Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Oxbow 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: Northern Flickers © Bruce Flaig
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................... - 9 -
Our Irreplaceable Heritage - Protecting Biodiversity in Massachusetts, 1998 ....... - 10 -
Existing Partnerships....................................................................................................... - 10 -
Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process....................................... - 11 -
Wilderness Assessment ........................................................................................................ - 12 -
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities .................................................................................. - 13 -
Issues and Concerns Considered Outside the Scope of This Plan ................................. - 14 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions ..................................................................... - 17 -
Socioeconomic Setting........................................................................................................... - 17 -
Refuge Resources.................................................................................................................. - 18 -
Climate ............................................................................................................................... - 18 -
Geology and Topography.................................................................................................. - 18 -
Soils..................................................................................................................................... - 19 -
Hydrology.......................................................................................................................... - 20 -
Groundwater Resources ................................................................................................... - 21 -
Floodplains ......................................................................................................................... - 22 -
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... - 22 -
Water Quality and Quantity ............................................................................................. - 23 -
Biological Resources ............................................................................................................. - 25 -
Vegetation and Habitat Types......................................................................................... - 25 -
Invasive or Overabundant Species.................................................................................. - 30 -
Wildlife Resources................................................................................................................. - 31 -
Migratory Birds ................................................................................................................. - 31 -
Mammals............................................................................................................................ - 32 -
Reptiles and Amphibians.................................................................................................. - 32 -
Fish ..................................................................................................................................... - 33 -
Invertebrates..................................................................................................................... - 34 -
Threatened and Endangered Species................................................................................. - 34 -
Rare Vertebrate Species .................................................................................................. - 34 -
Rare Plant Species ............................................................................................................ - 35 -
Special Designations ............................................................................................................. - 37 -
Cultural Resources................................................................................................................ - 38 -
Prehistoric Period.............................................................................................................. - 38 -
Historic Period................................................................................................................... - 41 -
Socio-economic Resources.................................................................................................... - 48 -
Chapter 4: Management Direction.......................................................................................... - 51 -
Complex Vision ...................................................................................................................... - 51 -
Complex Goals........................................................................................................................ - 51 -
General Refuge Management.............................................................................................. - 66 -
Refuge Access and Fees ................................................................................................... - 66 -
Accessibility....................................................................................................................... - 67 -
Non-Wildlife Dependent Public Uses............................................................................. - 68 -
Fire Management.............................................................................................................. - 68 -
Land Protection ................................................................................................................. - 69 -
Resource Protection and Visitor Safety ......................................................................... - 70 -
Special Use Permits and Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement ............ - 70 -
Research ............................................................................................................................. - 71 -
Chapter 5: Refuge Administration .......................................................................................... - 73 -
Refuge Staffing ...................................................................................................................... - 73 -
Refuge Funding ..................................................................................................................... - 73 -
Refuge Buildings and Facilities........................................................................................... - 74 -
Step-Down Management Plans ........................................................................................... - 75 -
Maintaining Existing Facilities ........................................................................................... - 75 -
Compatibility Determinations ............................................................................................. - 76 -
Monitoring and Evaluation .................................................................................................. - 77 -
Adaptive Management.......................................................................................................... - 78 -
Additional NEPA Analysis................................................................................................... - 78 -
Plan Amendment and Revision............................................................................................ - 79 -
Literature Cited......................................................................................................................... - 80 -
Glossary...................................................................................................................................... - 86 -
List of Preparers....................................................................................................................... - 96 -
Appendices................................................................................................................................. - 98 -
Appendix A: Relevant Laws................................................................................................... - 100 -
Appendix B: U.S. Forest Service Content Analysis Team Summary Report ................ - 163 -
Appendix C: Responses to Substantive Comments............................................................ - 161 -
Appendix D: Species Lists...................................................................................................... - 175 -
Appendix E: RONS and MMS............................................................................................... - 203 -
Appendix F: Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Staffing Chart- 207 -
Appendix G: Final Compatibility Determinations .............................................................. - 211 -
Appendix H: Draft Water Quality Report .......................................................................... - 242 -
List of Tables
Table 1-1: NAWMP Species Occurring at Oxbow NWR .................................................. - 6 -
Table 1-2: Bird Species of Concern Occurring on Oxbow NWR...................................... - 9 -
Table 3-1: Revenue Sharing Payments for Towns Associated with Oxbow NWR...... - 17 -
Table 3-2: Oxbow Pond Vegetation Communities............................................................ - 29 -
Table 4-1: 2004 Massachusetts Hunting Seasons............................................................. - 63 -
Table D-1: Birds at Oxbow NWR...................................................................................... - 175 -
Table D-2: Mammals at Oxbow NWR............................................................................... - 176 -
Table D-3: Reptiles at Great Meadows NWR.................................................................. - 178 -
Table D-4: Amphibians at Oxbow NWR........................................................................... - 178 -
Table D-5: Moths at Oxbow NWR..................................................................................... - 179 -
Table D-6: Butterflies at Oxbow NWR............................................................................. - 186 -
Table D-7: Dragonflies and Damselflies at Oxbow NWR.............................................. - 187 -
Table D-8: Insects at Oxbow NWR................................................................................... - 188 -
Table D-9: Freshwater Mollusks at Oxbow NWR......................................................... - 189 -
Table D-10: Vascular Plants at Oxbow NWR.................................................................... - 189 -
Table E-1: Projects currently in the RONS database and proposed projects to be
included for Oxbow NWR............................................................................................... - 203 -
Table E-2: Projects currently backlogged in the MMS for Oxbow NWR................... - 205 -
Table E-3: Projects currently backlogged in the MMS for the Eastern Massachusetts
Refuge Complex............................................................................................................... - 205 -
List of Figures
Map 1-1: Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex................................. - 2 -
Map 1-2: Gulf of Maine Rivers Ecosystem............................................................................... - 7 -
Map 3-1: Forest and Land Cover Types (Area 1A Fort Devens)....................................... - 26 -
Map 3-2: Forest and Land Cover Types (Area 1 Fort Devens).......................................... - 26 -
Map 3-3: Forest and Land Cover Types (Areas 2, 3, and Airfield Fort Devens) ............. - 27 -
Map 4-1: Public Use at Oxbow NWR...................................................................................... - 58 -
Map 4-2: Current and Future Hunting Areas on Oxbow NWR ......................................... - 61 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
This Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) has been prepared for
the Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), which is one of eight refuges
of the Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex (Complex) (see Map 1-1).
Concurrently, we are releasing the Final CCPs for Great Meadows
(Concord and Sudbury Divisions), and 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 began in January
1999. Numerous meetings with the public, the state, and conservation
partners were held to identify and evaluate management alternatives. A
draft CCP and Environmental Assessment (CCP/EA) was distributed in
July 2003. 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, and serve the
American public.
Refuge Overview
The refuge is located in north-central Massachusetts, approximately 35
miles northwest of Boston, MA. The refuge lies within the towns of Ayer
and Shirley in Middlesex County and the towns of Harvard and Lancaster
in Worcester County. The refuge consists of approximately 1,667 acres of
upland, southern New England floodplain forest and wetland communities
along nearly 8 miles of the Nashua River corridor.
The refuge is a long, narrow parcel with a north/south orientation.
Roadways running east/west divide the parcel into three sections.
The northern end of the refuge abuts the former Fort Devens,
Moore Army Airfield just south of Massachusetts Route 2A. Shirley
Road/West Main Street in Ayer separates the northern and middle
portions of the refuge. Massachusetts Route 2 bisects the middle
and southern parcels. The refuge’s southern boundary is at Still
River Depot Road in Harvard, MA.
The refuge was formed by three land transfers from the former
U.S. Army, Fort Devens Military Installation, and a recent
purchase of private land in Harvard, MA. Two of the transfers from
Oxbow NWR: USFWS photo
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
- 1 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Map 1-1: Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge
- 2 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
the Army (May, 1974 and February, 1988) formed the original 711.03 acre
portion of the refuge located south of Massachusetts Route 2. The third
Army transfer occurred in May of 1999, and added the 836.3 acre portion of
the refuge that is located north of Route 2. Finally, approximately 120
acres was added to the refuge in April, 2001, with the acquisition of the
former Watt Farm property along Still River Depot Road in Harvard.
The primary purpose for which the refuge was created is its “...particular
value in carrying out the National Migratory Bird Management Program”
(16 U.S.C. 667B, An Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real Property
for Wildlife, or Other Purposes, as amended). 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 and headwaters, 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 portion of the refuge south of Route 2 lies within the 12,900 acre
Central Nashua River Valley Area of Critical Environmental Concern
(ACEC) designated by the Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental
Affairs due to its unique environmental characteristics and values (MADEP
1998). 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 70,000
people visited the refuge in 2003. All of this use occurred within the older
portion of the refuge, south of Route 2.
Purpose and Need for a CCP
The purpose of a CCP is to provide managers and other interested partners
guidance and direction for each refuge over the next 15 years, thus
achieving refuge purposes and contributing to the mission of the Refuge
System. The plan identifies what role the refuges play, consistent with
sound principles of fish and wildlife conservation, in the protection,
enhancement and restoration of trust resources.
This plan is also needed to:
• provide a clear statement of desired future conditions for habitat,
wildlife, visitors and facilities;
• provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and partners with a clear
understanding of the reasons for management actions;
• ensure management reflects the policies and goals of the Refuge
System and legal mandates;
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
- 3 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
• ensure the compatibility of current and future uses;
• review current boundaries of the refuges, and evaluate the need to
revise boundaries to better achieve refuge purposes;
• provide long-term continuity and direction for refuge management;
and,
• provide a basis for staffing and operations, maintenance, and the
development of budget requests.
Currently, there is no management plan in place for the refuge that
establishes priorities or provides consistent direction for managing fish,
wildlife, habitats, and public uses on these refuges. This plan will help to
resolve issues related to control of nuisance and invasive species, public
uses in conflict with wildlife needs, lack of opportunities for wildlife
dependent recreation, and the needs of our federal trust wildlife species.
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.
“To administer a national National Wildlife Refuge System Mission
network of lands and waters
for the conservation,
management, and where
appropriate, restoration of
the fish, wildlife, and plant
resources and their habitats
within the United States for
the benefit of present and
future generations of
Americans.” (Refuge
Improvement Act; Public
Law 105-57)–Mission of the
Refuge System.
The Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands and
waters set aside specifically for the conservation of wildlife and
ecosystem protection. The Refuge System consists of 544
national wildlife refuges that provide important habitat for
native plants and many species of mammals, birds, fish,
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 annually hunt, fish, observe
and photograph wildlife, or participate in interpretive activities
on NWRs.
Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge
- 4 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
In 1997, the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act (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, NWRs 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. It is also the key legislation
on managing public uses, and protecting the Refuge System from
incompatible or harmful human activities to insure that Americans can
enjoy Refuge System lands and waters.
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).
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.
Beaver activity: Photo by Marijke
Holtrop
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 (NAWCA), the Wilderness Act of
1964 and particularly the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) all
provide guidance for the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
- 5 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
National and Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding
this CCP
Gulf of Maine - Ecosystem Priorities
There are 52 ecosystem teams across the country. The refuge is located in
the Gulf of Maine ecosystem (see Map 1-2). The ecosystem priorities that
are applicable to the refuge are:
• Recover populations and habitats of endangered and threatened
species.
• 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.
• 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.
Oxbow 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
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 Oxbow NWR.
Table 1-1: NAWMP Species Occurring at Oxbow NWR
Species Continental
Priority
Breeding
Importance
Breeding
Need
Nonbreeding
Importance
Nonbreeding
Need
American Black Duck High Mod. High High High Highest
Mallard High Mod. Low Moderate Mod. High High
Green-winged Teal Moderate Mod. Low Mod. Low
Wood Duck Moderate Mod. Low Mod. Low Mod. Low Mod. Low
Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge
- 6 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Map 1-2: Gulf of Maine Rivers Ecosystem
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
- 7 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
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 t
species and their habitats to threats, to rank the conservation
priority of birds occurring within a particular physiographic area.
he
pecies
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 s
in areas where conservation actions can be most effective, rather
than local 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 major habitat types as priorities for
conservation in this area. Of the priority species for this physiographic
area, at least 21 of the priority breeding species have been recorded as
occurring on the refuge and 1 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.
American Goldfinch: Photo by Sandy
Selesky
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.
The North Atlantic Regional Shorebird Plan (NARSP), developed in 2001,
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 4 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
Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge
- 8 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
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 2 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, 6 of these have been recorded as occurring on the
refuge.
Table 1-2: Bird Species of Concern Occurring on Oxbow NWR
PIF BCR 30 NARSP USSCP
Species Priority
Breeding
Wintering Conservation
Concerns
Priority
Shorebird
High
Concern
Blue-winged warbler 􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Wood Thrush 􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Baltimore Oriole 􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Scarlet Tanager
American Woodcock 􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Rose-breasted
Grosbeak
􀁺􇨠
Chimney Swift 􀁺􇨠
Eastern Wood-pewee
􀁺􇨠
Black-and-white
Warbler
􀁺􇨠
Hairy Woodpecker 􀁺􇨠
Eastern Towhee 􀁺􇨠
Purple Finch 􀁺􇨠
American Black
Duck
􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Canada Warbler 􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Whip-poor-will 􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Sharp-shinned Hawk 􀁺􇨠
Pied-billed Grebe 􀁺􇨠
Short-eared Owl 􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Osprey 􀁺􇨠
Great Blue Heron 􀁺􇨠
Killdeer 􀁺􇨠
Solitary Sandpiper 􀁺􇨠 􀁺􇨠
Spotted Sandpiper 􀁺􇨠
Least Sandpiper 􀁺􇨠
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
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
- 9 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Concept Plan to identify wetlands in the region. The Regional Plan
identifies a total of 850 wetland sites and complexes in the region, two of
them are within the Complex acquisition boundary. 2,000 acres of wetlands
associated with the Nashua River were identified as being regionally
valuable for wildlife, fisheries, recreation and water quality, quantity and
flood control.
Our Irreplaceable Heritage - Protecting Biodiversity in Massachusetts,
1998
This report recommends that the State develop a biodiversity protection
strategy that outlines how all native biodiversity will be conserved. It also
identifies and describes eight types of natural communities that may
require immediate conservation attention because of their potential
vulnerability and large number of rare species they contain. Seven of the
eight communities listed in the report occur within the Complex boundary.
Existing Partnerships
Throughout this CCP, we use the term “partners”. In addition to our
volunteers, we receive significant help from the following partners:
Freedom’s Way Heritage Association
Friends of the Oxbow NWR
Harvard Conservation Trust
Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game (DFG), Division of
Fisheries and Wildlife (MassWildlife)
Nashua River Watershed Association
Oxbow Associates
The Trust for Public Land
The Friends of the Oxbow NWR provide considerable time and
effort toward accomplishment of refuge and Service goals. They
participate in projects that lead to: land protection/acquisition,
environmental education and outreach, provision of public use
opportunities, such as guided interpretive walks, trail maintenance and
kiosk maintenance/supplies, and meeting biological goals, such as assisting
with surveys and habitat restoration. During fiscal year 2003, Friends of
the Oxbow NWR contributed 1,301 hours of volunteer time on the refuge.
The Nashua River: Staff Photo
Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge
- 10 -
Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning
Process
Given the mandate in the Refuge Improvement Act to develop a CCP for
each NWR, 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
- 11 -
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 req
responses. Editorial suggestions, along with general
notes of concurrence with or opposition to certain
proposals that did not contain factual argumen
noted and included in the decision making process, b
do not receive formal responses. We have included
our responses to requests for additional informat
clarification, provisions of additional information, and
specific concerns as Appendix C. We have made
changes to the CCP where appropriate.
uired
ts were
ut
ion or
he final product of the process is three stand-alone
e
e will evaluate our accomplishments under the CCP, each year.
will
ated
Wilderness Assessment
he planning team conducted a Wilderness Assessment, as required under
t
Wild Indigo: Photo by Marijke Holtrop
T
CCPs, one for each refuge. Implementation of the CCP can occur once th
Finding of (No) Significant Impact (FONSI) is signed.
W
Monitoring or new information may indicate the need to change our
strategies. The collection of additional data at Great Meadows NWR
likely require modification and specification of the wildlife and habitat
management strategies. We will modify the CCP documents and associ
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.
T
the Refuge Planning Policy, to determine if any lands and waters in fee title
ownership were suitable to be proposed for designation as a Wilderness
Area. During the inventory stage, we determined that the refuge does no
fulfill the eligibility requirements for a Wilderness Study Area as defined
by the Wilderness Act. The refuge and surrounding area has been altered
in some way by man, with the imprint of man’s work generally noticeable.
The area is less than 5,000 contiguous acres, and is not of sufficient size as
Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge
- 12 -
Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition.
Furthermore, permanent roads are contained within most of the areas
studied. Therefore, suitability of the lands for Wilderness Designation i
not analyzed further in this document.
s
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
ssues, concerns, and opportunities were brought to the attention of the
blic
sed
t
abitat and wildlife management
any people were interested in our management programs. We have
n on
dividuals and groups expressed a great deal of interest in how we
ontrol of invasive, injurious, and overabundant plant and animal
vasive species, including common reed and purple loosestrife, are a
rshed-
Hunting
equests were made at public meetings and through written comments
I
refuge planning team through early planning discussions with local
governments, state, and federal representatives, and through the pu
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 rai
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 canno
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.
H
M
begun additional surveys and inventories to collect baseline informatio
the refuge. Our efforts at these refuges will help us develop a habitat
management plan which will provide a detailed description of our goals
and objectives for habitat management on the refuge.
Purple Loosestrife: Photo by
In
manage Blanding’s turtles and migratory birds and upland habitats.
Additionally, interest was expressed in creating an additional wildlife
passage under Route 2 at the refuge.
C
species
In
concern. These species limit the productivity of wildlife habitat.
Management to control invasive species was mentioned as a wate
wide priority to some conservation associations. We will continue efforts
to control known invasives on the refuge.
Paul Buckley
R
both to allow and not to allow deer hunting on the refuge. Currently, the
refuge allows hunting for migratory birds (American woodcock), big game
(turkey), and upland game (ruffed grouse, rabbit and squirrel). There have
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
- 13 -
Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
been suggestions to provide additional lawful hunting opportunities on the
refuge to control deer populations and deter poaching. Cooperation with
local towns and hunting groups was a suggestion. Others oppose hunting
of any kind on the refuge.
anagement of public use and access
he Complex Headquarters and Visitor
.
le
where
he refuge has high visitation numbers. We
estimated use at the refuge to
at the
esource Protection and Visitor Safety
any people voiced concern regarding additional protection for cultural
nfrastructure and operations and maintenance
e heard from some people that the Complex doesn’t have the resources
Issues and Concerns Considered Outside the Scope of This Plan
ome towns wish to develop water supply wells on refuge property.
ome towns requested access for the purpose of drilling water supply wells.
nd
Bullfrog: Photo by Ken Andrews
M
T
Contact Station is located in Sudbury, MA
Residents near Oxbow NWR are anxious to
have a visitor contact station/education
center closer to their refuge. Many peop
requested a visitor center at Fort Devens in
an effort not to build on the refuge itself. The
need for environmental educational
programs in local schools as well as
additional interpretive opportunities
the public can learn about the refuge was
raised.
T
be 70,000 visits in 2003. We do not have a
consistent process for collecting and documenting visitation at all sites.
Several non-wildlife dependent recreational activities and some
unauthorized activities occur on the refuge. Some visitors use trails
refuge for dog walking, jogging and illegally for bike riding.
R
M
and historical resources. Other concerns included the need to control
poaching, trespassing and other refuge regulations violations.
I
W
and staff needed to support programs and maintenance of the refuge.
S
S
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 a
may affect specific biological resources.” Concerns were raised by the
Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge
- 14 -
Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
public during CCP scoping that disturbance to wildlife, and other impacts
due to the wells, or access to the wells, could occur.
Chemical control of mosquitoes on NWRs 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 the refuge
does not occur. Any future Service policy will be applied to Oxbow NWR.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
- 15 -
Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
(This page intentionally left blank)
Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge
- 16 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Socioeconomic 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 exceeds the real estate tax. In other cases, Refuge Revenue
Sharing payments may be less than the local real estate tax.
Refuge Sign: Staff photo
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 little extra demand on roads, utilities, police and fire protection,
etc. Additionally, local communities may receive benefits, such as increased
tourism revenues from visitors. The owner of land adjacent to refuge land,
or with acquisition boundary, retains any and all the rights, privileges, and
responsibilities of private land ownership. The refuge controls uses only on
the properties it owns.
Table 3-1: Revenue Sharing Payments for Towns Associated with Oxbow NWR
Ayer Harvard Lancaster Shirley
2003 $918 $16,677 $6 $748
2002 $956 $17,351 $7 $778
2001 $1,023 $17,328 $7 $833
2000 $1,002 $5,193 $7 $816
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
- 17 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Ayer Harvard Lancaster Shirley
1999 $1,136 $5,939 N/A $927
Refuge Resources
Climate
Climatic conditions at the refuge are strongly influenced by maritime,
Atlantic Ocean processes and weather patterns. The annual range in
temperature is broad, with moderately hot summers and cold winters.
Precipitation is distributed throughout the year. Seasonally, precipitation is
greatest fall through the spring, and least during the summer. The average
number of days with snow on the ground is 50 to 60 days.
The average annual temperature is 48.0 degrees Fahrenheit. January, the
coldest month, has an average daily temperature of 24.3 degrees F. In July,
the warmest month, the daily temperature averages 71.2
degrees F. The average, annual precipitation is 44.66 inches,
with the greatest monthly average occurring in November
(4.27 inches), and the lowest monthly average occurring in
February (3.21 inches).
Wind speed averages approximately 10 mile per hour on an
annual basis. Velocities in excess of 40 miles per hour are
not uncommon during summer thunderstorms or winter
blizzards. Both tornados and hurricanes impact the area on
infrequent intervals (U.S. Department of Justice 1995).
Geology and Topography
Oxbow NWR and the surrounding area has a glaciated
topography which has produced landform characteristics of
ice sheet impacts such as drumlins, kames, kame terraces,
outwash plains, kettle-holes, glacial lake beds and eskers.
Underlying the glacial deposits is metamorphic,
sedimentary and granitic bedrock. Unconsolidated glacial
deposits cover most of the bedrock, leaving little bedrock
outcropping on the refuge. Topography ranges from the
Nashua River, along with its associated wetlands and floodplains at
approximately 200 feet above mean sea level to hilly uplands at
approximately 330 feet elevation. Along the transition zone between the
Nashua River floodplain and the adjacent upland, there is generally a fairly
steep incline which divides these two areas. The majority of the refuge
consists of the river riparian zone, its adjoining wetlands and low floodplain
lands (Roberts 1995).
Forest habitat: Photo by Karla Thompson
Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge
- 18 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
The surface geology of the refuge consists of glacial, alluvium, and swamp
deposits overlaying bedrock. Glacial and post-glacial erosion and deposition
during the Wisconsin period ice age shaped surficial geology approximately
17,500 years ago. In upland areas, glacial activity resulted in a moderately
thick layer of glacial till consisting of a heterogeneous mix of clay, silt, sand,
gravel and boulders, with occasional bedrock outcrops. Other glacial
deposits include layers of well-sorted fine to coarse sand, fine gravel and
boulders along with layers of fine sand and silt (Roberts 1995).
Alluvium and swamp deposits overlie glacial deposits on much of the area.
Alluvium is light gray to white fine sand and silt with minor gravel. It is 15
feet thick in some areas and primarily found underlying the Nashua River
Valley floodplain. Swamp deposits are composed of muck, peat, silt and
sand overlying or mixed in with the alluvium (Roberts 1995).
Bedrock is a complex of metamorphic and granitic rocks of the Paleozoic
age. Composition ranges from meta-siltstone through phyllite, slate and
schist. An intrusive igneous body, the Ayer granodiorite and meta-quartzite
also exist. Most contacts between formations are faults, striking northwest.
The area was historically depressed under glacial loading and is rebounding
(Roberts 1995).
Soils
The soils of the refuge are comprised of three generalized types. Nashua
River floodplain soils are predominately the poorly drained Winooski-
Limerick-Saco map unit. To the east of the Nashua River floodplain, where
the majority of the refuge lies, the soils are the excessively drained outwash
plain Hinckley-Merrimac-Windsor map unit. The well to moderately
drained upland soils of the Paxton-Woodbridge-Canton map unit are west
of the Nashua River floodplain, adjacent to the refuge.
The soils of the Winooski-Limerick-Saco map unit are very deep, nearly
level soils that are moderately well drained, poorly drained, and very poorly
drained on the floodplain of the river. This map unit consists of broad areas
and small depressions. The soils formed in alluvium deposited by the flood
waters of the Nashua River. The high water table is at the surface for the
Saco soils, 6" for the Limerick soils, and between 1 ½ to 3 feet for the
Winooski soils.
The soils of the Hinckley-Merrimac-Windsor map unit, which are primarily
the upland soils of the refuge, are very deep, nearly level to steep soils that
are excessively drained and somewhat excessively drained on the outwash
plain. This map unit consists of broad plains and rolling to steep areas
scattered throughout the survey area. The soils formed in water-sorted
deposits of glacial outwash. Hinckley soils have a loamy surface underlain
by stratified sand and gravel. Merrimac soils typically consist of 2 feet of
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
- 19 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
loamy material over sand and gravel and Windsor soils are typically sandy
throughout.
The soils of the Paxton-Woodbridge-Canton map unit include deep, nearly
level to steep soils that are moderately well to well drained. These soils are
predominately upland soils of hills and ridges. Paxton soils are gently
sloping to steep with slow to very slow permeability. Woodbridge soils are
nearly level to steep, and are predominately found on hill or drumlin tops.
Canton soils are also gently to steeply sloping and well drained. However,
they are most often associated with the toe of slopes, and have moderately
rapid to rapid permeability (USDA 1985).
Hydrology
The hydrology of the refuge is essentially that of the Nashua River. All
refuge lands are located along 7.5 miles of the Nashua River drainage. The
Nashua River flows south to north, drains approximately 538 square miles,
and is a major tributary of the Merrimack River system. The main stem of
the Nashua River flowing through the refuge is formed by two branches:
the north Nashua River, which originates west of Fitchburg, MA, and the
south branch, which flows out of the Wachusett Reservoir. These two
branches join at Lancaster, MA to the south of the refuge. Much of this
section of the Nashua River is characterized by low gradient, slow moving
water with numerous backwaters and wetlands. Primary tributaries of the
Nashua River within its course through the refuge include: New Cranberry
Pond Brook, Slate Rock Pond outlet, Phoenix Pond outlet (Catacoonamug
Brook), Trout Brook, Willow Brook (a tributary of Nonacoicus Brook),
Nonacoicus Brook, Morse Brook, Walker Brook, and Mulpus Brook.
The nearest, long-term U.S. Geological Survey gauging station on the
Nashua River is located downstream of the refuge at Pepperell, MA.
Flow records have been made at this station for 33 years (23,376 daily
flow records). The average daily flow over this period of record is 583.5
cubic feet per second.
Numerous small freshwater ponds, vernal pools and wetlands are
associated with this stretch of the Nashua River. Many small ponds a
the river’s course were formed by glaciers; others, e.g. oxbow wetlan
were formed as portions of the river have become silted, and the river’s
course changed, leaving these cut-off oxbows. Between the northern-most
section of the refuge and the middle section, there is a dam, the
privately owned Ice House Dam just below Shirley Road on the Nashua
River. This dam has some impounding influence on the river, at least as
far upstream as Route 2, and perhaps further upstream toward the
southern part of the refuge.
long
ds,
Sunset: Photo by Deborah
Dineen
Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge
- 20 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Groundwater Resources
The groundwater hydrology of the refuge and the surrounding area is
largely defined by topography and the distribution and saturated thickness
of high conductivity glacial outwash deposits within the Nashua River
valley and low conductivity glacial till deposits in the upland areas. This
distribution of unconsolidated sediments results in steep hydraulic
gradients in the upland areas with a general flattening of the water table
within the regions of glacial outwash. Maintaining the base flow of the
rivers and streams, groundwater flows from hills toward valleys, and
discharges into streams, rivers, wetlands, and ponds. An extensive sand
and gravel glacial outwash aquifer underlies most of refuge on the former
North Post, the eastern portion of Main Post, and the northeastern corner
of South Post, in addition to contiguous areas in adjacent towns (U.S. Army
1995).
The most productive parts of the aquifer (the high yield aquifer) are
associated with the Nashua River and its tributaries. The glacial outwash
deposits present in these high transmissivity areas are major sources of
potable water for Devens and the towns of Shirley and Ayer. In most areas
where the glacial outwash aquifer is not present, fractured bedrock
resources supply water to single-family domestic wells (U.S. Army 1995).
The Devens water supply is provided by the McPherson Well on North
Post, the Grove Pond Wellfield in the northeastern corner of Main Post,
and the Patton and Sheboken Wells located, respectively, northeast and
southwest of the mirror lakes in the southern portion of Main Post.
Groundwater in the vicinity of Devens is designated Class I groundwater
by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP)
and is considered to be a potable source of water. In general, the water
within the main aquifer of Devens is moderately hard, requires minimal
treatment and, based on tests at individual supply wells, and has met all
MADEP water quality standards, with the exception of those for sodium
(U.S. Army 1995).
The town of Ayer operates two wells on the southern shore of Grove Pond,
to the east of the Devens Grove Pond Wellfield. In the past, these wells
have functioned as a backup to Ayer’s main water supply wells, which are
located adjacent to Spectacle Pond in Ayer, east of Devens. The total rated
capacity of the two wells is approximately 2 million gallons per day (MGD)
(U.S. Army 1995).
The Shirley Water Supply District maintains two wells in the vicinity of the
refuge. The Patterson Road Well, located in Shirley along Morse Brook
due west of the McPherson Well, supplies approximately 225,000 gallons
per day (GPD). Further west, the Catacoonamug Well supplies
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
- 21 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
approximately 62,000 GPD. A supply well, operated by MCI-Shirley, is
located in Shirley on the west side of the Nashua River, due west of
Jackson Gate. This well is capable of supplying 720,000 GPD to the
correctional facility. The extent of this zone is limited to the west side of the
Nashua River (U.S. Army 1995).
Public water supply for the town of Harvard is provided by a pair of
bedrock wells of limited capacity (one active well with an estimated
maximum pumping rate of 43,000 GPD and a backup well with an estimated
maximum pumping rate of 28,000 GPD). A third bedrock well, which pumps
at less than 1,200 GPD, serves Harvard’s Department of Public Works
building and one private residence (U.S. Army 1995).
Floodplains
The estimated 100-year floodplain in the vicinity of the Oxbow NWR has
been delineated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
The 100-year floodplain is most extensive along the Nashua River, reaching
its greatest width in the refuge south of Route 2. The floodplain is also
fairly wide along the stretch of the Nashua River near portions of the
refuge within the former North Post (U.S. Army 1995).
Air Quality
The state air quality report from 2002 contains the most recent data
available from the MADEP, Air Assessment Branch. The report contains
data for several different pollutants: ozone (O3); sulfur dioxide (SO2);
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (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-
Eastern Bluebird: Photo by
Bruce Flaig
Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge
- 22 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
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.
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 ppm standard established by the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (USFDA).
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 waters of the Nashua River have been designated as Class B,
warm water fisheries by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Class B waters are defined as being suitable for “protection and
propagation of fish, other aquatic life, for wildlife, and for primary
and secondary contact recreation” (MADEP 1998a). Although
vastly improved in water quality character, the Nashua River has
River: USFWS photo
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
- 23 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
had a long history of water quality degradation. Through the 1960s and
early 1970s, paper manufacturing facilities in Fitchburg and Pepperell,
inadequately treated municipal wastewater in Fitchburg, Leominster,
Clinton, and Ayer, and combined sewer overflows in Fitchburg and
Leominster contributed to severe pollution of the river. While the water
quality of the river has improved dramatically with closing of some of these
facilities and the institution of advanced waste water treatment at others,
impacts on aquatic biota and elevated bacteria levels remain problematic
(MADEP 1998b).
The mainstem of the Nashua in its reach through the refuge is included in
the State’s list of impaired waters due to organic enrichment and low
dissolved oxygen levels. Grove and Plow Shop Ponds, which are the origin
of Nonacoicus Brook just above the refuge boundary, are listed as impaired
due to heavy metal contamination. Mirror Lake, a kettle-hole pond located
within the former Ft. Devens Main Post is also listed as impaired due to
heavy metals (MADEP 1999). Mirror Lake is recharged by ground water,
and does not have an apparent surface water inlet or outlet. We do not
currently believe water quality within Mirror Lake would have an impact
on the refuge.
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MADPH) has issued a
fish consumption advisory for Mirror Lake due to elevated levels of
mercury in fish tissue (MADPH 1999). There is also an earlier, state-wide
interim fish consumption advisory for mercury that encompasses all fresh
waters of the State. It is directed to pregnant women only. The general
public was not considered to be at risk in this state-wide advisory (MADPH
1994).
A recent study by the Service examined heavy metal exposure in benthic
invertebrates from Grove Pond, Plow Shop Pond and Nonacoicus Brook.
The study found that freshwater mussels (the eastern elliptio, Elliptio
complanta) collected from Nonacoicus Brook near its confluence with the
Nashua River contained elevated levels of chromium (5.07 ug/g). Mussel
tissue concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, mercury, methyl mercury and
lead were found to not be elevated in comparisons with studies conducted
elsewhere. However mussels tested from Nonacoicus Brook near the
Nashua River exhibited higher levels of arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
mercury and lead compared to samples at the inlet and outlet of Plow Shop
Pond (USFWS 2000a).
In 1994, a 2.5 mile section of the Nashua River in the Fort Devens area was
surveyed by the Service to check levels of contaminants in fish tissues.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane
(DDT) and mercury were found in fish tissues; as well as chlordane
compounds and dieldrin. Chromium, arsenic, cadmium, lead and selenium
were also detected at elevated levels in fish tissue. This report recommends
separate evaluation of the contaminant concentrations in fish from the Fort
Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge
- 24 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Devens section of the Nashua River by human health risk assessors.
“Based on fish carcass and whole body analytical results, receptor groups
that consume fish organ tissue or use the entire fish in meals may be at
greater risk from some contaminants” (USFWS 1997).
Portions of the MADEP’s Nashua River basin 1998 Water Quality
Assessment Report (MADEP 2001) focusing on the mainstem of the
Nashua from the confluence of the north and south branches to
Squannacock River (including Still River, Nonacoicus Brook and Mulpus
Brook) are attached as Appendix H to provide a synoptic view of water
quality in these streams.
Biological Resources
Vegetation and Habitat Types
Oxbow NWR is located within the southern edge of the northern
hardwoods forest region. The refuge is primarily a riparian community
consisting of forested wetlands, shrub swamps and oxbow ponds. The
Nashua River flows through a broad, low gradient floodplain with
extensive wetlands. The floodplain extends up to 1,650 feet in width.
Hardwood forests occur along the slopes of the floodplain valley.
A complete habitat cover type map is currently being produced in
accordance with the National Vegetation Classification System
(NVCS), and vegetation surveys have not been conducted on all
refuge property. However, the vegetation of portions of the refuge
has been examined by a number of surveys. The University of
Massachusetts has conducted a plant community and vegetation
analysis on portions of the Nashua River floodplain and surveys for
rare plant species have been conducted (Searcy et al. 1993; Searcy 1994;
and U.S. Army undated).
Bare branches: Photo by John
Grabill
While the majority of work done to date has focused on wetland plant
communities, the Fort Devens Natural Resource Management Office
(NRMO) prepared a forest cover and condition inventory that included
what is now the portions of the refuge north of Route 2 (see Maps 3-1
through 3-3). A broad description of these uplands is that they are
primarily comprised of mixed oak-hardwoods, white pine-hardwoods,
cherry-aspen hardwoods, red maple, shrub-land, and old field habitat (U.S.
Army undated). The forest-stand condition indices reported in the Army
inventory maps are likely to be outdated at this time.
The University of Massachusetts surveyed both wetland and upland plant
communities along the Nashua River on the refuge north of Route 2
(Searcy et al. 1993). The study describes and evaluates upland forest and
wetland plant communities within these areas of the refuge. The upland
communities included two rich mesic forests, an oak-hardwood forest and a
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
- 25 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Map 3-1: Forest and Land Cover Types (Area 1A Fort Devens)
Code Type Acres
OH Oak-Hardwood 64.5
OM Mixed Oak 7.0
WH White Pine-Hardwood 138.7
RM Red Maple 17.4
GC Golf Course 5.7
U Developed Lands 35.4
PEM Wetlands 11.0
Total 279.7
Map 3-2: Forest and Land Cover Types (Area 1 Fort Devens)
Code Type Acres
OH Oak-
Hardwood
23.6
OM Mixed Oak 6.5
WH White Pine-
Hardwood
30.6
RM Red Maple 33.6
PA Aspen-
Hardwood
6.2
WP White Pine 10.2
GF Grasses-Forbs 2.5
PEM Wetlands 7.2
PSS1 Wetlands 2.5
Total 125.9
Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge
- 26 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Map 3-3: Forest and Land Cover Types (Areas 2, 3, and Airfield Fort Devens)
Code Type Acres
OH Oak-Hardwood 42.6
OM Mixed Oak 106.8
WO White Pine-Oak 77.2
WH White Pine-Hardwood 7.2
RM Red Maple 146.4
WP White Pine 32.6
RP Red Pine 10.2
PP Pitch Pine 7.2
PA Aspen 24.4
BC Cherry-Aspen-
Hardwood
73.0
Code Type Acres
BR Shrubs 20.4
Airfield 176.0
FB Filter Beds 31.6
NV No Vegetation 5.5
PSS1 Wetland 25.1
PFO1 Wetland 13.6
PEM Wetland 2.5
River Wetland 23.4
Total 862.3
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
- 27 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
white pine-hardwood forest. The wetland plant communities examined were
classified as a red maple swamp, a southern New England floodplain, acidic
seepage, and two types of oxbow pond communities. A detailed summary
table providing a listing of the 174 plant taxa found in these communities,
and their densities and percent cover are provided in Searcy et al., 1993.
In 1994, the portion of South Post which is adjacent to the Nashua River
was more intensely surveyed. This area is directly west of the refuge.
Although it is not on the refuge, many of the characteristics and features of
the west side of the river also apply to the east side of the river, which is in
the refuge. This includes the identification of this area as a southern New
England floodplain forest, which is a high priority habitat for protection in
Massachusetts. The floodplain area of this stretch of the Nashua River is
flatter, wetter, and generally supports a larger more continuous area of
forested wetlands (Searcy et al. 1994).
Oxbow Ponds
In 1995, the vegetation of the oxbow ponds and sloughs along the western
floodplain of the Nashua River south of Route 2 were inventoried and
classified as a result of a contract between the Fort Devens Military
Reservation and the University of Massachusetts (Hickler 1995). The
majority of the oxbows lie west of the Nashua River and are not on the
refuge, however there are oxbows on the eastern floodplain which are on
the southern half of the refuge. The characteristics and floristic inventories
of the western oxbows can be extrapolated to the oxbows that lie east of the
river, with caution.
Oxbow ponds are formed when a river cuts through the neck of
a meander, leaving behind a section of river channel which
forms a pond with a characteristic oxbow shape. One of the
unique characteristics of these oxbow communities is the almost
complete turnover of species composition between vegetation
zones within one or two meters of each other. The oxbow
communities have a higher variety of plant species than the
adjacent upland, but more than half of those species are limited
to only one or two oxbow ponds. Therefore, each pond
individually contributes unique plant species to the overall
biological diversity of the oxbow pond system. The oxbow
communities were classified as four major vegetation types:
common buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) swamp, wet
meadow, deep marsh, and open-water aquatic.
Common Buttonbush Swamp
Ten of the 15 ponds studied were buttonbush swamps with a
well developed border of common buttonbush and a few
associated forb species and tree seedlings.
Buttonbush and purple loosestrife:
Photo by Sandy Selesky
Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge
- 28 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Wet Meadow
Seven of the 15 ponds supported wet meadow communities. The wet
meadow communities have many grass and forb plant species that vary
widely between ponds and within meadows on a single pond. The most
frequently occurring species in the wet meadow are cutgrass (Leerzia
oryzoides), swampcandle (Lysimachea terrestris), common arrowhead
(Sagittaria latifolia), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), and needle rush
(Eleocharis acicularis).
Deep Marsh
Deep marsh communities occur either as a band between meadow
communities and open water, or covering large areas on shallow ponds.
Deep marsh is characterized by emergent species along with floating
leaved and submersed species. Pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata) is the
most characteristic species, forming dense floating mats over large
expanses on many of the ponds.
Open Water Aquatic
There are three aquatic cover types which are delineated by water depth.
Shallow water areas are characterized by a dense cover of coontail
(Ceratophyllum demersum), followed by a zone lacking emergent species
with a small amount of watermeal (Wolffia spp.), and a second variety of
coontail (Ceratophyllum echinatum). The deepest aquatic cover type is
distinguished by a high frequency of pondweed (Potemogeton pusillus) and
yellow water lily (Nuphar variegatum) (Hickler 1995).
A general description of the types of oxbow pond communities (with a
cross-reference to the most similar NVCS designation) is provided in Table
3-2.
Table 3-2: Oxbow Pond Vegetation Communities
Type of Oxbow Community NVCS Cross-reference
Buttonbush Swamp Palustrine Cephalanthus occidentalis shrub thickets
Wet Meadow Palustrine medium tall graminoid vegetation
Deep Marsh Mixed marsh emergents community type: RI
Lacustrine emergent community:ME
Vernal Pools
Vernal Pool: Photo by Rob Vincent
Vernal pools are a priority habitat type within the State of
Massachusetts. Many vernal pools have been identified on Oxbow
NWR, associated with the river floodplain and the adjacent forested
wetlands. Vernal pools are temporary freshwater depressions which
hold spring rains and snow-melt waters, and then typically dry out
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
- 29 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
during late summer. Vernal pools are critical breeding habitat for
amphibian and invertebrate species due to the lack of predatory fish. The
vernal pools of Oxbow NWR are confirmed breeding habitat for the state
watch-listed spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) and blue-spotted
salamander (Ambystoma laterale), which is a state species of
special concern.
Biodiversity
The Friends of the Oxbow NWR conducted a series of twenty six field trips
on the refuge from March through October, 2000 (Friends of Oxbow 2000).
All field trips were within the portion of the refuge located south of Route
2. These events were led by naturalists with expertise in the identification
and ecology of a variety of biota. Eleven of these events examined a variety
of plant groups including: lichens (27 species recorded), grasses and sedges
(9 species reported), trees (39 species reported), shrubs/vines (47 species
recorded), ferns/fern allies (32 species found), fungi/mushrooms (32 species
reported), herbaceous plants/wildflowers (100 species), mosses (67 species
reported), and liverworts (8 species recorded). A complete listing of species
recorded during these biodiversity program events and by other
observations on the refuge is provided in Appendix D. To date, 352 species
of plants have been identified on the refuge, including 8 species that are on
the Massachusetts state list of endangered (SE), special concern (SC) or
watch-list (WL) of rare plants.
Invasive or Overabundant Species
Common reed (Phragmites australis) has invaded a portion of wetlands of
Oxbow NWR. Planning to determine its rate of spread and the most
effective means of control has been initiated.
Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) is another extremely invasive
plant species which threatens portions of the wetland habitats of the
refuge. No formal surveys to determine the rate of spread have been
conducted. The refuge has released Galerucella sp. beetles and
Hylobius transversovittatus weevils as biological control agents. The
Galerucella beetles are leaf-eating beetles which feed on the leaves
and the new shoot growth of purple loosestrife, weakening the plant
until it eventually is removed or reduced. Hylobius tansversovittatus
is a root-boring weevil that deposits its eggs in the lower stem of
purple loosestrife plants. The hatched larvae feed on the root tissue,
destroying the plant’s nutrient source for leaf development, which in
turn leads to the destruction of the mature plant.
Purple loosestrife: Photo by Karla
Thompson
Additional plant species that are considered to be invasive, and that require
monitoring on the refuge include: spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa),
glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), Oriental bittersweet (Celastrus
orbiculatus), and autumn olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia).
Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge
- 30 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Wildlife Resources
Migratory Birds
Comprehensive inventories for wintering, breeding and migratory
birds have not been conducted for all avian species groups at the
refuge. However, an impressive record of bird species using the
refuge has been developed by staff and expert volunteer birders. A
complete listing of bird species identified on Oxbow NWR to date is
provided at Appendix D. In addition, the refuge staff initiated
breeding American woodcock, land-bird and marsh-bird surveys on
the Oxbow NWR in 2000. The latter two surveys follow regional
Service sampling protocol and contribute to regional and national
databases. The annual breeding season American woodcock
(Scolopax minor) surveys also utilize standardized protocols, but
are not currently a part of a regional or national series of observations.
American woodcock at Oxbow NWR:
Staff photo
The wetlands and open water bodies of the refuge provide important
migration, feeding and nesting habitat for waterfowl species including
American black duck (Anas rubripes), wood duck (Aix sponsa), mallard
(Anas platyrhynchos), and green-winged teal (Anas crecca).
The wetlands along the Nashua River and its tributaries have been
identified as a priority for protection under the NAWMP and the area is
within one of the seven focus areas for the State of Massachusetts under
this plan. Priority waterfowl species identified include American black
duck, wood duck, and mallard, which nest on the refuge in upland habitat
surrounding wetlands that provide brood raising habitat (USFWS 1992).
The Service Northeast Region Marshbird Callback Survey was conducted
at the refuge for the first time in 2000. This survey follows a national
protocol which will assist with the monitoring of marshbirds throughout the
nation. The Marshbird Callback Survey specifically targets the secretive
birds of wetlands that are generally missed during landbird surveys. The
initial survey focused on the southern third of the refuge but will be
expanded to include the newly acquired northern properties. Great blue
heron (Ardea herodias), green heron (Butorides virescens) and black-crowned
Night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) have been observed on the
refuge (Appendix D).
The Service Northeast Region Landbird Breeding Survey conducted on
the refuge is similar to the National Breeding Bird Survey in which
singing males are recorded at designated points along a route that
traverses the refuge during the breeding season (May-July). This survey
was initiated in the spring of 2000 and resulted in an initial species list of
breeding land birds. The land bird survey is designed to continue for at
least five years, at which time the data will be analyzed to determine the
Great blue heron:
Photo by David
Margaretos
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
- 31 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
frequency at which the subsequent surveys need to be conducted to
accurately monitor refuge populations.
Mammals
No formal surveys or inventories have been conducted on the refuge for
mammals. However, 30 species of mammals have been identified by sight,
sign or tracks on the refuge, including the presence of four bat species that
need further confirmation (Friends of Oxbow 2000). A listing of these
species is provided at Appendix D. In 1992, a small mammal survey was
conducted on portions of the adjacent Fort Devens Military Reservation.
Most of the areas that were sampled were in or adjacent to wetlands
habitat in an effort to obtain specimens of the southern bog lemming
(Synaptomys cooperi) and water shrew (Sorex palustris). Previously, a
water shrew was captured in 1986, but in 1992 neither of these two
mammals were captured (Thomas 1992). Mammals known to occur on the
adjacent Fort Devens property may also occur on the refuge given the
similarity in habitats (Appendix D).
Reptiles and Amphibians
Comprehensive inventories of anurans have been conducted. Additional
surveys of amphibians and reptiles have not been conducted. However,
observations by refuge staff, a long-term series of investigations regarding
Blanding’s turtles (Emys blandingii) and the Friends of the Oxbow NWR
Biodiversity-2000 program have resulted in the compilation of a list of 17
reptile and 15 amphibian species occurring on the refuge. The species
known to occur on the refuge include 4 reptiles and 1 amphibian species
that are listed as threatened or of special concern by the Massachusetts
Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (Mass Wildlife), Natural Heritage and
Endangered Species Program (NHESP). State listed species of special
concern are: spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata), wood turtle (Glyptemys
insculpta), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), and blue-spotted
salamander. The Blanding’s turtle is listed as state
threatened.
The Service Northeast Region Anuran Call Count Survey is
designed to identify breeding frog and toad species of the refuge
and monitor their populations. The survey began in the spring of
2000 and focused on the southern third of the refuge, then was
expanded to include the northern portions of the refuge. Surveys
were originally completed by staff and are now done by volunteers.
A complete list of reptiles and amphibians at Oxbow NWR is
located in Appendix D.
Leopard frog: Photo by Sandy
Selesky
Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge
- 32 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Fish
Fish species documented in the main stem of the Nashua River include:
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmonoides), smallmouth bass
(Micropterus dolomieui), brown and yellow bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus
and Ictalurus natalis), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), chain pickerel
(Esox niger), redfin pickerel (Esox americanus americanus), bluegill
(Lepomis macrochirus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), black crappie
(Pomoxis nigromacultus), white perch (Morone americana), white sucker
(Catostomus commersoni), blacknose dace (Rhinichtys atratulus), spottail
shiner (Notropis hudsonius), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas),
tesselated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), fallfish (Semotilus corporalis),
common shiner (Notropis cornutus), slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) and
goldfish (Carassius auratus) (MassWildlife 1974 and MADEP 1993).
Native brook trout are found in Walker Brook (Town of Shirley 1996). The
Squannacook River, which flows into the main stem of the Nashua River
just north of the refuge, supports wild brook and brown trout (Salvelinus
fontinalis and Salmo trutta) populations, and also gets stocked with brook,
brown, rainbow (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and tiger trout (Salmo trutta x
salvelinus fontinalis) (MassWildlife 1974). It is likely that some of these
trout find their way into the main stem of the Nashua River. The fish
species found in the Nashua River in its course through the refuge are
listed in Appendix D.
In 1994, a 2.5 mile section of the Nashua River in the Fort Devens area was
surveyed by the Service to check levels of contaminants in fish tissues
(USFWS 1997). PCBs, DDT and mercury were found in fish tissues; as well
as chlordane compounds and dieldrin. Chromium, arsenic, cadmium, lead
and selenium were also detected at elevated levels in fish tissue. This report
recommends separate evaluation of the contaminant concentrations in fish
from the Fort Devens section of the Nashua River by human health risk
assessors. “Based on fish carcass and whole body analytical results,
receptor groups that consume fish organ tissue or use the entire fish in
meals may be at greater risk from some contaminants.”
As part of the large scale plan for fish restoration in the Merrimack River,
the Nashua River Watershed is a current and future release location for
river herring. Anadromous fish restoration is a cooperative effort among
state agencies including the Massachusetts Division of Marine Resources,
MassWildlife, and federal agencies including the Service, National Marine
Fisheries Service and U.S. Forest Service. The Nashua River is considered
a self-sustaining river in that it has existing fish passage facilities at dams
which need to be modified or improved as part of the plan. This watershed
will also be monitored and evaluated to ensure effective and efficient
upstream and downstream passage of fish. Fish that would benefit from
this effort include the river herring (Alosa pseudoharengus), American
shad (Alosa sapidissima) and American eel (Anquilla rostrata).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
- 33 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Invertebrates
With the exception of a 1994 inventory of moths, no formal surveys h
been conducted on the refuge for invertebrate groups. However, the
Friends of the Oxbow NWR Biodiversity-2000 Program, and other
observations, have resulted in the compilation of a list of species that
utilize the habitat resources of the refuge. This inventory list includes 9
freshwater mollusks species, one of which, the Triangle floater
(Alasmidonta undulata), is a listed as a species of concern by the State
due its low population numbers, 32 species of butterflies, 22 species of
dragonflies and damselflies, and 57 other species of insects.
ave
In 1992 and 1994, entomologists from the Lloyd Center for
Environmental Studies inventoried moth species on the refuge (Mello
and Peters 1993; Mello and Peters 1994). A total of 246 species of moths
were recorded on the refuge. Observations of moths on the refuge were
also made during the Friends of the Oxbow NWR Biodiversity-2000
Program. A total of 134 species were recorded, including 84 species not
observed during the earlier inventories (Appendix D).
12-Spotted skimmer:
Photo by Sandy Selesky
Threatened and Endangered Species
Rare Vertebrate Species
The Service has not conducted comprehensive surveys for threatened and
endangered species on the refuge. The NHESP has identified the state
endangered pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) as occurring on the
refuge, as well as the state threatened Blanding’s turtle. The blue-spotted
salamander, which is dependent on the vernal pools of the refuge, is a state
species of special concern.
The pied-billed grebes in the Northeast breed in ponds, sloughs and
marshes, along marshy edges of rivers, lakes and reservoirs. They prefer
wetlands that are less than 5 hectares with abundant aquatic bed
vegetation and open water interspersed with robust emergent vegetation.
Breeding locations are scattered through much of the Northeast and are
more localized and less abundant than in other regions of the U.S. In
Massachusetts the pied-billed grebe is a local breeder throughout the
State, but because of its rarity, the State has listed it as endangered in
Massachusetts. The pied-billed grebe is identified by the Service as a
migratory non-game bird of management concern in the Northeast which is
representative of a biological community that is threatened in the
Northeast. The greatest threat to the northeast pied-billed grebe
population is the alteration and loss of wetland habitat through draining,
dredging, filling, pollution, acid rain, agricultural practices, and siltation.
(USFWS 2000b).
Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge
- 34 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
The spotty, low-density distribution of the Blanding’s turtle is centered in
the Great Lakes region with disjunct populations in southeastern New
York, eastern New England and Nova Scotia. In New England, this turtle
is found in eastern Massachusetts, southern New Hampshire and southern
Maine. There are only seven known nesting sites in Massachusetts.
Blanding’s turtles were found at the refuge in 1986, when
a female and tracks were located by Brian Butler. Since
that time, the population has been continually monitored.
Individual turtles are uniquely identified with marginal
shell notches, which allow for the calculation of local
population size. Butler has estimated that approximately
25% of nesting females are new each year. This indicates a
thriving population and is impressive for most species but
is especially significant for the Blanding’s turtle, given
that females do not breed until they are about 12 years
and predation on eggs are two factors limiting Blanding’
turtles. Historical photos and records indicate that approximately 50%
the amount of habitat that historically was available for nesting turtles has
been lost, due to the encroachment of shrubs and trees through natural
succession. A high level of egg loss, as a result of fox and raccoon eating the
eggs, has been a problem in many areas. During this vulnerable time,
nesting areas are activity monitored and protected to reduce predation
human disturbance until the eggs hatch (Brian Butler, personal
communication, Oxbow Associates, Lunenberg, MA)
Blanding’s turtle surfacing: Photo
by David Flint
old. Habitat loss s
of
and
In Massachusetts, the blue-spotted salamander is a species of special
concern and occurs predominantly within Middlesex and Essex counties
and in the adjacent eastern towns of Worcester County. This ‘mole’
salamander requires moist, moderately shaded environments, favoring
northern hardwood/hemlock forests. The blue-spotted salamander requires
vernal pools for breeding and egg laying, as well as the survival of their
larvae until they metamorphose into air-breathing adult salamanders. The
major threat to this species and other salamanders is the loss of wetland
habitat to draining and development. Some population declines may also be
attributed to sample over collection, foot and road traffic and pesticides or
other toxic chemicals (MassWildlife undated).
Rare Plant Species
Although a complete plant inventory has not been conducted for the refuge,
four rare plant species are known to occur on the refuge. Another three
rare plants occur immediately adjacent to the refuge in habitat similar to
that of the refuge. Because of the similarity of habitat on both sides of the
river, there is potential that these state-listed rare plants also occur on
refuge property. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has listed ovate
spike-sedge (Eleocharis obtusa var. ovata) as endangered. Three
populations of ovate spike-sedge occur along this stretch of the Nashua
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
- 35 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
River floodplain. The largest population of ovate spike-sedge is on the
refuge. There are four other areas that have been identified as potential
habitat for this species along the floodplain, with one of these areas
occurring on the refuge (Hunt 1991).
Climbing fern (Lygodium palmatum) may be abundant where it is found,
however populations are rare and localized, making this a species of special
concern in Massachusetts. Climbing fern does not have the characteristic
shape of most ferns. It is an evergreen, ivy-like plant which sprawls over
the ground or climbs clockwise short distances up shrubs and coarse herbs.
This fern grows in moist pine-oak-maple woods with an open understory,
moist thickets and stream margins (MDFW undated).
Wild black currant (Ribes americanum) typically occurs in floodplain
thickets and swampy woods of the Northeast. This species has been
delisted but remains on Massachusetts’ watch list. A single plant was
located on the northern half of the refuge within additional suitable habitat
for this species to expand (Hunt 1991).
A single location of northern wild senna (Senna hebecarpa) is known to
occur on the northern portion of the refuge. Field inspection in 2000
indicated the plants were doing well, but that shrubby overgrowth should
be periodically cleared to enhance habitat conditions for the northern wild
senna (Dr. William Brumback, New England Wildflower Society, October
2000, personnel communication).
Small bur-reed (Sparganium natans L.) occurs in shallow water
throughout northern New England, but is listed as endangered in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Small bur-reed is known to occur in only
one area of the refuge. This area was initially located in 1993, with a more
intensive follow up survey in 1994 for more areas of small bur-reed. No
additional areas of small bur-reed were located in 1994, and there was a
decline in the patch size of the small bur-reed found in 1993. This may have
been caused by an actual decline in individual plants, an increase in water
level in 1994, or an algal bloom in 1994 which made it difficult to estimate
the percent coverage of the small bur-reed (Searcy et al. 1994)
The range of small beggar-ticks (Bidens discoidea) is from Massachusetts
to Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Louisiana, and Texas. This species typically
occurs in buttonbush swamps, ponds, oxbows, forested swamps and other
wetlands. In Massachusetts, small beggar-ticks are currently known to
occur at four sites. One site of small beggar-ticks occurs adjacent to the
refuge, with suitable habitat identified adjacent Nashua River floodplain
(Hunt 1991).
Bicknell’s cranesbill (Geranium bicknelli) typically occurs in the dry rocky
woods of eastern Massachusetts; however the two areas that were
identified adjacent to the refuge occur in wetlands. The species is scattered
Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge
- 36 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
in western Massachusetts and it is unclear whether or not the population
found adjacent to the refuge is native (Hunt 1991). Bicknell’s cranesbill is
on the state species watch list.
Northern blazing star (Liatris borealis) is found in dry clayey or sandy
soils in open woods and clearings throughout New England. Although
formerly common in Massachusetts, this species is now only abundant in
southeastern portions of the State. Two small populations were identified in
disturbed sandy soil adjacent to the refuge and it is possible that this
species may also occur in similar habitat on the refuge (Hunt 1991).
Special Designations
The Oxbow NWR and the Nashua River corridor are listed as a priority for
protection under both the NAWMP and the Emergency Wetlands
Resources Act of 1986.
The refuge and the Nashua River corridor are also
included with the USEPA’s priority wetlands of New
England. The eight mile length of the refuge is a key
component of the Nashua River Watershed
Association Nashua River Greenway Designation.
The portion of the Oxbow NWR south of Route 2 lies
within the 12,900 acre Central Nashua River Valley
ACEC designated by the Massachusetts Secretary of
Environmental Affairs due to its unique e
characteristics and values (MADEP 1998).
nvironmental
xbow NWR, Devens Reserve, Bolton Flats Wildlife
g,
m
Morning fog on the river: Photo by Sherry Fendel
O
Management Area, the Nashua Greenway, Lancaster State Forest and
other lands along the Nashua River have been designated as a
Massachusetts Important Bird Area (IBA) for their significance to
grassland species, several of which are identified under the PIF plan as
priority species. Species present include grasshopper sparrow
(Ammodramus savannarum), vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus),
upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda), bobolinks (Dolichonyx
oryzivorus), and whip-poor-wills (Caprimulgus voviferus), and others.
IBAs provide essential habitat for at least one or more species of breedin
wintering or migrating birds. The program highlights these important
areas, but is not regulatory in nature. The primary goals of the progra
are listed below.
• “To identify, nominate and designate key sites that contribute to
the preservation of significant bird populations or communities.
• To provide information that will help land managers evaluate areas
for habitat management or land acquisition.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
- 37 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
• To activate public and private participation in bird conservation
efforts.
• To provide education and community outreach opportunities.”
(http://www.massaudubon.org/birds-&-beyond/iba/iba-intro.html)
Cultural Resources
Prehistoric Period
The earliest evidence of human occupation of the Nashua River drainage
dates from the paleoindian period (12,500-9,000 Before Present (BP)). The
landscape during this time is characterized as postglacial with oak and
spruce beginning to repopulate the area. This time period is when people
first moved into the Northeast. Archaeological data for this period near the
refuge consists of a single fluted point found on the surface adjacent to a
small pond in Lancaster (Anthony 1978). No diagnostic artifacts have been
directly associated with the river itself.
During the warmer and drier climate of the Early Archaic (9,000- 7,500
BP), the pine-hardwood forest would have seasonally made available
resources that would be predictable and abundant. Some archaeological
evidence suggests that a complex multi-site settlement system had been
established by this period, with different site locations indicating
exploitation of varied resources and environmental settings (Johnson 1984;
Ritchie 1984). Populations probably increased during this period, although
known sites are poorly represented in the archaeological record. Only ten
sites from the Early Archaic period have been identified in this area,
however, with further testing, more should be identified.
The population was slightly higher during the Middle Archaic (7,500-5,000
BP) in this region. The distribution of Middle Archaic sites indicates that
seasonal settlement systems were firmly established (Glover 1993). Sites
have been located along Muddy Brook and the Wachusett Reservoir at the
headwaters of the Nashua River in West Boylston. Middle Archaic artifacts
have also been found in Leominster, however, the site density is less than
what is found along the Concord and Assabet drainage areas. By this time,
the present seasonal migratory patterns of many bird and fish
species had become established (Dincauze 1974) and important
coastal estuaries were developing (Barber 1979).
Painted turtle: Photo by David Flint
Late Archaic period (5,000-3,500 BP) settlement in the Merrimack
River basin has been documented at a number of site locations
along most of the drainage’s principal water courses in
Massachusetts and New Hampshire. The large number of sites and
artifacts attributed to the Late Archaic period, coupled with the
high density of sites and their occurrence in a wide range of
habitats, has been interpreted as reflecting a dense population
intensively exploiting an extremely broad spectrum of resources
Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge
- 38 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
(Dincauze 1974; Ritchie 1985). Increase in occupation could be a possible
elation with a period of climatic warming beginning approximately
5,000 years ago (Funk 1972). Single and multi-component campsites
were used for seasonal resource procurement activities. Sites from the
Late Archaic are well represented in the refuge area. The majority of
the sites in the refuge area appear to represent single or
multicomponent campsites utilized for seasonal resource procurement
activities. There are also a few quarry sites in the area that were used
for raw material procurement (Glover, 1993).
corr
The Transitional Archaic period (3,600-2,500 BP) was characterized in
this area by the introduction of steatite (soapstone) vessels, and
eventually ceramics, toward the end of this period (O’Steen 1987).
Steatite vessels ceased to be manufactured with the introduction of
ceramic technology; however, steatite was still used for making stone
pipes (Ritchie 1985). Transitional Archaic sites in the refuge area are
rare. Slightly more common, but still under represented, are Early
Woodland sites.
The Early Woodland period (3,000-1,600 BP) is generally under
represented in the regional archaeological record suggesting a
population decline and/or poorly documented tool assemblages. Evidence
for Woodland occupation of the Nashua River drainage comes from a small
number of Early Woodland period sites. Along with a suspected Early
Woodland deposition at several Late Archaic sites, diagnostic Meadowood
and Rossville projectile points have been identified in two private
collections (Glover 1993).
Wild mushroom: Photo by Marijke
Holtrop
Middle Woodland period (1,650-1,000 BP) sites are more common
indicating an increase in population, which is observed throughout New
England. During this period, in this region, there were extensive long-distance
social and economic interaction spheres. Horticulture appeared
during this time and ceramics were commonplace. There was also a lot of
movement from people traveling throughout the Northeast at this time.
The Middle Woodland period activity in the Nashua drainage is
represented solely at the Reedy Meadow Brook site in Pepperell. The
deposition included diagnostic Fox Creek and Jack’s Reef projectile points
which were found in association with local and exotic stone debris including
materials from Labrador and Pennsylvania (Mahlstedt 1985).
The Late Woodland period (1,000-450 BP) in this region is marked by an
increase in ceramic production through improvements in technology. Some
populations may not be engaged in horticulture however. The Late
Woodland populations appear to be moderate around the refuge. Coastal
areas and semi-permanent settlements seemed to have been preferred and
larger groups lived in fortified villages. Late Woodland period artifacts
represented in the archaeological record include triangular levanna points,
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
- 39 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
cordwrapped stick impressed and incised collared ceramic vessels, and
increasing amount of local stone materials used (MHC 1985).
By the Contact Period (450-300 BP), the Nipmuck Nation was established
in the refuge region. Their settlement consisted of semipermanent villages
focused on river drainages and tributary systems. Political, social and
economic organizations were relatively complex and underwent rapid
change during European colonization. Groups during this time, and most
likely earlier times, were attracted to the anadromous fish runs in the river.
The area around Harvard contained permanent camps along the river, as
well as smaller, temporary camps adjacent to the natural ponds. This
region, particularly the northern and western sections toward New
Hampshire and Vermont, also falls within the cultural boundaries of the
Western Abenaki. The Squakeag subgroup inhabited the upper Nashua
River valley and became heavily involved in fur trade. The Abenaki group
tended to cluster in large fortified villages (MHC 1985).
In central Massachusetts, the Contact Period is even less well documented
than the rest of the Prehistoric Period. The inland location of the central
uplands region precludes the availability of ethnohistorical counts by early
colonial settlers visiting coastal sections of New England during the
sixteenth century. By the time of direct contact with settlers in the
seventeenth century, the effects of disease, isolated trade, and intertribal
warfare had significantly changed the local population (Glover 1993).
Prior to European settlement in the first half of the seventeenth century,
the Fort Devens section of the Nashua River Valley was primarily
inhabited by the local subgroup of the Nipmuck known as the Nashaway,
believed to have directly descended from pre-contact groups. Settlement
patterns in the area continued to focus on the river drainages and their
tributary streams during this period. Subsistence systems most likely
remained oriented towards hunting and gathering of seasonally available
food resources. An increased dependence on horticulture is considered
likely given the appearance of semi-permanent, sometimes fortified, village
settlements (MHC 1985).
Mallard with ducklings: Photo by Joseph Rhatigan
Although the gently rolling uphill terrain of the Nashua
River drainage would have allowed a favorable range of
movement, as well as an abundance and diversity of food
resources, no prehistoric occupations from this period are
documented in the area (MHC 1985). No primary or
secondary Contact Period trails pass directly within the
area encompassed by Fort Devens, however a major north-south
trail passed to the immediate west through Lancaster
and secondary north-south and east-west trails traversed
present day Harvard, Ayer and Shirley. The area of
present-day Lancaster, at the confluence of the Nashua and
North Nashua rivers, was the site of the repeated or long-
Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge
- 40 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
term camp of the Nashaway group, who utilized the surrounding areas
from this base camp. Larger populations would also have been attracted to
the area due to the presence of anadromous fish runs in the river, or to its
floodplains for horticulture (MHC 1985).
Although not many sites have been reported from this region, the area has
the potential to yield archaeological sites that will contribute to our
understanding of prehistoric settlement in this region. Further study
would supply more information about population densities and if they are
found to be low for a time period, research questions can address the cause.
Four prehistoric sites have been identified within the refuge boundary. The
refuge area should be considered moderately to highly sensitive for
archaeological resources in areas not impacted by military ordinance.
Historic Period
During the Early Historic Period, the refuge area was inhabited by a few
European families engaged in farming activities. The region was heavily
affected by King Philip’s War in 1675. Garrisons were constructed to
provide protection to the English settlers from the aggressions of the
Native Americans. Attacks in Groton and Lancaster left the settlers
depleted of supplies. The settlement was abandoned shortly after, and the
people retreated to Concord. By 1676, the outer frontier area had crumbled
(Glover 1993).
The refuge area was void of English settlement for several years after the
end of the war. The death of King Philip and the English defeat of the
various native groups throughout the region in the fall of 1676 meant that
repopulation of the frontier was possible. The surviving Nipmucks of the
Nashua River either fled westward and northwest or went to live with
other groups or were reduced to subservient status. Toward the end of the
17th century, English repopulation had begun in the refuge area (Glover
1993).
This period of frontier resettlement was characterized by the demise of the
nucleated English village and open field system. The trend was toward
consolidating land holdings and the importance of the meetinghouse center.
During the early 1700s, populations in the original territories increased
steadily. Larger grants were subdivided in the process of establishing a
meetinghouse, forming a government and assigning town lands (Glover
1993).
Population increases and economic growth took place at different rates in
the original grants and new towns. Lancaster and Groton, the two oldest
towns, were the most commercially developed population centers or core
areas of settlement in the Nashua River Valley. The range of non-farm
employments in these towns led to clusters of dwelling radiating out from
the town center. Settlement in the late 18th century in the frontier towns
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
- 41 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
reflected the regional economy of animal husbandry and extensive mixed
grain cultivation. By the onset of the Revolutionary War, a number of the
frontier towns in central Massachusetts were on their way to becoming
important commercial and industrial regional centers (Glover 1993).
The town of Harvard was established in 1732 from parts of Lancaster,
Groton, and Stow. Therefore, its historical development begins with the
establishment of these colonial plantations. The Lancaster Plantation was
founded in 1653, followed by the Groton Plantation in 1655. During the
1650’s, Harvard served as outlying meadowland for the 35 families settled
in Lancaster. The first documented evidence of colonial building on
Harvard soil was the construction during the 1660’s of John Prescott’s Grist
Mill on Nonacoicus Brook. The mill was abandoned during King Philip’s
War and rebuilt eastward on Stoney Brook once the territory was
established (Anderson 1976).
Settlement of Harvard, which began in the late 1600’s, was located in the
southern section of town which remained part of Lancaster until 1732. As
the population grew from 4 families in 1692 to 39 in 1723, small
concentrations developed east and west of Bare Hill Pond, at Still River; at
Oak Hill, and at the Old Mill. There were four garrison houses for
Harvard’s protection because Native American hostilities continued for
several decades after the end of King Philip’s War. One garrison house,
which was located at Still River, was built by Major Simon Willard’s son,
Henry, in 1694 (MHC 1983).
By the time of Harvard’s incorporation in 1732 from the eastern half of
Stow Leg (the unclaimed tract of land between Groton and Lancaster
plantation), the southern portion of Groton, and the northeast corner of
Lancaster, there were over sixty families settled within the territory. The
meetinghouse was built at the geographic center (now Harvard Center)
shortly after Harvard became a town (Anderson 1976). During this
planning stage, a 30-acre lot was set aside to accommodate the town’s
pound, stocks, cemetery and any other public facilities to come, such as the
poor house (1753). Schools, taverns, and inns were also built to meet the
needs of the townspeople (MHC 1983).
Harvard’s predominantly agricultural economy was supplemented by a
small number of artisans and support industries. Saw and gristmills were
located on Bowers Brook and at Mill Road. Other town industries included
a tannery, blacksmith, trip hammer, iron works and fulling mill. A blue
slate quarry began operation on Pine Hill during the mid-eighteenth
century, supplying slate for grave stones. Silver mining operations began
on the south slope of oak hill during the 1780’s (Snderson 1976).
The Shaker Community in Harvard was officially established in 1793. It
was divided into four families, and had a maximum approximate
membership of 200 (Andrews 1963). Some of its members were native to
Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge
- 42 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Harvard, but the majority had been attracted to the community from other
towns. The Shakers went on to acquire hundreds of acres, until they
controlled most of the northeast corner of the town. The money for these
real estate transactions came from the estates of new converts to the
Shaker religion who settled in Harvard (Anderson 1976).
The Harvard Shakers dwindled in numbers due to lack of converts and
orphan children. The community closed in 1918, after 127 years of existence
in the town. The site of the Church Family is known today as the Shaker
Village and consists of private homes. Like central Massachusetts during
the federal period (1775-1830), Harvard experienced a period of population
and economic growth. Between 1776 and 1830, the population increased
from 1,315 to 1,600. Distinct nucleated villages developed within Harvard;
at Still River, and the Shaker Village in the northeast part of town, and at
Harvard Center where residences concentrated around the Commons.
Beyond these villages, growth patterns remained dispersed and residents
engaged in agricultural pursuits, which consisted of raising sheep, cattle
and grain (MHC 1983).
Despite construction of the Worcester and Nashua Railroad in 1848, and
associated depots at Still River and northwest of Harvard Center, Harvard
remained essentially rural throughout the Early Industrial Period (1830-
1870). The primary agricultural products were hops, hay, grains,
vegetables, and fruit from apple and pear orchards. Dairying, cattle and
swine raising were also major industries. By 1875, agricultural goods
yielded $223,892 (MHC 1983).
Harvard was the home to two stops on the Underground Railroad, hiding
slaves as they made their flight north to Canada. The list of
those who supported the railroad and helped in the slaves
escape is a long one and includes some of the prominent citizens
of the town, including the town’s reverend and deacon
(Anderson 1976).
Wetland habitat: Photo by John Grabill
During the Late Industrial Period (1870-1917), Harvard saw a
rise in industry within the town. The manufacturing peak of the
period was the opening of the Union Brick Co., Union Paving
Co., New England Brick Co., and Haskell’s Vinegar Works,
each located around Still River and the railroad. A wool knitting
mill and other small-scale textile plants, and machinery shop
helped support the town’s industrial economy until the end of
the century (Anderson 1976). Agriculture remained the town’s
primary income source, producing 200 products in 1905. The
dairy industry continued to be an important economic asset,
supported by poultry and egg production and the introduction
of viticulture (grapes) (MHC 1983).
By 1917, the town of Harvard recorded a population of
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
- 43 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
approximately 1,000 people, supporting themselves by commercial dairying
and selling vegetable and fruit products. Manufacturing played a very
minor role in the economics of the town and was further reduced when the
Shaker community closed in 1918 (MHC 1983). The adoption of the
automobile and improvements to local roads and highways, such as Route
111 to Concord and Boston, Route 110 to Clinton and Ayer, Route 2 and
interstate 495 have supported continued expansion of the residential,
commercial and professional population as well as the increase in suburban
development within Harvard (MHC 1983).
The refuge also extends into the towns of Ayer and Shirley (Middlesex
County). Ayer was incorporated into a town in 1871 from sections of Groton
and Shirley, and was part of the original colonial Groton plantation. During
the mid-seventeenth century, colonial settlement of Groton consisted of a
reputed fur trading house run by John Tinker located at the mouth of Nod
Brook and four or five families living in a linear village established along
the James Brook (Wing 1981; MHC 1980). Ayer and Shirley were unused
common lands of the Groton plantation, being too far removed from the
center of town. In 1659, unknown to the proprietors of the plantation, a
1,000-acre tract of Groton was granted to Major Simon Willard of
Lancaster, the sergeant-major of the Middlesex County Militia, as a reward
for military service and in settlement of a debt owed to him by John
Sagamore, an Indian chief who lived near the site of Lowell (Glover 1993).
By the outbreak of King Philip’s War in 1675, Groton was estimated to
contain 300 inhabitants, 40 structures, including a meeting house, five
garrison houses, including Willard’s mansion, and a grist mill built by John
Prescott in 1673 on Nonacoicus Brook (now in Harvard). Ayer and Shirley
were still relatively uninhabited. After the war when the towns were
resettled Ayer continued to be an outlying agricultural district of Groton
with limited growth and settlement until after the mid-eighteenth century.
The settlement of Ayer was sparse and oriented along Nonacoicus Brook.
During the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, Ayer was
designated as Groton School District #5 which covered most of Ayer after
1793 (Glover 1993).
Settlement increased with an influx of Irish immigrants after 1845, and
concentrated along Main and Park streets and their side streets. The first
store opened in 1851, followed by the 1858 construction of Harmony Hall
which consisted of stores on the first floor and a public hall on the second.
The prosperous 1850’s and 60’s saw the construction of five churches, new
school houses and a fire house (Glover 1993). During the Late Industrial
Period (1870-1917), Ayer’s economy and growth continued to be tied closely
to the regional railroads, the town’s principal employer. The Ayer railroad
yards were said to be the largest classification yard in New England. Ayer
was incorporated as a town in 1871 from a southern section of Groton and
the portion of Shirley east of the Nashua River. The town’s population grew
steadily, increasing by 50%, with 20% foreign born (still mostly Irish)
Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge
- 44 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
between 1870 and 1917. An Irish colony developed along the Nashua River
in the late 1800’s. New construction in Ayer Center included a town hall,
new fire station and public library. Electric trolleys also connected the
town center to Fitchburg, Shirley, and Lowell (MHC 1980).
By the 1900’s, Ayer’s fields were overworked and losing their fertility.
There were “sprout land”, reclaimed by forest. Only the land near the
Nashua River remained fertile and contained large farms owned by Irish
families. Ayer’s population expanded in the early 1900’s, then stabilized
after 1920. The Army began leasing land in the town in 1917, and acquired
large plots in the western section in 1920 to form Camp Devens. Economic
disaster occurred in 1927 when the railroad yard moved out of Ayer and the
tanner closed. Construction of the Moore Army Airfield on the North Post
of Fort Devens brought air transport to the area. Settlement remained
focused at the town center, and only recently have the undeveloped
peripheral areas been subdivided (MHC 1980).
The first documented settlement of Shirley occurred in the 1720’s when
improved river crossings, such as Page’s Bridge (1726) on the Fitchburg
Road permitted settlement of the central areas of town along east-west
oriented Fitchburg Road paralleling Mulpus Brook. Until this time, the
Nashua River had served as a barrier to colonial settlement. A few farms
were also scattered along the Squannoacook River and the west side of the
Nashua River. As the frontier stabilized after 1730 there was a steady
increase in the number of settlers moving into the territory. In 1747, thirty-three
individuals singed a petition requesting early separation from Groton.
In 1753, the district of Shirley was established. Two years later Shirley
was incorporated as a town from the southwest corner of Groton and later
the western half of Stow Leg (Glover 1993).
Economic activities consisted primarily of farming, supplemented by
lumbering and milling. In the late 18th century, the Shakers began to
influence the town’s structure. Throughout the nineteenth century, the
Shaker community in Shirley was considered a valuable part of the town.
Their approximate maximum membership was 150, divided among the
families. The Shirley Shakers were most noted for their thriving business
in selling “Shaker Apple Sauce”. They also had a broom shop, a mop shop,
a blacksmith shop, and a house where they prepared herbs (Bolton 1914).
As the numbers of the Shirley Shakers dwindled in the latter part of the
nineteenth century, the few sisters and brothers subsisted mainly on
money gained from selling their milk in the village (Bolton 1914). They
augmented their monetary needs by maintaining a small store in the back
of the office building. By the turn-of-the century, the Shaker members of
the Shirley Society had nearly all passed away. The few remaining Shirley
Shakers abandoned the family settlements in 1908 and went to live with the
Harvard Shakers (Glover 1993).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
- 45 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Like Ayer, Shirley’s economic base and population growth pattern was
enhanced by the construction of the Fitchburg Railroad along West Main
Road in 1845. During the early nineteenth century, a large scale carriage,
wagon and harness factory operated on Mulpus Brook in Woodsville until it
burned in 1871. The factory produced military wagons, horse drawn
ambulances, and baggage wagons used in the Mexican and Civil Wars.
Prairie schooners, wagons used by the pioneers crossing the prairies and
Rocky Mountains as they traveled west, were also a product of the carriage
factory (Glover 1993).
During the Late Industrial Period (1870-1917), Shirley experienced limited
growth. The tract of land east of the Nashua River annexed to Shirley in
1789 was set off from Shirley in 1871 and annexed to the town of Ayer.
After 1870, there was little new industrial development, leading to a period
of economic decline. Out of the nine major factories which prospered during
the mid-nineteenth century, only one cotton mill and one paper mill were
still in operation by 1890. The only new industry in the 1890’s was the
opening of the C.A. Edgarton Suspender Factory and a cordage works.
However, transportation improved when electric trolleys connected the
town center to Fitchburg and Ayer (MHC 1980).
During the Modern Period (1917-present), Shirley experienced few changes
in its settlement patterns or economic base. Steady, moderate population
growth along with commercial strip development has occurred in
peripheral areas, due in part to suburbanization and the military presence
at Fort Devens after 1917. One of the most important additions to the town
in the late twentieth century was the creation of MCI Shirley, south of the
town center at the site of the former Shaker Village (Glover 1993).
The United States Declaration of War against Germany in April 1917
launched a massive nationwide construction campaign for the training of
Army troops. Camp Devens in central Massachusetts was established as
one of the 16 earliest of a total of 32 new Army cantonments nationwide.
The approximately 11,000 acres of land chosen for Army training in central
Massachusetts shared several common features with other selected sites
across the country. It consisted of two adjoining parcels of land, known
today as the Main and North Posts. These lands extended across the towns
of Ayer, Shirley, Harvard, and Lancaster (Glover 1993).
The U.S. Army leased the approximate 11,000 acre tract in 1917. In 1917
the leased lands comprising the Camp Devens Reservation extended from
Route 2A at the Ayer/Shirley town line south to Route 117 in Lancaster.
The reservation was bounded on the east by the Boston and Maine
Railroad, the Still River in Harvard and Lancaster, with the exception of a
parcel of land to the east of the railroad bounded by Cold Spring Brook. It
was also bounded on the west by hilly uplands west of Lunenburg Road
(Glover 1993).
Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge
- 4