of 6.2 million is
under great pressure for recreational use. The Concord Rivers
watershed is home to 365,000 people; a number that continues to
grow.
Great Meadows NWR receives more than 500,000 visitors each year.
The Concord impoundments, which are a popular destination for
birders and school groups, draw the largest number of refuge
visitors.
The boom in the local technology industry has spurred rapid
construction of housing units and support infrastructure (e.g., roads,
malls, plazas, utility towers, and corridors). The increase in human
density and associated uses has caused considerable strains on the
ecosystem from the following factors:
􀂃􈍈 Habitat loss through direct conversion of natural habitat types to
developed types;
􀂃􈍈 Habitat fragmentation either through conversion of contiguous tracts of
natural habitat types to a mosaic of discontinuous, smaller habitat type
relicts or erection of barriers that cause direct lethal impacts to fish,
wildlife, and plants (e.g., roads and communications towers);
􀂃􈍈 Habitat degradation through partial deterioration of habitat due to
pollution (siltation, nutrients, pesticides, metals), exotic and pest
species (phragmites, house cats), incompatible uses (all-terrain vehicles,
personal watercraft);
􀂃􈍗 Water consumption that reduces subsurface and surface water due to
home and business consumption and industrial applications.
Refuge Resources
Climate
The average annual temperature is 51°F. The average monthly
temperature in January is 29°F; in July, 74°F. During the growing season,
which spans about 225 days, the average temperature is 43°F or higher.
Average annual precipitation is 41.76 inches, fairly evenly distributed
throughout the year, with slightly more in November and December and
less in July (http://www.nws.gov/er/box/climate/pcpnbos.html).
Geology and Topography
Evidence of glaciation in this area is readily observable. The Wisconsin
glacier (12,000 Before Present (B.P.)) deposited sediment and other
materials that shaped the local landscape and, in many ways, have directed
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 23 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
this area’s development. Eighty percent of the refuge terrain is floodplain
along the Concord and Sudbury rivers (McAdow 1990).
The topography of the Refuge is generally flat with some gently sloping
hills, shallow streams, and depressional ponds and wetlands. While
elevations on the refuge range up to 60 feet above mean sea level, the
overall elevation change is barely perceptible across this area. For
example, the Sudbury River drops an average of only one inch per mile (1
foot in 12 miles) in passing through the Refuge (McAdow 1990).
Soils
Refuge soils along the rivers are primarily loams: Rippowam fine sandy
loam and Saco mucky silt loam. Other soils found along the rivers include
Limerick silt loam with a 0%–3% slope, and Hinckley loamy sand with
slopes of 0%–3% and 3%–8%. The soil of ponds 1 and 2 on the refuge (the
Concord impoundments) is Freetown muck. Saco mucky silt loam
composes the soils along Water Row in Sudbury.
Several refuge parcels have upland soils: the O’Rourke parcel in Carlisle;
the Cook, Strand, and Wolbach properties in Sudbury; and the Lombard
parcel in Wayland.
• The soils on the O’Rourke parcel include Hinckley loamy sand with
slopes of 3%–8% and 15%–25%, Windsor loamy sand with slopes of
0%–3% and 3%–8%, Deerfield loamy sand with a 3%–8% slope,
Wareham loamy sand with a slope of 0%–5%, and Freetown muck.
• At the Cook parcel in Sudbury, the primary soil is Wareham loamy
sand with a slope of 0%–5%.
• The Strand property is comprised primarily of Freetown muck,
ponded, Hinckley loamy sand with a slope of 15%–25%, Tisbury silt
loam with a slope of 3%–8%, and Scio very fine sandy loam with a
slope of 0%–3%.
• The Wolbach property soils are rock outcrop-Hollis complex and
Hollis rock outcrop-Charlton complex with a 3%–5% slope.
• The Lombard property in Wayland consists of Merrimac-urban
land complex with slopes of 0%–8% (USDA 1995 a).
Hydrology
The Sudbury-Assabet-Concord (SuAsCo) river basin encompasses 371
square miles of land and 88.1 river miles, from Billerica in the north to
Westborough and Hopkinton in the south. These three rivers and their
associated tributaries drain the basin into the Merrimack River in Lowell.
- 24 - Great Meadows NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
The Sudbury River is 41 miles long, and drains 169 square miles. It begins
in Cedar Swamp Pond in Westborough, flows eastward to Framingham,
then flows north through the towns of Sudbury, Wayland, Lincoln, and into
Concord. The Sudbury River has three distinct sections. Its first section,
upstream of Framingham, is a narrow, rapidly flowing stream. The second
section consists of two large impoundments. One of those impoundments is
part of the Metropolitan District Commission water supply. The Colonna
Dam in Saxonville (Framingham) creates the other impoundment. The
third section of the river is, perhaps, the most unique. As it flows through
the Great Meadows NWR, this 12-mile section of the Sudbury River
changes elevation by only 1 foot, and has been compared to an elongated
lake.
The Assabet River is 31 miles long, and drains 175 square miles. It starts in
Westborough, and flows northeast through the urban centers of
Northborough, Hudson, Maynard, and Concord. Between these
suburbanized centers lie rural and undeveloped watersheds. The repeating
discharge of a sewage treatment plant characterizes the Assabet River. Its
impoundments are highly eutrophic in
summer, containing large amounts of
aquatic growth, particularly algal blooms.
Concord River and Impoundments: USFWS Photo
The Concord River is 15.8 miles long, and
drains 27 square miles. It forms at the
confluence of the Assabet and Sudbury
rivers in Concord, flows north through
the towns of Carlisle, Bedford, Billerica,
and then enters the Merrimack River in
the city of Lowell. The Concord River
retains the slow-moving characteristics of
the third section (above) of the Sudbury
River.
Surface waters on the refuge are either
riverine or ponded. The three rivers primarily affect refuge habitats. The
Concord River drains the Concord Division. The Sudbury River, Hop
Brook, and a few unnamed tributaries drain the Sudbury Division.
Ponded waters include the Concord impoundments (Ponds 1 and 2), and the
Strand and Headquarters ponds in Sudbury. We had managed the Concord
impoundments primarily as stable water bodies since the mid-1970’s.
However, beginning in 2000, water levels in the Concord impoundments
have been actively managed with the use of drawdowns to benefit
shorebirds and waterfowl during different times of the year. We
continuously expose an appropriate amount of new mudflat habitat during
the entire shorebird migration period, draining and exposing mudflats,
which support germination of wetland plants. Weekly water gauge readings
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 25 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
are recorded from existing measurement structures in the pools. Surveys
are conducted weekly year round. Water control structures at the Strand
property (Sudbury) and Concord impoundments (Concord) will be
maintained to allow refuge staff to manage water levels in the pools.
Flooding areas dominated by seed-producing annuals provide
carbohydrates and fat for the higher maintenance requirements of dabbling
ducks during fall migration and winter. To obtain the desired feeding
habitat, water levels are drawn-down in alternating pools in Concord
during the summer to promote germination of wetland plants. These pools
are then slowly flooded during the fall and early winter, ensuring that
water depths in areas with annual plants do not exceed eight inches. Slow
staging of water levels provides a continual supply of new habitat at optimal
levels.
Air Quality
The State air quality report from 2002 contains the most recent data
available from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
(MADEP), Air Assessment Branch. The report contains data for several
different pollutants: ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
Carbon Monomoxide (CO), and particulate matter (10 microns (PM10) and
2.5 microns (PM2.5)). Data for O3 and PM2.5 is
available from the monitoring site in Stow; SO2, NO2,
CO and PM10 data are from Worcester.
Massachusetts levels for CO, SO2, PM2.5, and PM10
are below the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) standards for these pollutants.
There are two ozone standards based on two
different averaging times, 1-hour and 8-hour. For
almost two decades prior to 1997, the standard for
ozone had been 0.12 parts per million (ppm)
averaged over one hour. In 1997, USEPA set a new
stricter ozone standard of 0.08 ppm averaged over
an eight-hour period. Industry groups filed suit against USEPA following
promulgation of the standard. In February 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court
upheld the USEPA’s authority for setting the new health-based ozone and
particulate matter standards. In March 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia upheld the standards themselves. However, the
USEPA has not yet designated ozone nonattainment areas for the new 8-
hour standard due to the delay in implementation of the new standard
caused by the industry litigation. MADEP monitors for both 1-hour and 8-
hour ozone levels throughout the state. Massachusetts has violated the 1-
hour ozone standard for many years. However, with the adoption of
numerous control programs, progress has been made. The number and
severity of the 1-hour ozone exceedances has declined significantly in
recent years. As of 2002, the entire state was in violation of the 1-hour and
8-hour standards based on ozone readings for the 1999-2002 period.
Winterberries frozen in winter: Photo by Marijke
Holtrop
- 26 - Great Meadows NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
USEPA is expected to designate the attainment status of the state for the
new 8-hour ozone standard in 2004. Massachusetts is expected to be
nonattainment for the 8-hour standard.
In 2002, there were 122 exceedances of the 8-hour standard occurring on 30
days, and 22 exceedances of the 1-hour standard occurring on 5 days on a
state-wide basis. A total of six 8-hour exceedances were recorded in 2002 in
Stow. The trends for ozone readings in 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 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (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 were redesignated to attainment of
the CO standard by the USEPA in 2002.
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.
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 and Quantity
The SuAsCo River basin is one of the fastest-growing areas
of the state; consequently, water quality has suffered. The
primary water quality classification for both the Sudbury
and Assabet rivers is Class B, warm water fishery. The
primary water quality classification for the portion of the
Concord River in the refuge is Class B, warm water fishery, treated water
supply (MEOEA 1996). The Commonwealth of Massachusetts defines
Class B waters as being suitable for “protection and propagation of fish,
other aquatic life, for wildlife, and for primary and secondary contact
recreation.” (MADEP 1998a)
Redwing Blackbird chicks: Staff photo
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 27 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Multiple point sources of pollution heavily impact water quality in the
Sudbury River: one wastewater treatment plant; the contamination from
both the Nyanza Superfund site and the Raytheon Brook
site; and, the Marlborough Easterly Wastewater
Treatment Plant, which discharges into the Sudbury
River via Hop Brook (MEOEA 1996). The town of
Hopkinton proposes to build a wastewater treatment
plant as well (Nancy Bryant, SuAsCo Watershed
Community Council, pers. comm). We have provided
specific information about the contamination from the
Nyanza Superfund site and the Raytheon Brook site in
“Contaminants” below. Non-point sources also pollute
the Sudbury River. Those include pesticides, fertilizers,
and storm water and parking lot runoff.
The Assabet River is the one most heavily impacted by
point source pollution. Six wastewater treatment plants
in Westborough, Marlborough (Marlborough Westerly),
Hudson, Maynard, Acton, and Concord are now
operating, and another one is proposed in Acton. As with
the Sudbury River, many non-point sources of pollution
also degrade water quality in the Assabet River.
The Concord River has three wastewater treatment
plants operating on its banks: one in Concord and two in
Billerica. Although the two plants in Billerica lie downstream of the refuge,
their impact on the river cannot be overlooked. The treatment plant in
Concord lies just upstream of the Concord impoundments on the refuge. As
with the Sudbury and Assabet rivers, non-point source pollution also
impacts the Concord River (MEOEA 1996).
Wetland habitat: Photo by John Grabill
The public is very interested in protecting the resources in this watershed,
as indicated by the establishment of the SuAsCo Watershed Community
Council. The nonprofit group is composed of representatives from business
and industry, municipal governments, environmental organizations, and
state, federal, and regional agencies.
Aircraft Noise
Noise is a constant disturbance at the Concord impoundments; planes from
Hanscom Field in Bedford fly directly over the refuge. Hanscom Field is
the busiest general aviation airport in New England, with more than
200,000 operations per year. Corporate jet traffic amounts to 12 percent of
the air traffic leaving Hanscom Field, and that percentage is growing by 22
percent per year. Corporate jets create as much noise as regular
jet-airliners (Save Our Heritage 1999).
- 28 - Great Meadows NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Contaminants
Elevated levels of heavy metals (mercury, lead, and arsenic) are present at
many locations in the Sudbury River. The effects of those metals on wildlife
are unclear. Other heavy metals are present as well, including cadmium and
chromium. Their effects also are unknown. There are some indications that
levels of mercury, while below levels that would affect fish or piscivorous
fish, possibly may be high enough to affect piscivorous birds. The Nyanza
Superfund site in Ashland and the Raytheon brook wetlands in Sudbury
are two major sources of pollution near the refuge. Both sites have
introduced mercury into the Sudbury River (Eaton and Carr 1991).
Concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in sediments in the vicinity of the Raytheon
site are high. The PCB and PAH concentrations for the Sudbury River
overall do not appear to represent a significant hazard to piscivorous birds,
but could adversely affect highly susceptible mammals, such as mink
(Mustela vison). No other organochlorine pesticides surveyed appear to
represent significant hazards to the Sudbury River (MEOEA 1996 and
Eaton and Carr 1991).
In September 1994, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health issued
a state-wide interim freshwater fish advisory because of elevated mercury
levels in certain species of freshwater fish. The interim advisory
recommends, “pregnant women should be advised of the possible risk from
eating fish in Massachusetts freshwater bodies in order to prevent
exposure of developing fetuses to mercury.” This advisory does not include
stocked trout or farmraised fish sold commercially (MEOEA 1996).
Special Designations
Wild and Scenic River Designation
In April 1999, Congress included 29 miles of the Sudbury, Assabet, and
Concord rivers within the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System
(NWSR), in recognition of their outstanding ecology, scenery, recreation
value, and their place in American history and literature. Those 29 miles
are further sub classified as 14.9 miles scenic and 14.1 miles recreational.
The refuge is located along some of the 14.1 miles classified as scenic on the
Sudbury River and along some of the 8-mile segment of the Concord River
designated as recreational. Descriptions of where the designated Concord
and Sudbury Rivers flow through the refuge are provided below.
• The NWSR designation of the Sudbury River begins at the Danforth
Street Bridge in Framingham, 13.2 miles downstream to the Route 2
Bridge in Concord, thence 1.7 miles to its confluence with the Assabet
River at Egg Rock.
• The NWSR designation of the Assabet River begins 1,000 feet
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 29 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
downstream from the Damon Mill Dam in Concord, 4.4 miles to its
confluence with the Sudbury River at Egg Rock.
• The NWSR designation of the Concord River begins at the confluence
of the Sudbury and Assabet rivers, 8 miles downstream to the Route 3
Bridge in Billerica.
The goal of any National Wild and Scenic River designation is to preserve
the character of a river, not to curtail its use or halt
further development. Uses that are compatible with the
management goals for a designated river are allowed.
Usually, development that does not damage the
resources of a designated river or curtail its free flow is
allowed (www.nps.gov/rivers/wsract.html).
Portions of Great Meadows NWR are included in the
designated Sudbury Valley Important Bird Area (IBA).
IBAs provide essential habitat for at least one or more
species of breeding, wintering or migrating birds. The
program highlights these important areas, but is not regulatory in nature.
The primary goals of the program are listed below.
The Sudbury River at Weir Hill: Staff
Photo
• “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)
Biological Resources
Vegetation and Habitat Types
Wetlands
Along the Sudbury and Concord rivers, scrub–shrub wetlands
predominate. Extensive buttonbush-dominated (Cephalanthus
occidentalis) wetlands reflect long-term vegetational changes along both
rivers. In many areas, invasive species, such as water chestnut (Trapa
natans) or purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), have displaced plant
species of high waterfowl value, such as bur-reed (Sparganium sp.) and
bulrush (Scirpus palustris). Despite having low food source value for
waterfowl, these wetlands still provide excellent brood cover. Less
prevalent along the rivers are valuable “sedge meadows,” which are
dominated by non-woody vegetation, including extensive areas of bulrush
and cord grass (Spartina pectinata), with beds of water pepper
(Polygonum hydropiper), wild rice (Sizania aquatica), arrow arum
(Peltandra virginica), pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), and smartweed
(Polygonum amphibium). These meadows are especially attractive to
- 30 - Great Meadows NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
waterfowl. All wetland areas are typically flooded in spring; their water
levels gradually decline throughout the summer.
Forested wetlands make up about 8 percent of the refuge. The dominant
trees and shrubs in their overstory are red maple (Acer rubrum), swamp
white oak (Quercus bicolor), hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), sweet
pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), white swamp azalea (Rhododendron
viscosum), and rosebay rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum).
Herbaceous plants found in these areas include skunk cabbage
(Symplocarpus foetidus) and jack-in-the pulpit
(Arisaema spp.).
Dense stands of cattail (Typha latifolia) and purple
loosestrife dominate the edges of the Concord
impoundments. Vegetation within the
impoundments varies depending on the water level
management. In years when the impoundments are
kept flooded as pond habitat, common littoral
emergents include arrow arum, arrowhead
(Sagittaria sp.), bur-reed, wild rice, pickerel weed,
sweet flag (Acorus calamus), and smartweed. In
years when the impoundments are drained in the
spring, common vegetation includes Walter’s millet
(Echinochloa walteri), Cyperus spp. and Wild Rice.
Uplands
Uplands compose about 20 percent of the refuge.
They form critical edges between refuge wetlands
and the suburban development adjacent to them.
Most of the uplands were once farmed. Many areas
have grown into solid stands of white pine. Other
areas now support species typical of a mixed
eastern deciduous forest. Dominant species in the
forested upland include red maple, red and white
oak (Quercus rubra; q. alba), white pine (Pinus
strobus), blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), sweet
pepperbush, rosebay rhododendron, and sweet fern
(Comptonia peregrina). Common species found in the open fields include
common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) and goldenrod (Solidago spp.).
Foxtail: Photo by Emily Ann Hollick
The refuge now manages approximately 200 acres of discontinuous field
habitat (~12 different fields). Dense stands of hardwood are gradually
replacing other fields in the uplands. All the fields are bordered by brush
edges that, in most places, change into mature deciduous woodlands.
Songbirds and small mammals use these edges extensively. The fields
provide dense nesting cover for some grassland bird species, such as
Eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), savannah sparrows (Passerculus
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 31 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
sandwichensis) and Bobolinks (Dolichonyx oryzivorus). Male American
woodcocks also use the fields as “singing grounds” for their courtship
displays in the spring.
One six-acre field had been cooperatively farmed for several years, but has
not been farmed since 2002. The field is generally wet and is not high
producing farmland.
Invasive Plants
Japanese Knotweed: Photo by
Marijke Holtrop
Several species of non-native invasive plants have invaded wetlands an
upland habitat on the refuge: water chestnut, purple loosestrife,
Asiatic bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), common reed (Phragmites
australis), Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), glossy
buckthorn (Rhamnus alnifolia), tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima),
autumn olive (Eleagus umbelleta), and black locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia).
Water chestnut and purple loosestrife are found in the
Concord impoundments and along both the Sudbury and Concord
rivers.
Wildlife Resources
Migratory Birds
The refuge provides a mix of wetland, upland field, scrub-shrub, and
forested habitats. This combination provides excellent habitat for a variety
of bird species year-round. A number of state-listed species are found on
the refuge during various seasons. For a complete list of avian species that
are known to use the refuge, see Appendix D.
Many species of birds stopover at the refuge during spring and fall
migration. Peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) and bald eagles
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are occasionally seen flying over the refuge
during fall migrations. The northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), often seen
hunting at the Concord impoundments, is listed as threatened by the
NHESP.
Many songbird species nest, feed, and rest on the refuge. They include
marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris), gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis),
yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), redwinged blackbird (Agelaius
phoeniceus), swamp sparrow (Melospiza georgiana), common yellowthroat
(Geothlypis trichas), yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata), and
northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos). A number of bird species
nesting on or migrating through the refuge are neotropical migrants (these
species winter in Central and South America). As a group, neotropical
migrants have shown recent population declines due to habitat
deterioration and loss in wintering areas and along migration corridors.
- 32 - Great Meadows NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Thousands of waterfowl, over 20 different species, use the refuge
throughout the year. Common species include green-winged teal (Anas
crecca), American black duck (Anas
rubripes), wood duck, and mallard
(Anas platyrhynchos). Species less
commonly observed include northern
shoveler (Anas clypeata),
blue-winged teal (Anas discors),
hooded merganser (Lophodytes
cucullatus), and gadwall (Anas
strepera).
Many marsh and water birds use the
refuge, particularly the Concord
impoundments. The most common are
great blue heron (Ardea herodias),
great egret (Ardea alba), Virginia rail
(Rallus limicola), and green heron
(Butorides virescens). The pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps), a
state-listed endangered species, is a common sight on the Concord River or
in the impoundments in the summer and early fall. Less common species
found at the impoundments and other wetlands on the refuge include sora
rail (Porzana carolina), and American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus).
The least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis), also a state-listed endangered species,
historically has nested on the refuge.
Canada Geese: Photo by Paul Buckley
Shorebirds are generally seen at the Concord impoundments during fall
migration. Species frequently seen include killdeer (Charadrius vociferus),
least sandpiper, greater and lesser yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca, T.
flavipes), pectoral sandpiper (Calidris melanotos), and semi-palmated
plover (Charadrius semipalmatus). Less common species include
white-rumped sandpiper (Calidris fuscicollis), and black-bellied plover
(Pluvialis squatarola).
Mammals
No formal surveys or inventories have been conducted on the refuge for
mammals. However, many mammal species are found on the refuge:
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), several shrew species (Sorex spp.
and Blarina spp.), chipmunks (Tamias striatus), eastern gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis), flying squirrel species (Glaucomys spp.),
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), muskrat (Ondatra zibethica),
mink (Mustela vison), coyote (Canis latrans), red fox (Vulpes fulva), fisher
(Martes pennanti) and American beaver (Castor canadensis). For a
complete list of mammals likely to be present, see Appendix D.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 33 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Reptiles and Amphibians
Comprehensive inventories of amphibians and reptiles have not been
conducted. We have conducted the Service Northeast Region Anuran Call
Count Survey for the refuge. The survey is designed to identify frog and
toad species of the refuge and monitor
their populations. Frog and toad species
on the refuge include green frog (Rana
clamitans cl.), bullfrog (Rana
catesbiana), northern spring peeper
(Pseudacris crucifer), pickerel frog
(Rana palustris), gray tree frog (Hyla
versicolor), northern leopard frog (Rana
pipiens), wood frog (Rana sylvatica) and
American toad (Bufo americanus).
Reptile species found on the refuge
include snapping turtle (Chelydra
serpentina), state-listed Blanding’s turtle
(Emys blandingii), eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carolina carolina), common
garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis),
eastern ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus), and northern water snake
(Nerodia sipedon). For a complete list of amphibians and reptiles, see
Appendix D.
Bullfrog: Photo by Ken Andrews
Fish
Similar fish species appear in the Concord and Sudbury rivers. Common
species include northern pike (Esox lucius), yellow perch (Perca
flavescens), brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus), rainbow trout (Salmo
gairdneri), and pumpkinseed (Lepomis macrochirus). A cooperative
recovery program, now underway for the alewife (Pomolobus
pseudoharengus), will continue for the next several years. Service
personnel from the Central New England Fishery Resources Office and
volunteers have released alewife into the Concord River. The alewife
recovery program has met with success in efforts at restoration. In June
2004, juvenile alewife were successfully collected from Heard Pond. For a
complete list of species, see Appendix D.
Invertebrates
No formal surveys have been conducted on the refuge for invertebrates.
Invertebrates are not well documented. A number of varied invertebrates,
both terrestrial and aquatic, are of biological importance. Lepidopterans
are frequently observed (see Appendix D).
- 34 - Great Meadows NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Threatened and Endangered Species
No federal-listed endangered or threatened species reside on the refuge.
Bald eagles are occasionally seen over the Concord impoundments.
Cultural Resources
Prehistoric Period
Recorded prehistoric archeological sites and artifact “find spots” show that
prehistoric occupation in the SuAsC drainage system spans 11,000 years.
The first Native American occupation in this area occurred during the
Paleoindian period (11000–8000 Before Present (B.P.)). While no definite
Paleoindian sites have been reported within the boundaries of the refuge, a
diagnostic Paleoindian fluted point of unknown type was reported as an
isolated find spot in the Sudbury drainage (Dincauze and Mulholland
1977:440).
The early Archaic period (9000–7000 B.P.) follows the Paleoindian. Small,
widespread populations that practiced diversified hunting and gathering
characterize the Early Archaic culture. The diverse flora and fauna
associated with the wetlands in the refuge would have supported this type
of subsistence strategy. Several Early Archaic sites containing
bifurcate-base projectile points lie within the Refuge boundary. They
include areas around Heard Pond (SUD-028P, MA State #19-MD-207, 208,
209) south of the Headquarters Tract in Wayland, and the Davis Farm Site,
located along Pantry Brook north of the Headquarters Tract. Ritchie��s
reports discuss in detail the Early Archaic materials found not far from
those areas (Ritchie 1980, 1985; Ritchie and Davin 1984).
During the Middle Archaic period, (8000–4500 B.P.), hunters and gatherers
focused their subsistence strategies on drainage systems. Fishing gear
appeared during that time, and people heavily used local sources of stone.
The refuge environment was ideal for the people of the Middle Archaic.
Several Middle Archaic sites near the refuge are known. Ritchie argues
that the Sudbury and Concord rivers drainage in eastern Massachusetts
was a major focus of Middle Archaic activity (Begley and Ritchie 1998;
Ritchie 1985). The settlement patterns of the Middle Archaic people
suggest an intricate population distribution that ranges in site size and
internal complexity. Several small sites in upland settings contrast sharply
with known larger riverine zone sites, like the Heard Pond Middle Archaic
complexes, which suggest functional diversity of site settlement patterns.
Also, the tool kits associated with the various sites are functionally diverse.
These include chipped and ground stone tools (usually associated with the
production of plant foods), gouges, choppers, and net sinkers. That
diversity may indicate that the Middle Archaic people traveled within river
drainage territories and upland areas to exploit seasonal resources (Ritchie
1985; Dincauze 1976:136).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 35 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
The lithic materials during the Middle Archaic period were primarily from
local sources. Local Westboro formation quartzite or mylonite and rhyolite
or felsite from sources in the blue hills and Charles-Neponset river
drainage area dominate Neville phase sites. Other Middle Archaic
materials that dominate the stone assemblages of the sites in the refuge
area include both local and non-local sources. The non-local sources include
quartzite, crystal tuff, and amphibolite schist or argillite from source areas
in the Charles River drainage and, occasionally, chert from New York
State. Middle Archaic people quarried the local quartzite, mylonite, crystal
tuff, and amphibole schist from bedrock outcrops in upland sections of the
Sudbury-Assabet drainage (Ritchie 1985).
Following the Middle Archaic is the Late Archaic period (4500–3000 B.P.),
at the onset of the Terminal Archaic period. Intensive hunting and
gathering over a large region characterized the Late Archaic. People also
began to exploit freshwater and saltwater shellfish. The Late Archaic
population may have been the largest for the Archaic period (Ritchie 1985).
Late Archaic cultural complexes show the greatest frequency and widest
distribution in different environmental zones. Surface collections from the
larger, multicomponent sites along the Sudbury River drainage contain
projectile points diagnostic of the three major cultural traditions which are
Laurentian/Brewerton-Vosburg, small stem point, and Susquehanna
(Ritchie 1985). Several Late Archaic projectile points have been recovered
at the Headquarters Tract. These include Brewerton eared notched
projectile points, small-stemmed and triangular projectile points. Artifacts
recovered from the Late Archaic sites include hunting tools (projectile
points, bifacial knives), woodworking tools (full-grooved axes, adzes,
gouges, whetstones) and processing tools (pestles, scrapers, hammerstones,
soapstone cooking vessels).
To summarize, people during the Late Archaic intensely
exploited the habitats within the refuge. Diverse tool
assemblages and relatively large population densities
characterized this period. As in the Early and Middle
Archaic, there was much activity on the refuge during
the Late Archaic. The intense use of resources in the
immediate area does not appear to decrease during the
Transitional Archaic period and the Woodland periods.
The Transitional Archaic (3600–2500 B.P.) was
characterized as economically similar to the Late and
Middle Archaic, but more groups may have been
migrating into New England, or more local groups may
have been developing technologies strikingly different
from those previously used (Ritchie 1985). Trade in materials such as
soapstone became important, and burial rituals became more complex,
Sunset at Great Meadows: Photo by David Margaretos
- 36 - Great Meadows NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
perhaps due to an increase in population size. Very often, Transitional
Archaic sites are placed in the same category as Early Woodland, because
there is much overlap among projectile point styles, and no other attributes
clearly distinguish the two cultural periods. The
dates given for the Early Woodland are 2600 to 1,500
B.P. during the Early Woodland, clay pottery began
to appear. This may correlate with early horticultural
efforts by New England populations.
In the refuge area, diagnostic Orient Fishtail and
Meadowood projectile points were in collections from
most of the large riverine multi-component sites.
Meadowood points made of non-local chert from the
Headquarters Tract show that the use of the Weir
Hill area continued through the Archaic into the
Woodland period (Ritchie 1985). Most of the site
locations used during the Terminal Archaic/Early Woodland period
continued to be staging points for Middle Woodland resource exploitation.
Significant reuse of other sites that people used during the Middle and
Late Archaic also occurred (Ritchie 1985).
Wood Frog eggs: Photo by Marijke Holtrop
Coastal resources were important for people of the Middle Woodland
period (1650 B.P.–1000 B.P.). Horticulture of local northern plants, such as
Chenopodium, became increasingly important; however, gathering and
hunting were still the main subsistence means.
The Late Woodland is an extension of the Middle Woodland. The Late
Woodland begins at 1000 B.P. and ends with the arrival of Europeans in
New England. During the Late Woodland, horticulture of local
domesticates intensified and neighbors to the south and west introduced
maize horticulture. People lived in larger groups, and sometimes in fortified
villages. During this period, complex political alliances emerged, perhaps
reflecting an increase in sedentary lifestyle and population growth. This
was most evident in coastal areas. Some inland groups may have continued
a more mobile hunting and gathering subsistence strategy.
Middle and Late Woodland settlement patterns near the refuge were
similar, with a possible reduction in resource exploitation territories during
the Late Woodland period. Many site locations at Weir Hill, Heard Pond,
and around the Rice Tract were fishing stations during these periods
(Ritchie 1985:40).
The complex political structures that emerged during the Late Woodland
collapsed due to European expansion and disease. During this time,
projectile points made from metals traded to the Native Americans by the
Europeans emerge. Other European materials were also adapted to suit
Native American needs and ideologies. No contact period sites have been
identified on the refuge or in the immediate vicinity. However, people may
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 37 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
have used the fishing weir that gave Weir Hill its name.
The refuge has significant potential to contribute to our understanding of
prehistoric settlement patterns in Eastern Massachusetts. The ecology of
the area certainly played a significant role in the development of the
cultures in this area, as did human impact on the environment. The refuge
area was a “highway” for people during the Middle Archaic through the
Woodland periods, and continued to be important for people during the
Historic Period.
The Historic Period
People used the Headquarters Tract for agricultural and pastoral purposes
over the last 350 years. Extant remains of this type of lifestyle are still
visible, including remains of agricultural land use patterns, farm dump
areas, abandoned fields, former roadways, stone walls, fence lines, and
drainage or boundary ditch systems. The refuge area was settled in the
early part of the 17th century, soon after Plimouth Colony.
By 1640, Sudbury was settled, and had a unique political and economic
structure. The town practiced an open field system. These commons
surrounded the town center, with about 2,750 acres on the east side of the
river, and 5,000 acres to the west, extending to Pantry Brook. These
commons were used mostly for cattle, except for 50 acres of upland near
Hop Brook that were used for a mill in 1659. The primary crops grown by
the early settlers were corn, rye, barley, wheat, peas, oats, hemp, and flax.
Hay was also grown along river meadows.
Several Historic Period Christian Indian towns were
located outside the perimeter of English frontier towns
like Sudbury and Concord. The Indian town of
Ockookamkomesit eventually became the English
plantation of Marlborough between 1650 and 1660. Most
of these Indian towns were diminished by
European-introduced diseases and, later on, by warfare.
Water and pond lilies: Photo by Marijke Holtrop
During the 18th century, the primary changes in the
town were a population increase, the establishment of a
militia, and the Revolutionary War. Also, several roads
and bridges were constructed, which allowed for more
commerce between the surrounding towns and Boston.
In 1780, the East and West Precincts of Sudbury were divided into two
towns. The Sudbury River formed the town line between East Sudbury and
Sudbury. By 1794, a report on the town of Sudbury described three grist
mills, two saw mills, and a fulling mill as local industries; all were located
along the Wash Brook and Hop Brook drainage (Ritchie 1985).
- 38 - Great Meadows NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
During the 19th century, the village of South Sudbury developed into a
commercial district known as Mill Village, with a church, town library, post
office, general store, and malt house. Several small industries, including a
grist mill, blacksmith, machine shop, wheelwright’s shop, tannery, and a
shoe factory were located near a mill pond on Hop Brook. The Framingham
and Lowell railroad was extended through South Sudbury in 1870. Ten
years later, the Massachusetts Central Railroad formed a junction with the
Framingham and Lowell at South Sudbury, and a railroad station was built
for regular use (Ritchie 1985).
Sudbury Center continued as a focus of community activity in the 19th
century with a town hall, three churches, school houses, stores, railroad
depot, and close to fifty houses. The district on North Sudbury remained
open farmland throughout the nineteenth century with a small station on
the Old Colony Railroad (Ritchie 1985).
Mining of bog iron from the swamps in the north part of Sudbury was also
an important small-scale rural industry during the 19th Century. The bog
iron ore was carted to the Sudbury River where it was loaded onto barges
and transported to forges in Chelmsford (Ritchie 1985).
Around the refuge area, the primary activity for all Historic periods until
the late 20th century has been farming. Several farm archeological sites
located on the refuge date back to the early settlement of the area. More
recently, a summer camp called the Elbanobscot Environmental Education
Center built in the 1950’s stood on what is now refuge land. The summer
camp altered the Weir Hill area by constructing a swimming pond on the
edge of the Sudbury River floodplain, near the present-day headquarters
building and a leaching field on top of Weir Hill (Ritchie 1985).
The refuge offers an excellent opportunity to study early American history.
Several important cultural resources located on the refuge potentially can
contribute significant information about human activity there over the last
10,000 years. The archeological studies now completed have yielded
important information. Other archeological resources still undiscovered
also may exist on the refuge.
Socio-economics
Bedford
Bedford is located 15 miles northwest of Boston, between Billerica to the
north and Concord and Carlisle to the west. Its total land area is 13.87
square miles. Its population increased by 1 percent from 13,067 in 1990 to
13,947 in 1998. Middlesex Community College, the Edith Nourse Rogers
Memorial Veterans Hospital, Hanscom Air Force Base, and other
businesses in Bedford employ about 23,000 persons.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 39 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Founded in 1729, Bedford has retained both its natural and architectural
beauty. Visitors find an attractive historic district and town common in the
center, the famous Bedford Flag on display in the library, the 1790 Job
Lane house, and several national historic landmarks. Annual town
celebrations include “Pole Capping” in April, when the Bedford Minuteman
Company reenacts a Revolutionary-era tradition, and “Bedford Day” in
September, celebrated with a parade, street fair, and dancing.
Bedford residents enjoy many town services. Education is a top priority,
with schools well known for scoring competitively by all standards. The
library serves everyone, and has active children’s programs. All age groups
enjoy recreation programs, including after-school day-care,
a summer day camp, and a senior center offering
daily health and leisure services. An in-town minibus
runs weekdays. Outdoor facilities include a swimming
pond, a lake for boating, a bike path to Cambridge, and
walking trails through conservation lands.
Billerica
Billerica is located 20 miles northwest of Boston, and has
a population of 40,000 residents (1998). That population
has grown only 1.1 percent over the 1990 Census figures.
Its total land area is 26.39 square miles; and although
much of Billerica has been developed, significant parcels
of vacant land still lend a certain rural character to many areas of town.
Remnants of the historic Middlesex Canal, which once connected the
Merrimack River to Boston, traverse the town north to south. Two rivers
pass through town: the Concord River is a major regional water feature;
the Shawsheen River meanders through the southern part of town.
Trail: Photo by Stanley Klein
Incorporated in 1655, Billerica remained predominately agricultural until
the mid-nineteenth century, when a major mill complex was sited on the
Concord River in North Billerica. Although a number of smaller industries
grew up over the next 100 years, it was not until the 1950’s that the
present-day industrial base was established. Today, Billerica is a major
regional employer, and home to several high technology firms, some of
which are offshoots of companies along Route 128 to the south. Billerica is
also the site of the Middlesex House of Correction, a significant town
employer.
Carlisle
The Town of Carlisle offers peaceful residential living within 20 miles of
Boston. The 1998 population of 4,760 has increased only 1.1 percent since
1990. Although the town is primarily residential, a few businesses are
located there. Carlisle maintains a rich tradition in preserving open space
and scenic ways; almost 20 percent of the town’s 15 square miles is
- 40 - Great Meadows NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
dedicated conservation land. The only working cranberry bog in Middlesex
County is located in Carlisle. The state owned and managed Great Brook
Farm State Park offers numerous hiking trails, and vistas of open fields.
Concord
The junction of the Concord, Sudbury, and Assabet Rivers historically was
the site of seasonal Native American camps, because of plentiful runs of
shad, salmon, and herring. The English settled Concord as an early frontier
outpost of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Named in 1635, the historic town
of Concord lies west of present-day suburban Boston. It was the first non-tidal-
water town in interior Massachusetts. Concord retains many well-preserved
colonial houses: nine of them stood near Concord green during
the battle that opened the Revolutionary War.
Concord also has a significant literary history, having been the home of the
leaders of the intellectual movements of 19th century America. Louisa May
Alcott, Bronson Alcott, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Nathaniel Hawthorne
lived in Concord at one time, and Henry David Thoreau wrote his
internationally known philosophical treatise at Walden Pond in Concord.
Concord is located 18 miles west of Boston, and comprises 26 square miles.
Several major roadways, Routes 2, 128, and I-95, are easily accessible from
Concord. Since 1990, the town’s population has grown one percent, from
17,076 to 17,867. The town is a mix of residential neighborhoods, retail
centers, and high-tech industry. Skyrocketing land prices in the real estate
boom of the 1980’s resulted from Concord’s proximity to Boston and the
Route 128 technical and industrial corridor, coupled with a vigorous
regional economy. Concord residents feel that its tourism and rapid
suburban development are placing considerable pressure on the town.
Framingham
The Town of Framingham, located 19 miles from Boston and midway
between Boston and Worcester, is the hub of the Metro-West region. The
town’s total land area is 26.44 square miles, and its population in 1998 was
64,646. That estimate is down 1 percent from 1990.
Framingham offers a unique blend of urban and rural qualities. The vibrant
retail area along Route 9 lies close to quiet residential areas and the town
common. The historic strengths of the town have been its location and its
people. From its founding in 1700, Framingham has supported a variety of
industries. The mills and factories that flourished in Framingham
encouraged the growth of the Saxonville area of the town and the
downtown.
The major employers now are primarily non-manufacturing, including
medical, retail, educational, office, and biotechnical. Framingham offers a
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 41 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
variety of recreational activities for its residents, from its many organized
team sports leagues to the nationally renowned Garden in the Woods.
Residents unite for numerous municipal celebrations throughout the year,
with a major focus on Flag Day in June.
Lincoln
The Town of Lincoln is a small suburb 13 miles northwest of Boston. It
began as a rural farming community made up of pieces of land “nipped”
from adjacent towns; hence, its nickname was once Niptown. The town also
became a popular site for country estates, some of which have become
schools, museums, town buildings, or parks. Lincoln’s total land area is
15.01 square miles. Its population is 7,921, up 1 percent since 1990.
Retaining open space and protecting its rural character against
encroaching urban development are extremely important to the
community. To that end, Lincoln was one of the first towns to create a
Conservation Commission that has, with the Lincoln Land Conservation
Trust, acquired key parcels of land throughout the town. Significant areas
of the town are now preserved against development, providing protection
for wildlife and local water supplies, and creating conservation trails for
public use.
Sudbury
We have excerpted here information provided by John Powers, former
Sudbury town selectman. Sudbury has roots deep in American history.
Like other local towns, Sudbury was home to the Nipmucks of the
Algonquin nation before European settlement. The colonial history of
Sudbury is actually the history of Sudbury Plantation, which
was first settled by Europeans in 1638 in what is pleasant
day Wayland. The town center remained in present-day
Wayland until 1780, when the town split into Sudbury and
East Sudbury (now Wayland)
Wild Mushroom: Photo by Marijke
Holtrop
Townsmen developed not merely a new community but a
new concept: government with the consent of the governed.
Sudbury’s role in the development of the town meeting form
of government, and its insistence upon the direct right of a
citizen to choose his governors and to make himself heard
upon any issue in open forum, did much to lay the foundation
of American democracy.
As the first highways, such as Boston Post Road, were
constructed, Sudbury developed the small local businesses of
a self-sufficient community. There were shoe shops and
blacksmiths, tanners and wheelwrights, nail factories, and
saw mills. Quiet agricultural growth continued into the
- 42 - Great Meadows NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
1940’s, but as Boston grew, so too did Sudbury, only 20 miles from the
burgeoning Boston.
Today, at 24.7 square miles, Sudbury is a bustling mix of residential and
retail areas and light industry. The residential areas lie beyond the retail
and light industry centered along Boston Post Road. The 1998 population of
Sudbury was 15,550. Many commute to Boston or to the Route 128 high-tech
corridor.
Wayland
The Town of Wayland, 18 miles west of Boston, was the original 1638
settlement of Sudbury Plantation, which also encompassed most of present-day
Sudbury and parts of present-day Framingham. The town was founded
to take advantage of the lush grazing resources available along the
floodplain of the Sudbury River. Today, this historic land is virtually all
either refuge land or Wayland conservation land. The Saxonville area
became part of the new town of Framingham in 1700. Present-day
Sudbury and present-day Wayland separated in 1780, with the newly
formed town retaining the Sudbury name. The 15 square miles of present-day
Wayland took the name of East Sudbury and became Wayland in 1835.
The Wayland name is thought to be in honor of Reverend Francis Wayland,
former president of Brown University, who donated funds to establish the
town’s first free public library in 1848. The town remained primarily
agricultural from its founding through World War II, except for a thriving
shoe industry, which developed around Cochituate Village in the late 19th
century and faded in the early 20th century. After World War II the town
developed into an affluent bedroom community within easy commuting
distance of Boston and the high-tech corridors of Routes 128 and 495 and
contains very little industry or commercial activity. Between 1990 and
1998, its population grew by 1 percent, from 11,874 to 12,343.
Wayland’s quiet, handsome neighborhoods of spacious homes have been
enhanced by its townspeople having funded the purchase of land to
maintain open space. The town maintains a municipal beach on the shore of
scenic Lake Cochituate. The preservation of open space by the refuge also
has aided the town in retaining its rural character.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 43 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
(This page intentionally left blank)
- 44 - Great Meadows NWR
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 Great Meadows NWR translate the Refuge System,
Mission and Refuge Purposes 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. As one of the eight refuges in the Complex, Great
Meadows NWR is a vital part of the following vision and goals.
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.
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 refuge. Each of the
goals is followed by management objectives and strategies that will help
refuge staff to meet the appropriate goals. The objectives and strategies
that were developed as a part of this CCP do not adhere to the Service’s
guidelines for refuge goals and objectives. They are intended to provide a
framework for management of the refuge. We look forward to refining
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 45 -
Chapter 4: Management Direction
many of the goals, objectives, and strategies in our various step-down
management plans.
Goal 1: Recover threatened and endangered species of the
Complex.
Great Meadows NWR is not currently home to any federally listed
threatened or endangered species. There are a number of state-listed
species that occur on the refuge. Specific objectives and strategies that
apply to Goal 2 will benefit these species. In the event that any federally
listed threatened or endangered species are found on the refuge, we will
take any necessary steps to ensure their protection.
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 wildlife habitat data
to ensure future decisions are based on sound science.
Strategy 1: Continue to participate in several region-wide and Service-wide
surveys and studies, inventories of frogs, landbirds, shorebirds, marsh
birds, and American woodcock. Breeding bird surveys are a top priority of
the refuge. Participation in bird surveys and the national frog deformity
project will continue as staff and funding allow. Current wildlife surveys
are listed in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1: Wildlife Surveys at Great Meadows NWR
Survey Purpose Points Observation Other Information
Landbird Breeding
Survey
• occurrence of
species
• occurrence
within habitats
• relative
abundance
• changes in
population
Sudbury 21
Concord 22
late May to mid-
June for 10 days 1
time/season
observations made at
10 minute intervals
Survey points visited
once during survey
period, habitat is
classified at each
point
began in 2000
birds are identified
by sight and sound
Marshbird
Callback Survey
• identify species
presence
• monitor change
in abundance
• evaluate species
response to
habitat
modifications
20 points/unit in
ponds, marshes, and
emergent vegetation
Early May – mid
July
3 - 5 times/season
began in 2000
birds are identified
by sight and sound
callback tapes are
used
American
Woodcock Survey
• presence and
abundance
10 points in fields,
clear cuts, meadows,
etc.
mid-April – mid-
July
re-established in
2000
- 46 - Great Meadows NWR
Chapter 4: Management Direction
Survey Purpose Points Observation Other Information
observations
conducted in 2
minute intervals
1 time/season
Anuran Call
Counts
• presence and
abundance
11 points at Great
Meadows
mid-March – mid-
July
5 minute observation
period
4 times/season
began in 2000
State-wide Annual
Midwinter Bald
Eagle Survey
• presence and
abundance
1 survey route
through refuge
January 1-15 Refuge participation
since 1980
Waterbird Counts
at Concord
Impoundments
• Determine
efficiency/succe
ss of water level
manipulation
Concord
Impoundments
weekly, year round began 2000
4 year study in
Concord
impoundments
Rare Plant Surveys • presence and
abundance of
rare plants
--- --- surveys conducted
by New England
Wildflower Society,
MassWildlife, and
MANHESP
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 these concurrently; however, if necessary,
surveys and inventories related to the Service’s trust
resources may receive priority.
Forest habitat: Photo by Karla Thompson
Strategy 3: Continue to monitor and seek to protect water
quality. We will continue to rely on partners such as
Concord River Environmental Stream Team (CREST), OAR
and SVT to conduct this monitoring. However, we will
actively participate in meetings with organizations such as
the SuAsCo Watershed Community Council to ensure water
quality protection throughout the watershed.
Strategy 4: Within 3 years, conduct a thorough survey on
plants of the refuge. We will obtain aerial photography to
develop a cover type map and ground truth the information
in the field. The cover type map will show locations and acres
for each habitat type. In addition, we will record locations of
other priority species, and invasive species using a global
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 47 -
Chapter 4: Management Direction
positioning system, and identified on the cover type map. We will update
the map every ten years. This work will be done with assistance from
partners and local naturalists.
Strategy 5: Within 5 years, conduct a comprehensive survey of
invertebrates in the spring and summer, noting Federal and State
endangered and threatened species. We will use “sticky” sticks (paint
stirrers dipped in Tanglefoot Insect Trap Coating and placed horizontally
on and vertically in the substrate) to sample ground-based invertebrates
throughout the refuge. We will utilize collecting nets to sample winged
invertebrates.
Strategy 6: Within 5 years, survey amphibians and reptiles using a
combination of pitfall traps, fyke nets, and audio cues. We will survey
aquatic turtles using fyke nets during the summer and fall. We will sample
terrestrial turtles, snakes, and amphibians using pitfall traps.
Strategy 7: Within 5 years, census migrating raptors, and neotropical
migrants for two seasons. We will conduct raptor surveys throughout the
fall, using methods developed by the Hawk Migration Association of North
America. We will work with local birders and organizations to determine
the best method for censussing neotropical migrants.
Strategy 8: Within 10 years, sample freshwater fish throughout the river
and ponds on the refuge using passive and active capture gear and
electrofishing. Passive gear includes, but is not limited to, gill nets, trammel
nets, and fyke nets. Active gear includes, but is not limited to, seines, nets,
and hooks. Depending on the diversity and abundance of fish that are found
in the ponds, we may initiate mark/recapture studies.
Strategy 9: Within 10 years, survey small mammals using small live box
traps, snap traps, and pitfall traps. We will arrange traps in a grid
throughout the refuge and trapping will be done during the spring,
summer, or fall. If any threatened or endangered species are found, we
may initiate mark/recapture studies to develop a population estimate.
Objective 2: Manage aquatic and upland habitat to maintain habitat and
species diversity.
We will determine resources of concern, including focus species or species-groups
and their habitat needs. Focus species and habitats are most likely
to be selected based on a combination of factors such as: endangerment
(Federal and State-listed species); priority, national and regional Service
plans (such as the NAWMP, the PIF, etc); developing Service
policies/regulations such as those related to HMPs and maintenance of
ecological integrity; the purpose for which the refuge was established (its
value for the conservation of migratory bird species); current/historical
species and habitat presence; and recommendations from MassWildlife or
- 48 - Great Meadows NWR
Chapter 4: Management Direction
other partners. We will more actively involve adjacent conservation land
owners in the preparation and review of conservation plans and
management strategies.
Strategy 1: Continue with the status quo of our old field, grassland, upland
and wetland habitat management, until our management plans are
completed. Some areas that are currently being mowed may eventually be
allowed to revert to forest or may be managed as early successional habitat.
Until final decisions are made about each parcel, based on the HMP,
current management techniques will be allowed to continue.
Strategy 2: Within 2 years, develop a long-range HMP. We will include
information for all habitats and species on the refuge, with a focus on
resources of regional and national concern (based on regional and Service
plans). We will provide quantitative and measurable objectives and
strategies for habitat management to enhance resources of concern.
Strategy 3: Within 5 years, complete a Habitat and Wildlife Inventory and
Monitoring Plan (HWIMP). We will include an on-going monitoring
component designed to measure progress toward those objectives outlined
in the HMP, and to allow mid-course corrections or alterations as they may
be needed. We will develop any additional step-down plans that may be
required, depending on specific habitat management
techniques or practices that may be recommended in the plans
including chemical, mechanical or fire. We will develop
protocols in this plan to be statistically sound and peer
reviewed.
Strategy 4: Continue to actively manage water levels in the
Concord impoundments to mimic the hydrology of a natural
wetland. We will continue to record weekly water gauge
readings from existing measurement structures in the pools.
To effectively utilize the impoundments to mimic the hydrology
of a natural wetland, we employ a complex regime. During the
spring months, both impoundments are generally full and a
variety of species use the impoundments as a nesting area.
Marshbirds such as Virginia Rails and Soras nest in the cattails
or the impoundments. Waterfowl such as Wood Ducks and
Hooded Mergansers nest in the artificial nest boxes or tree
cavities.
As the summer months approach and nesting activity has
begun to wane in the impoundments, the Refuge staff draw
down one of the impoundments. Sometimes water levels are
also lowered in the second impoundment later in the summer.
Drawdown of an impoundment during the summer benefits a number of
species. While an impoundment is being drained, mudflats are gradually
exposed. These mudflats interspersed with small puddles of water provide
Great Blue Heron: Photo by David
Margaretos
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 49 -
Chapter 4: Management Direction
important feeding and resting habitat for wading birds and migratory
shorebirds. As water is drained out of the impoundments, the temperature
of the remaining water increases and stimulates invertebrate r