**Draft**

**Environmental Assessment**

**Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge**

**Hunt Program**

**Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex**

**U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service**

**March 2007**

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

[I. Purpose and Need for Action 1](#i.-purpose-and-need-for-action)

[II. Proposed Action and the Alternatives
2](#ii.-proposed-action-and-the-alternatives)

[III. Affected Environment 4](#iii.-affected-environment)

[IV. Environmental Consequences 15](#iv.-environmental-consequences)

[V. Consultation and Coordination with Others
48](#v.-consultation-and-coordination-with-others)

[VI. Regulatory Compliance 50](#vi.-regulatory-compliance)

[VII. Literature Cited 52](#vii.-literature-cited)

[Appendix A. Hunt Maps 54](#appendix-a.-hunt-maps)

# I. Purpose and Need for Action

As a result of a 2003 lawsuit filed by the Fund for Animals, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is addressing the cumulative impacts
of hunting at 37 national wildlife refuges across the country which
initiated new hunt programs from 1997-2003. Environmental assessments
(EAs) prepared for these programs, as well as for the 30 refuges that
were opened for hunting since the lawsuit was filed and seven additional
refuges that proposed to establish new hunt programs in 2006-2007, are
being amended or rewritten. A total of 74 refuges are affected by this
decision. Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is one of the 30
refuges which established a hunt program after the 2003 lawsuit. Because
the original analysis for the proposed hunt was completed as part of the
Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) process, it has been determined
that an entirely new EA must be written to address the impact of hunt
programs at Great Meadows NWR.

Great Meadows NWR was established in May 1944 under the authority of the
Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. §715d) and the Refuge
Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. §460k-1). The purposes of the refuge are 1)
for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose,
for migratory birds (16 U.S.C. §715d) and 2) for incidental fish and
wildlife-oriented recreational development, the protection of natural
resources, and the conservation of threatened or endangered species (16
U.S.C. §460k-1).

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as
amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
(16 U.S.C. §668dd et seq.) provides authority for the Service to manage
the refuge and its wildlife populations. In addition, it declares that
compatible wildlife-dependent public uses are legitimate and appropriate
uses of the Refuge System and are to receive priority consideration in
planning and management. Six wildlife-dependent public uses were
identified in the law: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, environmental education and interpretation. The Improvement
Act directs managers to increase recreational opportunities including
hunting on national wildlife refuges when compatible with the purposes
for which the refuge was established and the mission of the National
Wildlife Refuge System.

This EA is written in compliance with the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

# II. Proposed Action and the Alternatives

Hunting at Great Meadows NWR was first proposed in the *Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for the
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex - Assabet River,
Great Meadows, and Oxbow National Wildlife Refuges*, issued in April
2003 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). Following a public comment
period, the *Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Great Meadows
National Wildlife Refuge* was issued in January 2005 (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2005a). Both of the documents cited above in this
paragraph are available for inspection at the headquarters of the
Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex, located at Great Meadows NWR in
Sudbury, Massachusetts.

This EA details the impacts associated with the hunt program
alternatives that were developed in 2003 and the final program adopted
in 2005. The following is a description of the alternatives that were
first proposed in 2003. All maps are located at the end of the EA in
Appendix A.

Alternative A - Current Management in 2003 (See Maps 1 and 2)

-   Under this alternative, no hunting for upland game, big game, or
    migratory game birds was proposed.

> Figures 1 and 2 depict the current refuge ownership and lands within
> the approved acquisition boundary. These latter lands are not owned by
> the Service but could be purchased if there was a willing seller, as
> an addition to the Great Meadows NWR.

Alternative B - The Service's Proposed Action in 2003 (See Maps 3
through 5)

-   Archery deer hunting in accordance with Massachusetts State
    regulations and requirements would be allowed on a portion of the
    refuge south of Sherman's Bridge in the towns of Sudbury, Lincoln,
    Wayland and Framingham. Archery deer hunting would also be opened on
    portions of the refuge north of the Route 225 bridge in the towns of
    Bedford, Billerica, and Carlisle. A total of 2,280 acres would be
    open to archery deer hunting during the State archery and shotgun
    seasons (the refuge would not be opened to firearm deer hunting, but
    archery hunting could take place during the shotgun season).

-   No hunting for upland game would be allowed.

-   Waterfowl hunting in accordance with Massachusetts State regulations
    and requirements would be allowed on the portions of the Sudbury
    River south of Sherman's Bridge and from Pantry Brook to Route 117
    in the towns of Sudbury, Lincoln, Wayland and Framingham. Waterfowl
    hunting would also be opened on refuge portions of the Concord River
    north of the Town of Concord in the towns of Bedford, Billerica and
    Carlisle. Approximately 575 acres of the refuge would be opened to
    migratory bird hunting.

Alternative C - (See Maps 6 through 8)

This alternative is the same as Alternative B, but with some additions,
as follows.

-   Primitive firearms and shotgun hunting would be allowed in the same
    areas where archery deer hunting was identified.

-   All refuge waters would be opened to waterfowl hunting, except in
    the Concord Impoundments.

The Service's proposed alternative in 2003 was adopted with some
modifications and implemented in 2005. The changes to the hunt program
adopted in the final CCP in January 2005 were described in the Great
Meadows NWR Hunting Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005b). This
*Current Refuge Hunt Program* will be called Alternative D in this EA,
and is the Service's preferred alternative. Details follow below.

Alternative D -- *The Current Refuge Hunt Program* (Preferred
Alternative)

(See Maps 9-11)

-   2,280 acres are open to archery deer hunting. Areas open for
    white-tailed deer hunting in the Concord Division include all refuge
    lands in Bedford, Billerica and Carlisle. Route 225 serves as the
    southern border of this hunt area, and the Concord River bisects the
    area. No deer hunting is allowed on refuge lands south of Route 225
    in Bedford or anywhere in Concord. In the Sudbury Division, all
    refuge lands south of Sherman's Bridge in Sudbury and Wayland, with
    the exception of lands south of Stonebridge Road in Wayland, are
    open for hunting.

-   334 acres are open for waterfowl hunting in four distinct areas. 86
    acres from Route 225 north to the northern boundary of the "O'Rourke
    Farm" in Carlisle forms the hunt area along the Concord River. No
    waterfowl hunting is allowed on refuge lands south of Route 225 in
    Bedford or anywhere in Concord. In the Sudbury Division, waterfowl
    hunting is allowed on 136 acres south of Sherman's Bridge Road along
    the Sudbury River to just south of the intersection of Water Row
    Road and Plymouth Road. About 38 acres of the Sudbury River and its
    associated wetlands in refuge ownership between Routes 27 and 20 are
    open for waterfowl hunting. 74 acres of wetlands along the southern
    portion of Heard Pond and along the Sudbury River south of Heard
    Pond are open for waterfowl hunting.

The *Current Refuge Hunt Program* provides the public with a high
quality recreational experience and provides the refuge with a wildlife
management tool to promote the biological integrity of the refuge.

# III. Affected Environment {#iii.-affected-environment .Figure}

A. Physical Resources

1\. Location

The 3,863-acre Great Meadows NWR is located in eastern Massachusetts,
approximately 20 miles west of Boston in the historic towns of Concord,
Sudbury, Bedford, Billerica, Carlisle, Wayland, Framingham, and Lincoln.
The refuge is in two Divisions: the 2,321-acre Sudbury Division south of
Rt. 117 and the 1,542-acre Concord Division north of Rt. 117. The refuge
stretches 12 miles from State Rt. 4 in Billerica to the Framingham-
Wayland town line.

From a biological and ecosystem perspective, the refuge can be described
under several different biologically based geographic classifications
that are determined by its location. The Nature Conservancy has divided
the continental United States into 63 ecoregions---large geographic
areas that share similar geologic, topographic, ecological, and climatic
characteristics. These ecoregions are modified from the U.S. Forest
Service "Bailey System." Great Meadows NWR is within the Lower New
England/Northern Piedmont Ecoregion that stretches from Maine to
Virginia.

The refuge lies within the Gulf of Maine watershed. It is an immense
area, extending from eastern Quebec to Cape Cod, Massachusetts, with a
land base of 69,115 square miles and a water surface of 33,054 miles.
The Sudbury and Concord Rivers flow north through the refuge and are
major tributaries to the Merrimack River which flows into the Gulf of
Maine.

Flyways have been used for many years in North America as the unit for
managing waterfowl populations because they allow land managers to link
efforts to conserve migratory bird species and their habitats on
breeding, migration, and wintering grounds. The Atlantic Coast Joint
Venture (JV) area includes the entire U.S. Atlantic Coast which lies
completely within the U.S. portion of the Atlantic Flyway. In this large
area, the JV partners work together to assess the status, trends, and
needs of bird populations and their habitats. The partners then use this
information to help guide the distribution of resources to the
needs/issues of highest priority. Great Meadows NWR is within the
Atlantic Coast Joint Venture -- Sudbury-Assabet-Concord and Nashua River
Systems.
<http://www.fws.gov/northeast/migratorybirds/plans_partnerships.htm>

Nationally, large physiographically-based areas known as Bird
Conservation Regions (BCR) have been identified. These areas tend to
have similar biotic and non-biotic features that are useful for
assessing conservation priorities and determining the importance of an
area relative to other parts of the country. A cooperative initiative to
protect landbirds, known as Partners if Flight (PIF), identifies
conservation priorities within specific physiographic areas. Great
Meadows NWR is in BCR 30, the Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic Coast
region and PIF Physiographic Area 9---Southern New England, a subset of
BCR 30. PIF 9 covers parts of northern New Jersey, southern New York
including Long Island, the majority of Connecticut, all of Rhode Island,
most of eastern Massachusetts, the southeastern corner of New Hampshire,
and south-coastal Maine.
<http://www.fws.gov/northeast/migratorybirds/plans_partnerships.htm>

2\. Geology and Soils

Evidence of glaciation around Great Meadows NWR is readily observable.
The Wisconsin glacier (12,000 B.P.) deposited sediment and other
materials that shaped the local landscape and, in many ways, have
directed this area's development. Eighty percent of the refuge terrain
is floodplain along the Concord and Sudbury Rivers.

The refuge is generally flat with some gently sloping hills, shallow
streams, and depressional ponds and wetlands. Refuge elevations range up
to 60 feet above mean sea level, although overall elevation change is
barely perceptible across the region. The Sudbury River drops only an
average of one inch per mile as it flows through the refuge.

Great Meadows NWR's soils along the rivers are primarily loams: Rippowam
fine sandy loam and Saco mucky silt loam. Other soils found along the
rivers include Limerick silt loam with a 0--3% slope, and Hinckley loamy
sand with slopes of 0--3% and 3--8%. The soil of the upper and lower
Concord Impoundments is Freetown muck. Saco mucky silt loam occurs along
Water Row in Sudbury.

Several refuge parcels have upland soils:

-   O'Rourke parcel in Carlisle has Hinckley loamy sand with slopes of
    3-8% and 15-25%, Windsor loamy sand with slopes of 0-3% and 3-8%,
    Deerfield loamy sand with a slope of 3-8%, Wareham loamy sand with a
    slope of 0-5%, and Freetown muck

-   Cook parcel in Sudbury has a primary soil of Wareham loamy sand with
    a slope of 0-5%

-   Strand parcel in Sudbury is comprised primarily of Freetown muck,
    ponded, Hinckley loamy sand with a slope of 15-25%, Tisbury silt
    loam with a slope of 3-8%, and Scio very fine sandy loam with a
    slope of 0-3%

-   Wolbach parcel in Sudbury soils are rock outcrop-Hollis complex and
    Hollis rock outcrop-Charlton complex with a 3-5% slope

-   Lombard parcel in Wayland consists of Merrimac-urban land complex
    with slopes of 0-8%

3\. Hydrology

The Sudbury-Assabet-Concord (SuAsCo) river basin encompasses 371 square
miles of land and 88.1 river miles, from Billerica in the north to
Westborough and Hopkinton in the south. These three rivers and their
associated tributaries drain the basin into the Merrimack River in
Lowell.

The Sudbury River is 41 miles long and drains 169 square miles. It
begins in Cedar Swamp Pond in Westborough, flows eastward to Framingham,
then flows north through the towns of Sudbury, Wayland, Lincoln, and
into Concord. The Sudbury River has three distinct sections: a narrow,
rapidly flowing stream upstream of Framingham, two large impoundments
one of which is part of the Metropolitan District Commission Water
Supply the other created by the Colonna Dam in Saxonville (Framingham),
and lastly the third section is the most unique as it flows through the
refuge. From here it joins with the Assabet River to form the Concord
River.

The Assabet River is 31 miles long and drains 175 square miles. It
starts in Westborough and flows northeast through the urban centers of
Northborough, Hudson, Maynard, and Concord. Between these suburbanized
centers lie rural and undeveloped watersheds. The repeating discharge
from sewage treatment plants creates highly eutrophic sections of the
river in the summer, containing large amounts of aquatic growth,
particularly algal blooms.

The Concord River is 15.8 miles long and drains 27 square miles. It
forms at the confluence of the Assabet and Sudbury Rivers in Concord,
flows north through the towns of Carlisle, Bedford, Billerica, and then
enters the Merrimack River in the City of Lowell. The Concord River
retains the slow-moving characteristics of the third section (above) of
the Sudbury River.

Ponded waters on the refuge include the Concord Impoundments (upper and
lower), and the Strand and Headquarters Ponds in Sudbury. The Concord
Impoundments were primarily managed as stable water bodies since the
mid-1970s. However, beginning in 2000, water levels in the Concord
Impoundments have been actively managed to continuously expose the
appropriate amount of new mudflat habitat during the entire shorebird
migration period. Weekly water gauge readings are recorded from existing
measurement structures in the pools. Surveys are conducted weekly year
round. Water control structures at the Concord Impoundments will be
maintained to allow refuge staff to manage water levels in the pools.
Flooding areas dominated by seed-producing annuals provide carbohydrates
and fat for the higher maintenance requirements of dabbling ducks during
the winter and in migration. To obtain the desired feeding habitat,
water levels are drawn-down in alternating pools in Concord during the
summer to promote germination of wetland plants. These pools are then
slowly flooded during the fall and early winter, ensuring that water
depths in areas with annual plants do not exceed eight inches. Slow
staging of water levels provides a continual supply of new habitat at
optimal levels.

The SuAsCo river basin is one of the fastest-growing areas of the State;
consequently, water quality has suffered. Point sources of pollution
heavily impact water quality in the Sudbury River: one wastewater
treatment plant; the contamination from both the Nyanza Superfund site
and the Raytheon Brook site; and, the Marlborough Easterly Wastewater
Treatment plant that discharges into the Sudbury River via Hop Brook.
The Concord River has three wastewater treatment plants operating on its
banks: one in Concord and two in Billerica. Although the two plants in
Billerica lie downstream of the refuge, their impact on the river cannot
be overlooked. The treatment plant in Concord lies just upstream of the
Concord Impoundments on the refuge. As with the Sudbury and Assabet
Rivers, non-point source pollution also impacts the Concord River.

4\. Air Quality

The State air quality report from 2005 contains the most recent data
available from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
(MassDEP), Air Assessment Branch. The report contains data for several
different pollutants: ozone (O~3)~, sulfur dioxide (SO~2~), nitrogen
dioxide (NO~2~), carbon monoxide, particulate matter (2.5 microns and 10
microns) and lead. During 2005, MassDEP operated a network of 28
monitoring stations located in 20 cities and towns. Data for O~3~ is
available from a monitoring station in Stow. Stations in Boston and
Worcester monitor all pollutants. MassDEP submits ambient air quality
data to the national Air Quality System database administered by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

Ozone is the only pollutant for which Massachusetts monitors indicate
violations of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Massachusetts is in attainment for the other criteria pollutants. An
ozone exceedance occurs when monitored ozone concentrations exceed the
NAAQS. Ozone is collected as an hourly average of continuous data and is
then used to determine the 8-hour average value for the day. An
exceedance of the 8-hour standard is an 8-hour averaged value that is
equal to or greater than 0.085 ppm. In 2005, there were 3 days when the
former 1-hour ozone standard was exceeded and 16 days when the 8-hour
ozone standard was exceeded. Exceedances occurred twice at the Stow
monitoring station.

B. Biological Resources

1\. Vegetation

Wetlands and riverine floodplains compose about 80 percent of the
refuge. Along the Sudbury and Concord rivers, scrub-shrub wetlands
predominate. Extensive buttonbush (*Cephalanthus occidentalis*)
dominated wetlands reflect long-term vegetational changes along both
rivers. In many areas, invasive species such as water chestnut (*Trapa
natans*) or purple loosestrife (*Lythrum salicaria*) have displaced
plant species of high waterfowl value, such as bur-reed (*Sparganium
sp.*) and bulrush (*Scirpus palustris*). Despite having low food source
value for waterfowl, these wetlands still provide excellent brood cover.
Less prevalent along the rivers are valuable "sedge meadows', which are
dominated by non-woody vegetation, including extensive areas of bulrush
and cord grass (*Spartina pectinata*), with beds of water pepper
(*Polygonum hydropiper*), wild rice (*Sizania aquatica*), arrow arum
(*Peltandra virginica*), pickerelweed (*Pontederia cordata*), and
smartweed (*Polygonum amphibium*). These meadows are especially
attractive to waterfowl. All wetland areas are typically flooded in
spring and their water levels gradually decline throughout the summer.

Forested wetlands make up about 8 percent of the refuge. The dominant
trees and shrubs in the overstory are red maple (*Acer rubrum*), swamp
white oak (*Quercus bicolor*), eastern hemlock (*Tsuga canadensis*),
sweet pepperbush (*Clethra alnifolia*), white swamp azalea
(*Rhododendron viscosum*), and rosebay rhododendron (*Rhododendron
maximum*). Herbaceous plants found in these areas include skunk cabbage
(*Symplocarpus foetidus*) and jack-in-the-pulpit (*Arisaema spp.*).

Dense stands of cattail (*Typha latifolia*) and purple loosestrife
dominate the edges of the Concord Impoundments. Vegetation within the
impoundments varies depending on the water level management. In years
when the impoundments are kept flooded as pond habitat, common littoral
emergents include arrow arum, arrowhead (*Sagittaria sp.*), bur-reed,
wild rice, pickerel weed, sweet flag (*Acorus calamus*), American lotus
(*Nelumbo lutea)* and smartweed. In years when the impoundments are
drained in the spring, common vegetation includes Walter's millet
*(Echinochloa walteri), Cyprus spp.* and *Bidens spp.*

Uplands make up about 20% of the refuge. They form critical edges
between refuge wetlands and the adjacent suburban development. Most of
this land was once farmed. Many areas have grown into solid stands of
white pine. Other areas now support species typical of a mixed eastern
deciduous forest. Dominant species in the forested upland include red
maple, red and white oak (*Quercus rubra*; *Q. alba*), white pine
(*Pinus strobus*), blueberry (*Vaccinium spp.*), sweet pepperbush,
rosebay rhododendron, and sweet fern (*Comptonia peregrina*). Common
species found in the open fields include common milkweed (*Asclepias
syriaca*) and goldenrod (*Solidago spp.*).

The refuge currently supports approximately 160 acres of fields. Dense
stands of hardwood are gradually replacing other fields in the uplands.
All the fields are bordered by brush edges that, in most places,
transition to mature deciduous woodlands. The fields provide nesting
habitat for some grassland bird species, such as Eastern meadowlark
(*Sturnella magna*), savannah sparrows (*Passerculus sandwichensis*) and
bobolinks (*Dolichonyx oryzivorus*). Male American woodcocks use the
fields as "singing grounds" for their spring courtship displays.

Great Meadows NWR supports rare plants and exemplary natural
communities. The rare plants known to occur on the refuge are Britton's
violet (*Viola brittoniana*),

Engleman's umbrella-sedge (*Cyperus engelmannii*) and river bulrush
(*Bolboschoenus fluviatilis*). Rare/exemplary natural communities on the
refuge are the small-river floodplain forest and certified vernal pools.

Several species of non-native invasive plants have invaded wetlands and
upland habitats on the refuge including: Asiatic bittersweet (*Celastrus
orbiculata*), autumn olive (*Elaeagnus umbellate*), black locust
(*Robinia pseudoacacia*), burning bush (*Euonymous alata*), Canada
thistle (*Cirsium arvens*), climbing nightshade (*Solanum dulcamara*),
Cypress Spurge (*Euphorbia cyparissias*), European privet (*Ligustrum
vulgare*), glossy buckthorn (*Frangula alnus*), goutweed (*Aegopodium
podagraria*), honeysuckle (*Lonicera sp.*), Japanese barberry (*Berberis
thunbergii*), Japanese knotweed (*Polygonum cuspidatum*), moneywort
(*Lysimachia nummularia*), multiflora rose (*Rosa multiflora*), Norway
maple (*Acer platanoides*), phragmites (*Phragmites australis*), purple
loosestrife, ragged robin (*Lychnis floscucli*), reed canary grass
(*Phalaris arundinacea*), and water chestnut (*Trapa natans*).

Some eastern hemlocks on the refuge have been killed as a result of
infestation by the hemlock wooly adelgid (*Adelges tsugae*), an
introduced insect native to Asia.

2\. Wildlife

Great Meadows NWR provides habitat for a rich diversity of wildlife.
Over 185 species of birds, 75 species of butterflies, 40 species of
mammals and 24 species of reptiles and amphibians occur on the refuge
for at least part of the year. The refuge provides a mix of wetland,
upland field, scrub-shrub and forested habitats. This combination
provides excellent habitat for a variety of bird species year round. A
number of state-listed species are found on the refuge during various
seasons.

Many species of birds stop over at the refuge during spring and fall
migration. Peregrine falcons (*Falco peregrinus*) and bald eagles
(*Haliaeetus leucophalus*) are occasionally seen flying over the refuge
during fall migrations. Occasionally, a bald eagle can be seen on the
Sudbury River in winter. The northern harrier (*Circus cyaneus*) is
often seen hunting at the Concord Impoundments.

Many songbird species nest, feed, and rest on the refuge. They include
marsh wren (*Cistothorus palustris*), gray catbird (*Dumetella
carolinensis*), yellow warbler (*Dendroica petechia*), redwinged
blackbird (*Agelaius pheoniceus*), swamp sparrow (*Melospiza
georgiana*), common yellowthroat (*Geothlypis trichas*), wood thrush
(*Hylocichla mustelina*), Baltimore oriole (*Icterus galbula*), eastern
kingbird (*Tyrannus tyrannus*), rose-breasted grosbeak (*Pheucticus
ludovicianus*) and northern mockingbird (*Mimus polygottos*). A number
of bird species nesting on or migrating through the refuge are
neotropical migrants.

Thousands of waterfowl, representing over 20 different species, use the
refuge throughout the year. Common species include green-winged teal
(*Anas crecca*), American black duck (*Anas rubripes*), wood duck (*Aix
sponsa*), and mallard (*Anas platyrhynchos*). Species less commonly
observed include northern shoveler (*Anas clypeata*), blue-winged teal
(*Anas discors*), hooded merganser (*Lophodytes cucullatus*) and gadwall
(*Anas strepera*).

Many wading birds use the refuge, particularly the Concord Impoundments
and Concord and Sudbury Rivers. The most common are great blue heron
(*Ardea herodias*), great egret (*Ardea alba*), and green heron
(*Butorides virescens*). Various marshbirds also nest in the associated
wetlands including Virginia rail (*Rallus limicola*), sora (*Porzana
carolina*) and American bittern (*Botaurus lentiginosus*). The least
bittern (*Ixobrychus exilis*), a state-listed endangered species,
historically has nested on the refuge.

Shorebirds are generally seen at the Concord Impoundments during fall
migration. Species frequently seen include killdeer (*Charandrius
vociferus*), least sandpiper (*Caladris minutilla*), greater and lesser
yellowlegs (*Tringa melanoleuca*, *T. flavipes*), pectoral sandpiper
(*Calidris fuscicollis*) and semipalmated plover (*Charadrius
semipalmatus*).

No formal surveys or inventories have been conducted on the refuge for
mammals. However, many mammal species are known to exist in abundance on
the refuge. These include Virginia opossum (*Didelphis virginiana*),
several shrew species (*Sorex spp.* and *Blarina spp.*), chipmunks
(*Tamias striatus*), eastern gray squirrel (*Sciurus carolinensis*),
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus *virginianus*), muskrat (*Ondatra
zibethica*), coyote (*Canis latrans*), red fox (*Vulpes fulva*) and
American beaver (*Castor canadensis*). Flying squirrel species
(*Glaucomys spp*.) and fisher (*Martes pennanti*) are also present.

While comprehensive inventories of reptiles and amphibians have not been
conducted, we have conducted surveys for several years to identify frog
and toad species on the refuge and monitor their populations. Frog and
toad species on the refuge include green frog (*Rana clamitans*),
bullfrog (*Rana catesbiana*), northern spring peeper (*Pseudacris
crucifer*), pickerel frog (*Rana palustris*), northern leopard frog
(*Rana pipiens*), gray tree frog (*Hyla versicolor*), wood frog (*Rana
sylvatica*) and American toad (*Bufo americanus*). Reptile species found
on the refuge include snapping turtle (*Chelydra serpentine*),
Blanding's turtle (*Emys blandingii*), eastern box turtle (*Terrapene
carolina carolina*), common garter snake (*Thamnophis sirtalis*) and
northern water snake *(Nerodia sipedon*). The Concord Impoundments
provide important habitat for the state-listed Blanding's turtle.

Several vernal pools occur on Great Meadows NWR. Vernal pools offer
critical breeding habitat for some species of amphibians and
invertebrates including blue-spotted salamander (*Ambystoma laterale*),
wood frog, spotted salamander (*Ambystoma maculatum*), and fairy shrimp.
These species also require relatively undisturbed upland habitat for
foraging and dispersal. Wood frog juveniles migrate up to 3,800 feet
from the vernal pool where they hatched, while adults move up to 1,500
feet from the pool. The blue-spotted salamander is a state species of
concern.

No formal surveys have been conducted for butterflies, dragonflies,
damselflies, and other invertebrates. They are an important component of
the food chain and are of biological importance to other refuge
wildlife.

Detailed species lists are available in the Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan for Great Meadows NWR. They can be viewed on line at
[www.fws.gov/northeast/planning](http://www.fws.gov/northeast/planning).

Refuge staff members are currently developing a habitat management plan
for Great Meadows NWR. The species and habitats that are likely to be of
greatest management concern are listed below in Table 1.

Table 1. Highest Priority Habitats and Associated Focal Species on

> Great Meadows NWR

+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| **Highest Priority Habitat     | **Selected Associated Focal         |
| Types**                        | Species**                           |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| ## Rive                        | nesting songbirds (eastern          |
| rs, Streams and Riparian Areas | kingbird), migrating landbirds and  |
|                                | waterfowl, alewife, freshwater      |
|                                | mussels                             |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Freshwater Wetlands Complex    | breeding marsh birds, migratory     |
| (Emergent Marsh, Scrub Shrub,  | landbirds, Blanding's and spotted   |
| Forested Wetland, and          | turtles                             |
| Freshwater Pond)               |                                     |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Vernal Pools                   | blue-spotted salamander             |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Impoundments                   | breeding marsh birds (American      |
|                                | bittern, Virginia rail, least       |
|                                | bittern, common moorhen), foraging  |
|                                | wading birds (great blue heron,     |
|                                | great egret), migrating shorebirds  |
|                                | and waterfowl                       |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
|                                |                                     |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| **Moderate Priority Habitat    | **Selected Associated Focal         |
| Types**                        | Species**                           |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Oak-Pine Forest                | Nesting songbirds (scarlet tanager, |
|                                | Baltimore oriole, black-and-white   |
|                                | warbler, rose-breasted grosbeak,    |
|                                | wood thrush)                        |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Shrubland                      | Nesting songbirds (eastern towhee,  |
|                                | blue-winged warbler), migrating     |
|                                | landbirds                           |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Open Field Mosaic              | Nesting songbirds (eastern          |
|                                | meadowlark), American woodcock      |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+

C. Socio-economic/Cultural Resources

1\. Socioeconomic Resources

Great Meadows NWR is located in Middlesex County. All of the towns that
the refuge is located in have a long, rich history and strive to retain
their small, community atmosphere. Each refuge town offers a unique
blend of urban or suburban and rural qualities. A rich agricultural past
is sometimes evident through the protection of former farmland as
private, local, state or Federal conservation land or open space.
However, agriculture has been replaced by residential land use,
interspersed with small retail and light industry. Some of the towns
serve as tourist destinations in their own right, particularly Concord,
which also hosts Minuteman National Historical Park.

America's literary history and environmental awareness began in Concord,
which was the home of the leaders of the intellectual movements of the
19^th^ century. Louisa May Alcott, Bronson Alcott, Ralph Waldo Emerson,
and Nathanial Hawthorne lived in Concord at one time, and Henry David
Thoreau wrote his internationally known philosophical treatise at Walden
Pond in Concord.

Protection of natural resources, natural beauty, and architectural
integrity is a common characteristic of each town. Retaining open space,
protecting rural character, protecting wildlife, and having natural
lands available for outdoor recreation are high priorities for local
residents. The median per capita income and average household
educational attainment of the towns in which the refuge is located are
among the highest in the state. Many residents work in downtown Boston
or at the universities in Cambridge and surrounding towns. People are
actively engaged in their families and communities, and many people are
passionate about the protection of wildlands for people and wildlife.
This passion extends to the Great Meadows NWR, and in particular the
Concord Impoundments, which is the most visited and best loved part of
the refuge.

The passion for protection of wildlands extends to river systems as
well. In 2000, 29 miles of the Sudbury, Assabet and Concord rivers
received national wild and scenic river designation. This provides an
additional layer of protection to the rivers and land along the rivers
from alteration due to development or major infrastructure projects
(such as a dam).

2\. Cultural Resources

The body of federal historic preservation laws has grown dramatically
since the enactment of the Antiquities Act of 1906. Several themes recur
in these laws, their promulgating regulations, and more recent Executive
Orders. They include: 1) each agency is to systematically inventory the
historic properties on their holdings and to scientifically assess each
property's eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places; 2)
federal agencies are to consider the impacts to cultural resources
during the agencies' management activities and seek to avoid or mitigate
adverse impacts; 3) the protection of cultural resources from looting
and vandalism are to be accomplished through a mix of informed
management, law enforcement efforts, and public education; and 4) the
increasing role of consultation with groups, such as Native American
tribes, in addressing how a project or management activity may impact
specific archaeological sites and landscapes deemed important to those
groups. The Service, like other federal agencies, are legally mandated
to inventory, assess, and protect cultural resources located on those
lands that the agency owns, manages, or controls. The Service's cultural
resource policy is delineated in 614 FW 1-5 and 126 FW 1-3. In the
Service's Northeast Region, the cultural resource review and compliance
process is initiated by contacting the Regional Historic Preservation
Officer/Regional Archaeologist (RHPO/RA). The RHPO/RA will determine
whether the proposed undertaking has the potential to impact cultural
resources, identify the "area of potential effect," determine the
appropriate level of scientific investigation necessary to ensure legal
compliance, and initiates consultation with the pertinent State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) and federally recognized Tribes.

Recorded prehistoric archeological sites and artifact "find spots" show
that prehistoric occupation in the SuAsCo drainage system spans 11,000
years. The first Native American occupation in this area occurred during
the Paleoindian period (11000-8000 Before Present (B.P.)). While no
definite Paleoindian sites have been reported within the boundaries of
the refuge, artifacts have been found in the drainage of the Sudbury
River. Human habitation has been documented during the early Archaic
period (9000-7000 B.P.). Small, widespread populations that practiced
diversified hunting and gathering characterize the early Archaic period.
Several known sites occur within the refuge boundary.

During the Middle Archaic period (8000-4500 B.P.), hunters and gatherers
focused their subsistence strategies on drainage systems. Fishing gear
appeared during that time, and people heavily used local sources of
stone. The refuge environment was ideal for the people of the Middle
Archaic, and several sites near the refuge are known. Intensive hunting
and fishing occurred all over the region during the Late Archaic
(4500-3000 B.P.). Artifacts from this period have been found on the
refuge, including the headquarters site at Weir Hill which is located on
the Sudbury River. It is known that people who lived during the Late
Archaic intensely exploited the habitats within the refuge.

During the Transitional Archaic (3600 -- 2500 B.P.), more groups may
have migrated into New England or more local groups may have been
developing new and different technologies. Trade in materials such as
soapstone became important and burial rituals became more complex.
Research has shown that the Weir Hill area continued through the Archaic
period into the Woodland period (Ritchie 1985). Hunting and gathering
were the main means of subsistence.

During the Middle and Late Woodland periods (1650-1000 B.P. and 1000
B.P. to the arrival of Europeans in New England), many sites on the
refuge were fishing stations (Ritchie 1985). Also during the Late
Woodland, horticulture increased and maize horticulture was introduced.
People lived in larger groups. However, the complex political structures
that emerged during the Late Woodland collapsed due to European
expansion and disease. While no contact sites from this period have been
identified on the refuge, it is possible that people may have used the
fishing weir that gives Weir Hill its name during this time.

The refuge area was settled in the early part of the 17^th^ century,
soon after Plymouth Colony. Over the past 350 years, agricultural and
pastoral use of the land occurred in the area, most notably at the
refuge headquarters area and the Concord Impoundments (Gupta 2004,
Donahue 2004). Concord was settled by 1635; Sudbury by 1640. Around the
refuge area, the primary activity for all the Historic periods until the
late 20^th^ century remained farming. Several farm archaeological sites
located on the refuge date back to the early settlement of the area.
Extant remains of this type of lifestyle are still visible, including
remains of agricultural land use patterns, farm dump areas, abandoned
fields, former roadways, stone walls, fence lines and drainage or
boundary ditch systems.

Past hunting practices and a love of the outdoors has had a profound
impact on the environment of Great Meadows NWR, as we know it today. In
1927, Sam Hoar arrived in Concord's Great Meadows. He purchased Great
Meadows, piece by piece, and transformed the marshy lowlands into a
series of ponds that would attract migratory waterfowl for hunting and
bird watching. Sam Hoar created his wetland ecology, and then gave
almost 80% of it to the Service for use as a wildlife sanctuary" (Gupta
2004). The only reservation in this gift was the right of Mr. Sam Hoar
to hunt alone, together with his son, or hunt with one guest at a time
during the legal season. This hunting right explicitly referenced the
shooting and possessing of migratory waterfowl in compliance with the
provisions of federal law.

Mr. Hoar's give to the Service grew into the 3,863 refuge that exists
today and is known as the Great Meadows NWR.

# IV. Environmental Consequences 

A. Effects Common to all Alternatives

1\. Environmental Justice

> Executive Order 12898 "Federal Actions to Address Environmental
> Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations" was signed
> by President Bill Clinton on February 11, 1994, to focus federal
> attention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority
> and low-income populations with the goal of achieving environmental
> protection for all communities. The Order directed federal agencies to
> develop environmental justice strategies to aid in identifying and
> addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or
> environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on
> minority and low-income populations. The Order is also intended to
> promote nondiscrimination in federal programs substantially affecting
> human health and the environment, and to provide minority- and
> low-income residents access to public information and participation in
> matters relating to human health or the environment. This EA has not
> identified any adverse or beneficial effects for any alternative
> unique to minority or low-income populations in the affected area.
> Additionally, none of the alternatives will disproportionately place
> any adverse environmental, economic, social, or health impacts on
> minority or low-income populations.

2\. Refuge Physical Environment

> Other than Alternative A, which would have no impacts to refuge lands,
> impacts of each remaining alternative on the refuge physical
> environment would be minimal to negligible.
>
> No adverse impact to vegetation from trampling by hunters is likely,
> as most species will have senesced or become dormant. The refuge would
> control hunter access to minimize any local vegetation disturbance
> that may be caused by hunters, particularly in parking areas. Minor,
> temporary disturbance to surface soils and vegetation would occur as a
> result of hunter activity in areas open for hunting. Impacts would be
> limited because refuge regulations prohibit cutting or trimming tree
> branches greater than the diameter of a quarter, as well as driving
> nails, spikes, screws or other metal objects into trees.
>
> The most significant impact on soils and vegetation would occur in new
> seasonal hunter parking lots that are located in fields, such as the
> two parking areas on Water Row in Sudbury and the one in Carlisle.
> Hunter vehicles would trample vegetation and create some soil
> disturbance, but overall effects would be minimal. Vegetation would
> recover and soils would be graded if necessary to remove ruts created
> by vehicles. Gravel may need to be placed in these seasonal parking
> areas on an occasional basis. The establishment of new parking areas
> would be limited because hunters would be able to use parking areas
> already established for refuge visitors or traditional access points
> along the Sudbury River.
>
> Impacts to the natural hydrology would be negligible. Impacts to air
> and water quality will be minimal and only due to refuge visitors'
> automobile emissions and run-off from road and trails. Existing State
> water quality criteria and use classifications are adequate to achieve
> desired on-refuge conditions.

3\. Cultural Resources

> There would be no impact from Alternative A to cultural resources,
> because the refuge would not be open for hunting. Hunting, regardless
> of method or species hunted, is a consumptive activity that does not
> pose any threat to prehistoric or historic properties on and/or near
> the refuge. For the remaining alternatives, no impacts to cultural
> resources are anticipated above what may be caused by any refuge
> visitor. Although hunters would be able to access parts of the refuge
> that are closed to non-hunters, this access alone is not expected to
> increase vandalism or disturbance to cultural resources by individuals
> while they are hunting, nor is it likely that hunters will be more
> likely to engage in vandalism or disturbance than any other refuge
> visitor.

B. Effects of Specific Alternatives

1\. Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003

a\. Biological Impacts

> Long-term closure of Great Meadows NWR to white-tailed deer hunting
> has allowed the deer herd to increase because there are few natural
> population controls in the area. Under Alternative A, the deer herd
> density will continue to increase.
>
> As herd size increases, browsing alters plant community composition.
> Many authors (Behrend et al. 1970, Alverson et al. 1988, Tilghman
> 1989, McShea and Rappole 1992, Warren 1998) have reported that
> vegetative species richness and the abundance of herbaceous and woody
> vegetation declines in areas where white-tailed deer densities exceed
> the carrying capacity. The decline is directly attributed to the
> activities of deer. The loss or reduction of woody understories in
> forests or lack of forest regeneration decreases availability of
> habitats for migratory birds and other wildlife. DeCalesta (1994)
> found that changes in the vegetation due to browsing by high deer
> densities in Pennsylvania impacted intermediate canopy-nesting
> songbirds and reduced species richness and abundance.
>
> Studies by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
> (MassWildlife) between 1997 and 1999 found that deer reproduction in
> eastern Massachusetts is high and that individual animals are
> long-lived. This, combined with loss of habitat due to land use
> alteration, local restrictions on use of firearms, and limited
> opportunities for hunters to access hunting areas has caused deer
> habitat to be at or near carrying capacity (personal communication,
> William Woytek, MassWildlife).
>
> The current deer density in the towns in which Great Meadows NWR is
> located is estimated to be 20-35 animals per square mile. MassWildlife
> recommends a density of 6-8 animals per square mile to avoid habitat
> degradation due to over-browsing. Since 1997, MassWildlife has
> implemented a longer archery deer season for deer and increased the
> harvest of antlerless deer in an effort to reach the eight deer per
> square mile objective (Woytek, MassWildlife, personal communication).
>
> Habitat degradation by deer would negatively impact other wildlife
> that depends on this habitat. Deer hunting would help keep deer within
> the carrying capacity of their habitat. When the population exceeds
> the carrying capacity, biological parameters within the herd (weight,
> antler size, reproductive rates, etc.) indicate the deterioration of
> the herd quality. Stress factors associated with overpopulation could
> become acute, causing diseases and high mortality. Browsing pressure
> will continue to reduce overall habitat quality for deer, stress the
> health of individual animals, and diminish diversity of habitats that
> sustain other wildlife species.
>
> There would be no impact to waterfowl populations or habitat under
> this alternative.

b\. Socioeconomic Impacts

> Under Alternative A, Great Meadows NWR would remain closed to all
> hunting. There would be no socioeconomic benefits to the local
> economy. Continued loss of opportunities to offer safe hunting on
> large parcels of public land in an otherwise heavily-populated area
> will persist under this alternative. Closure of the refuge to hunting
> would contribute to the unfilled demand for hunting and cause the
> Service to miss opportunities to convey national wildlife refuge
> messages to the hunting public and build related constituencies.
>
> Increased negative interactions between humans and deer will occur as
> greater numbers of deer forage on gardens and ornamental plants in
> residential neighborhoods and on agricultural crops. Incidents of
> deer-motor vehicle collisions may increase and a larger deer
> population will raise the deer tick population and the associated
> transmittal of Lyme disease.

c\. Summary of Effects for Alternative A

> Alternative A would allow the white-tailed deer population to
> increase, thereby decreasing habitat quality for songbirds and other
> wildlife dependent on understory vegetation. Browsing pressure will
> continue to reduce overall habitat quality for deer and stress the
> health of individual animals. There could be increased cost to private
> landowners as a result of vehicle collisions, horticultural damage, or
> illness from Lyme's disease.
>
> Citizens wishing to engage in hunting of deer or waterfowl for
> recreational purposes or to harvest game for consumption would be
> denied that opportunity.

2\. Alternative B -- The Service's Proposed Alternative in 2003

a\. Biological Impacts

> The deer hunt program recommended in Alternative B would help sustain
> a healthy deer population that is consistent with habitat carrying
> capacity. A successful deer hunt will remove enough individuals to
> maintain a population where browsing would not reach levels that
> damage understory habitat diversity. Human conflicts with deer would
> also be avoided because the deer herd would not overpopulate the
> refuge.
>
> Waterfowl hunting would remove some birds from the refuge but would
> not impact overall populations. There would be temporary disturbance
> to wildlife as hunters move to their shooting location or in response
> to the discharge of a firearm. Restrictions that require the use of
> non-toxic (non-lead) shot would minimize the introduction of lead into
> wildlife food chains.
>
> Although hunting removes individual birds and mammals, this activity
> would be controlled through appropriate regulations to ensure that no
> wildlife populations or species are jeopardized. White-tailed deer
> hunting is also regulated at the State level and waterfowl hunting is
> regulated and the State and Federal level.
>
> Resident wildlife populations will not experience significant effects
> as individuals are free to move on and off refuge property.
>
> Waterfowl hunting would not affect the refuge goal to maintain,
> restore, and enhance habitat to support a diversity of plants and
> animals. Deer hunting would encourage natural diversity by limiting
> the growth of the deer population on the refuge, thereby protecting
> preferred forage species from over-browsing.
>
> Hunting would occur outside the breeding period of most species,
> thereby avoiding any potential disturbance. No adverse effects on
> migratory bird populations, inter-jurisdictional fishes, and
> endangered species are anticipated as a result of establishing a hunt
> program.

b\. Socioeconomic Impacts

> We anticipate that a low to moderate degree of hunting pressure will
> occur as a result of opening the refuge to hunting. Under this
> alternative, hunting at Great Meadows NWR would contribute to
> satisfying local demand for hunting, and provide opportunities for
> refuge staff to convey Service and refuge messages to hunting
> enthusiasts and the public. Economic impacts would likely be a minimal
> increase in the purchase of fuel, food, lodging and supplies, due to
> the potential for new hunters to be attracted to the area near the
> refuge. It is anticipated that most hunters would be local hunters,
> many of whom would hunt in the morning or late afternoon and go to
> work during the day.
>
> Archery hunting, which is part of the proposal for Great Meadows NWR,
> is compatible in urban and rural settings. In Connecticut, it was
> found that under controlled circumstances, a well-designed hunt could
> reduce the local deer herd by 50 percent (Kilpatrick and Walter 1999,
> Kilpatrick et al. 2002). Similarly, in an urban Minnesota setting,
> deer populations were controlled to a tolerable level using an
> innovative bow hunt program (Kilpatrick 2002). Deer hunting on refuge
> land in eastern Massachusetts would provide hunter access to
> additional land and would be a significant contribution toward
> achieving the carrying capacity objective for this area (Woytek,
> MassWildlife, personal communication).
>
> Waterfowl hunting would create noise that may disturb some visitors or
> refuge neighbors. There is already waterfowl hunting on portions of
> the Sudbury River adjacent to the refuge. The sound of gunshots carry
> over the water, and complaints from refuge neighbors were often
> received on opening day of hunting even though the refuge itself was
> not open for hunting. It is difficult to ascertain where shots are
> being fired, so it is likely that an increase in complaints from
> neighbors would occur. Generally after opening day, waterfowl hunt
> pressure decreases and therefore impacts to neighbors or refuge
> visitors will also decrease.
>
> Hunting would not be allowed anywhere in Concord, including the
> Concord Impoundments, or on lands around the refuge headquarters in
> Sudbury. The Concord Impoundments are the most visited area of the
> refuge, and adequate steps could not be taken to minimize potential
> conflicts between hunters and other refuge visitors.
>
> Other actions proposed in the CCP for Great Meadows NWR would increase
> opportunities for wildlife observation, photography, environmental
> education, hiking and other public uses in other parts of the refuge.
> This, in combination with hunting, may generate some conflict among
> public uses as some potential refuge visitors may feel displaced by
> the hunt program. Some visitors may be reluctant to visit the refuge
> in areas that are open to archery deer hunting. Anglers and boaters on
> the Sudbury and Concord Rivers may also have some concerns about
> potential conflict. It is possible that there would be a slight
> reduction in non-hunter use of the refuge which would result in fewer
> small purchases for food and fuel. There would be some refuge visitors
> who would avoid areas open for hunting by concentrating their visits
> to parts of the refuge that would remain closed to the refuge under
> this alternative or by visiting other non-refuge lands.
>
> To reduce conflict and promote safety, State hunting regulations
> prohibit the discharge of any arrow or firearm upon or across any
> State or hard-surfaced highway or within 150 feet of any such highway,
> and hunting within 500 feet of any dwelling or building in use, except
> as authorized by the owner or occupant thereof. The refuge will
> require a permit be issued to all hunters on the refuge and fee will
> be required.
>
> Refuge staff will work to anticipate such conflicts, and if any arise,
> will adjust public use activities to ensure that visitor safety and
> the interests of all refuge user groups are not unduly compromised.

c\. Summary of Effects for Alternative B

> Waterfowl hunting will not affect the refuge goal to maintain,
> restore, and enhance habitat to support a diversity of plants and
> animals, and deer hunting would encourage natural diversity by
> limiting the growth of the deer population on the refuge, thereby
> protecting preferred forage species from over-browsing. No adverse
> effects on migratory birds, fish, and endangered species are
> anticipated as a result of establishing a white-tailed deer or
> waterfowl hunt program at Great Meadows NWR. Wildlife species for
> which hunting would be permitted on the refuge are those that are
> already regulated at the State or Federal level.
>
> Hunting noise may disturb refuge visitors or neighbors. There would be
> some refuge visitors who would avoid areas open for hunting by
> concentrating their visits to parts of the refuge that would remain
> closed to the refuge under this alternative or by visiting other
> non-refuge lands.
>
> As more hunters are attracted to the refuge, opportunities to
> communicate with the hunting public would increase, thereby fostering
> greater understanding and support of Great Meadows NWR, the National
> Wildlife Refuge System, and other Service programs. Thus, the hunting
> program would provide an opportunity to build a more effective
> constituency base.

3\. Alternative C

a\. Biological Impacts

> Biological impacts related to hunting under this Alternative would be
> similar to those under Alternative B, except that the refuge would
> attract more hunters.
>
> The expansion of shotgun deer hunting on refuge lands will result in
> additional deer mortality. This additional mortality will further
> reduce the number of conflicts between deer and people and will help
> to bring the local deer density closer to the Zone 10 goal of 6-8 deer
> per square mile.
>
> Additional waterfowl mortality would occur under this alternative
> because more lands along the Sudbury and Concord Rivers would be open
> for hunting. This would result is less sanctuary acreage for waterfowl
> species. Disturbance to other species of wildlife would be slightly
> increased because of the additional acreage open to hunting.

b\. Socioeconomic Impacts

> The socioeconomic impacts of this alternative will be similar to those
> under Alternative B, but would be slightly increased due to additional
> hunter opportunities. Public visitation to the parts of the refuge not
> open for hunting under this alternative (Concord Impoundments and the
> refuge headquarters) would likely increase.

c\. Summary of Effects for Alternative C

> Environmental consequences related to deer and waterfowl hunting are
> similar to those noted in Alternative B.
>
> Use of primitive firearms and shotguns for deer hunting and expansion
> of waterfowl hunting into additional areas would increase the
> potential for conflicts with refuge neighbors. More non-hunting
> visitor uses may be curtailed during hunting seasons. Visitor uses
> that could be affected include trail use and canoeing near wetland
> areas that would be open to waterfowl hunting.

4\. Alternative D -- The *Current Refuge Hunt Program* (Preferred
Alternative)

a\. Biological Impacts

> Under the *Current Refuge Hunt Program*, archery deer hunting will be
> allowed in accordance with regulations published by MassWildlife and
> refuge regulations. Among other restrictions, these regulations
> prohibit the discharge of any arrow upon or across any State or
> hard-surfaced highway or within 150 feet of any such highway, and
> hunting within 500 feet of any dwelling or building in use, except as
> authorized by the owner or occupant thereof. A refuge permit and fee
> will be required.
>
> Waterfowl hunting will be allowed on 334 acres of the refuge in
> accordance with Federal and State regulations.
>
> The deer hunt program recommended in Alternative D would help sustain
> a healthy deer population that is consistent with habitat carrying
> capacity. A successful deer hunt will remove enough individuals to
> maintain a population where browsing would not reach levels that
> damage understory habitat diversity. Human conflicts with deer would
> also be avoided because the deer herd would not overpopulate the
> refuge.
>
> Waterfowl hunting would remove some birds from the refuge but would
> not impact overall populations. There would be temporary disturbance
> to wildlife as hunters move to their shooting location or in response
> to the discharge of a firearm. Restrictions that require the use of
> non-toxic (non-lead) shot would minimize the introduction of lead into
> wildlife food chains. More land will be in a sanctuary status under
> this alternative, resulting in fewer disturbances to wildlife and
> probably less waterfowl would be harvested.
>
> Although hunting removes individual birds and mammals, this activity
> would be controlled through appropriate regulations to ensure that no
> wildlife populations or species are jeopardized. White-tailed deer
> hunting is also regulated at the State level and waterfowl hunting is
> regulated and the State and Federal level.
>
> Resident wildlife populations will not experience significant effects
> as individuals are free to move on and off refuge property.
>
> Waterfowl hunting would not affect the refuge goal to maintain,
> restore, and enhance habitat to support a diversity of plants and
> animals. Deer hunting would encourage natural diversity by limiting
> the growth of the deer population on the refuge, thereby protecting
> preferred forage species from over-browsing.
>
> Hunting would occur outside the breeding period of most species,
> thereby avoiding any potential disturbance. No adverse effects on
> migratory bird populations, inter-jurisdictional fishes, and
> endangered species are anticipated as a result of establishing a hunt
> program.

b\. Socioeconomic Impacts

> We anticipate that a low to moderate degree of hunting pressure will
> occur as a result of opening the refuge to hunting. Under this
> alternative, hunting at Great Meadows NWR would contribute to
> satisfying local demand for hunting, and provide opportunities for
> refuge staff to convey Service and refuge messages to hunting
> enthusiasts and the public. Economic impacts would likely be a minimal
> increase in the purchase of fuel, food, lodging and supplies, due to
> the potential for new hunters to be attracted to the area near the
> refuge. It is anticipated that most hunters would be local hunters,
> many of whom would hunt in the morning or late afternoon and go to
> work during the day.
>
> Archery hunting, which is part of the proposal for Great Meadows NWR,
> is compatible in urban and rural settings. In Connecticut, it was
> found that under controlled circumstances, a well-designed hunt could
> reduce the local deer herd by 50 percent (Kilpatrick and Walter 1999,
> Kilpatrick et al. 2002). Similarly, in an urban Minnesota setting,
> deer populations were controlled to a tolerable level using an
> innovative bow hunt program (Kilpatrick 2002). Deer hunting on refuge
> land in eastern Massachusetts would provide hunter access to
> additional land and would be a significant contribution toward
> achieving the carrying capacity objective for this area (Woytek,
> MassWildlife, personal communication).
>
> Waterfowl hunting would create noise that may disturb some visitors or
> refuge neighbors. Under this alternative, lands along the Concord
> River in Billerica were removed, thereby addressing concerns from
> neighbors who lived within or close to the 500' safety zone.
>
> There is already waterfowl hunting on portions of the Sudbury River
> adjacent to the refuge on lands managed by MassWildlife and on some
> private lands. The sound of gunshots carry over the water, and
> complaints from refuge neighbors were often received on opening day of
> hunting even though the refuge itself was not open for hunting. It is
> difficult to ascertain where shots are being fired, so it is likely
> that an increase in complaints from neighbors would occur. Generally
> after opening day, waterfowl hunt pressure decreases and therefore
> impacts to neighbors or refuge visitors will also decrease.
>
> Hunting would not be allowed anywhere in Concord, including the
> Concord Impoundments, or on lands around the refuge headquarters in
> Sudbury. The Concord Impoundments are the most visited area of the
> refuge, and adequate steps could not be taken to minimize potential
> conflicts between hunters and other refuge visitors.
>
> Other actions proposed in the CCP for Great Meadows NWR would increase
> opportunities for wildlife observation, photography, environmental
> education, hiking and other public uses in other parts of the refuge.
> This, in combination with hunting, may generate some conflict among
> public uses as some potential refuge visitors may feel displaced by
> the hunt program. Some visitors may be reluctant to visit the refuge
> in areas that are open to archery deer hunting. Anglers and boaters on
> the Sudbury and Concord Rivers may also have some concerns about
> potential conflict. It is possible that there would be a slight
> reduction in non-hunter use of the refuge which would result in fewer
> small purchases for food and fuel. There would be some refuge visitors
> who would avoid areas open for hunting by concentrating their visits
> to parts of the refuge that would remain closed to the refuge under
> this alternative or by visiting other non-refuge lands. The acreage
> opened to waterfowl hunting would be decreased by 241 acres. This
> decrease in hunting opportunities would minimally decrease
> socioeconomic benefits.
>
> Refuge staff will work to anticipate such conflicts, and if any arise,
> will adjust public use activities to ensure that visitor safety and
> the interests of all refuge user groups are not unduly compromised.

c\. Summary of Effects for Alternative D

> Waterfowl hunting will not affect the refuge goal to maintain,
> restore, and enhance habitat to support a diversity of plants and
> animals, and deer hunting would encourage natural diversity by
> limiting the growth of the deer population on the refuge, thereby
> protecting preferred forage species from over-browsing. No adverse
> effects on migratory birds, fish, and endangered species are
> anticipated as a result of establishing a white-tailed deer or
> waterfowl hunt program at Great Meadows NWR. Wildlife species for
> which hunting would be permitted on the refuge are those that are
> already regulated at the State or Federal level.
>
> Hunting noise may disturb refuge visitors or neighbors. There would be
> some refuge visitors who would avoid areas open for hunting by
> concentrating their visits to parts of the refuge that would remain
> closed to the refuge under this alternative or by visiting other
> non-refuge lands. Impacts to refuge neighbors from waterfowl hunting
> are eliminated by the removal of 241 acres from the hunt program.
>
> As more hunters are attracted to the refuge, opportunities to
> communicate with the hunting public would increase, thereby fostering
> greater understanding and support of Great Meadows NWR, the National
> Wildlife Refuge System, and other Service programs. Thus, the hunting
> program would provide an opportunity to build a more effective
> constituency base.
>
> The restriction on white-tailed deer hunting by shotgun restricts
> refuge hunting to archery only. Less game are likely to be harvested,
> and deer hunters will cause less disturbance to non-hunters. For this
> reason, the environmental consequences related to deer and migratory
> bird hunting will occur at a decreased level.

C. Cumulative Impacts Analysis

1\. Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impacts of Proposed Hunt on Wildlife
Species

a\. Resident Wildlife

Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003

> Deer harvest is essential to help maintain the deer herd at or below
> habitat carrying capacity as well as below the human tolerance level
> where once exceeded, deer become pests.  When deer are overpopulated,
> they over-browse their habitat and can completely change the species
> composition of a forest by doing so.  Furthermore, overpopulation
> leads to starvation, decreased herd health, increased car-deer
> collisions, increased property damage and Lyme disease.
>
> Under this alternative, no deer hunting would occur at Great Meadows
> NWR, thus increasing the probability of deer deaths due to other means
> such as noted in the paragraph above.
>
> No impacts will occur to non-hunted resident wildlife.

Alternative B -- The Service's Proposed Alternative in 2003

> Hunting seasons, bag limits, and antlerless deer permits are adjusted
> by state biologists in order to control deer density.  Since deer
> population growth rates can exceed 30 percent per year, a proactive
> approach in maintaining deer density through hunting provides the
> opportunity to avoid overpopulation effects.
>
> According to public information obtained from the MassWildlife, there
> are currently between 85,000 and 95,000 deer in Massachusetts.
> Densities of deer per square mile range from approximately 10 in the
> northwestern part of the state to approximately 55 on Nantucket
> Island.
>
> Great Meadows NWR is located within State Wildlife Management Zone 10,
> which has a current deer density of 20-35 per square mile. Because
> State biologists have set a goal of attaining 6-8 deer per square mile
> in this zone to maintain deer health, some additional reduction in the
> deer population is warranted.
>
> Deer hunting does not have regional population impacts due to
> restricted home ranges; only local impacts occur.  MassWildlife
> recorded deer harvest rates of approximately 23 deer per season on
> lands adjacent to Great Meadows NWR from 1999-2004 (Bill Woytek,
> personal communication).  
>
> Harvest data confirm that decades of deer hunting on surrounding lands
> has not had a local cumulative adverse effect on the deer population.
> In fact, state biologists would like more lands opened to hunting in
> Zone 10 to aid in the reduction of deer populations. Much of the land
> in Zone 10 has hunting restrictions on it (Bill Woytek, personal
> communication).  Therefore, expanding hunting on 2,280 acres of refuge
> lands should aid the State personnel in reaching the goal of limiting
> the deer herd in this suburban area. This reduction will help to
> reduce the number of conflicts between deer and people including the
> number of car-deer collisions.
>
> The cumulative impacts to non-hunted wildlife would be negligible in
> this alternative. Non-hunted wildlife includes small mammals such as
> voles, moles, mice, shrews, and bats as well as mink, fox, fisher, and
> otter; reptiles and amphibians such as snakes, turtles, lizards,
> salamanders, frogs and toads; invertebrates such as butterflies,
> moths, insects and spiders, and non-migratory birds such as grouse and
> turkey. These species have very limited home ranges and hunting could
> not possibly affect their populations regionally; thus, only local
> effects will be discussed.
>
> Disturbance to local populations of non-hunted resident birds, such as
> woodpeckers, turkey, grouse, and some songbirds such as cardinals,
> titmice, wrens, and chickadees, would be minimal. Regional and flyway
> effects would not be applicable to species that do not migrate.
> Disturbance by hunting to non-game migratory birds should not have
> cumulative negative impacts for the following reasons. Deer hunting
> season does not coincide with the nesting season. Long-term future
> impacts that could occur if reproduction was reduced by hunting are
> not relevant for this reason. Disturbance to the daily wintering
> activities, such as feeding and resting, of birds may occur.
> Disturbance to birds by hunters is probably less than that caused by
> non-consumptive users, as hunters are more likely to be quiet in the
> woods than people who are walking or cross-country skiing.
>
> Disturbance by hunting to non-hunted resident wildlife would be the
> most likely negative cumulative impact but is expected to be minimal.
> Small mammals, including bats, are inactive during winter when hunting
> season occurs. These species, as well as mink, are also nocturnal.
> Both of these qualities make hunter interactions with these mammals
> extremely rare. Fisher, otter and fox are active during hunt periods,
> but all are secretive. Hunters are more likely to see signs from these
> animals rather than the animals themselves. Interactions, if and when
> they occur, would be brief and have a temporary impact. Hibernation or
> torpor by cold-blooded reptiles and amphibians also limits their
> activity during the hunting season when temperatures are low. Hunters
> will rarely encounter reptiles and amphibians during most of the
> hunting season. Encounters with reptiles and amphibians in the early
> fall are few and should not have cumulative negative effects on
> reptile and amphibian populations. Invertebrates are also not active
> during cold weather and will have few interactions with hunters during
> the hunting season.

Alternative C

> The expansion of shotgun deer hunting on refuge lands will result in
> additional deer mortality. This additional mortality will further
> reduce the number of conflicts between deer and people and will help
> to bring the local deer density closer to the Zone 10 goal of 6-8 deer
> per square mile.
>
> Impacts to non-hunted wildlife species under this alternative will be
> similar to that described in the previous section. Expanded deer
> hunting will bring more hunters to the refuge, but this additional
> impact is expected to be minimal.

Alternative D -- *The* *Current Refuge Hunt Program* (Preferred
Alternative)

> The cumulative impacts for Alternative D are the same as Alternative
> B.
>
> Hunting seasons, bag limits, and antlerless deer permits are adjusted
> by state biologists in order to control deer density.  Since deer
> population growth rates can exceed 30 percent per year, a proactive
> approach in maintaining deer density through hunting provides the
> opportunity to avoid overpopulation effects.
>
> According to public information obtained from the MassWildlife, there
> are currently between 85,000 and 95,000 deer in Massachusetts.
> Densities of deer per square mile range from approximately 10 in the
> northwestern part of the state to approximately 55 on Nantucket
> Island.
>
> Great Meadows NWR is located within State Wildlife Management Zone 10,
> which has a current deer density of 20-35 per square mile. Because
> State biologists have set a goal of attaining 6-8 deer per square mile
> in this zone to maintain deer health, some additional reduction in the
> deer population is warranted.
>
> Deer hunting does not have regional population impacts due to
> restricted home ranges; only local impacts occur.  MassWildlife
> recorded deer harvest rates of approximately 23 deer per season on
> lands adjacent to Great Meadows NWR from 1999-2004 (Bill Woytek,
> personal communication).  During the 2005 deer season, 90 archery deer
> permits were issued on the refuge.  It is estimated that 31 deer were
> harvested from the refuge during the season. During the 2006 season,
> 140 archery permits were issued with an estimate of 26 deer taken.
> These numbers are only slightly higher than the average take of deer
> in the area before hunting began on the refuge in 2005. The total
> number of deer harvested in 2006 in Zone 10 was 1,866 deer. Harvest
> totals by season were 828 (archery), 770 (shotgun), and 268
> (muzzleloader). Great Meadows NWR contributed 1.4% of the deer
> harvested in the State in 2006.\
> \
> Harvest data confirm that decades of deer hunting on surrounding lands
> has not had a local cumulative adverse effect on the deer population.
> In fact, state biologists would like more lands opened to hunting in
> Zone 10 to aid in the reduction of deer populations. Much of the land
> in Zone 10 has hunting restrictions on it (Bill Woytek, personal
> communication).  Therefore, expanding hunting on 2,280 acres of refuge
> lands should aid the State personnel in reaching the goal of limiting
> the deer herd in this suburban area. This reduction will help to
> reduce the number of conflicts between deer and people including the
> number of car-deer collisions.
>
> The cumulative impacts to non-hunted wildlife would be negligible in
> this alternative. Non-game includes small mammals such as voles,
> moles, mice, shrews, and bats as well as mink, fox, fisher, and otter;
> reptiles and amphibians such as snakes, turtles, lizards, salamanders,
> frogs and toads; invertebrates such as butterflies, moths, insects and
> spiders, and non-migratory birds such as grouse and turkey. These
> species have very limited home ranges and hunting could not possibly
> affect their populations regionally; thus, only local effects will be
> discussed.
>
> Disturbance to local populations of non-hunted resident birds, such as
> woodpeckers, turkey, grouse, and some songbirds such as cardinals,
> titmice, wrens, and chickadees would be minimal. Regional and flyway
> effects would not be applicable to species that do not migrate.
> Disturbance by hunting to non-hunted migratory birds should not have
> cumulative negative impacts for the following reasons. Deer hunting
> season does not coincide with the nesting season. Long-term future
> impacts that could occur if reproduction was reduced by hunting are
> not relevant for this reason. Disturbance to the daily wintering
> activities, such as feeding and resting, of birds may occur.
> Disturbance to birds by hunters is probably less than that caused by
> non-consumptive users, as hunters are more likely to be quiet in the
> woods than people who are walking or cross-country skiing.
>
> Disturbance by hunting to non-hunted resident wildlife would be the
> most likely negative cumulative impact but is expected to be minimal.
> Small mammals, including bats, are inactive during winter when hunting
> season occurs. These species, as well as mink, are also nocturnal.
> Both of these qualities make hunter interactions with these mammals
> extremely rare. Fisher, otter and fox are active during hunt periods,
> but all are secretive. Hunters are more likely to see signs from these
> animals rather than the animals themselves. Interactions, if and when
> they occur, would be brief and have a temporary impact. Hibernation or
> torpor by cold-blooded reptiles and amphibians also limits their
> activity during the hunting season when temperatures are low. Hunters
> will rarely encounter reptiles and amphibians during most of the
> hunting season. Encounters with reptiles and amphibians in the early
> fall are few and should not have cumulative negative effects on
> reptile and amphibian populations. Invertebrates are also not active
> during cold weather and will have few interactions with hunters during
> the hunting season.

Summary Statement on Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impact to Resident
Wildlife

> The cumulative effects to resident wildlife will be increased
> mortality to individual white-tailed deer, but an overall increase in
> the long-term health of the deer population due to increased ability
> of the refuge to maintain carrying capacity for the deer that use the
> refuge. Impacts to non-hunted resident wildlife will be minimal.

b\. Migratory Birds

Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003

> Migratory waterfowl hunting would not be permitted under this
> alternative and, therefore, additional mortality of waterfowl species
> would not occur. Waterfowl, shorebirds, and marsh and water birds that
> use areas would not be impacted. As a result, there would be no
> increase in disturbance to those species. Disturbance to non-hunted
> species would not exist under this alternative.

Alternative B -- The Service's Proposed Alternative in 2003

> The Service manages migratory birds on a flyway basis. Details
> concerning the management of migratory birds appear in the section for
> Alternative D below. This section is limited only to impacts which
> would occur under Alternative B.
>
> Impacts under this action would be similar to the Current Refuge Hunt
> Program except that hunting would be open on 575 acres of refuge and
> the amount of inviolate sanctuary would be decreased to 3,288 acres.
> The amount of waterfowl mortality would be higher than the Current
> Refuge Hunt Program but not significantly, as the number of waterfowl
> hunters would not be same. Migratory waterfowl hunting at Great
> Meadows NWR will have little or no effect on non-hunted resident and
> migratory species. Waterfowl hunters will primarily be utilizing
> temporary hunting blinds in open water areas. This reduces hunter
> interaction with upland or mash resident and migratory species.
> Hunting season also does not overlap with the nesting season for
> non-hunted migratory birds and therefore, long-term future impacts are
> not likely.

Alternative C

> By expanding waterfowl hunting to all refuge waters except the Concord
> Impoundments, the expected mortality on waterfowl would increase if
> the number of permitted hunters increased. The acreage of land open to
> hunting would be increased and the acreage of inviolate sanctuary
> would decrease. There would be little area for resting waterfowl,
> marsh birds and other water birds during migration on the refuge. This
> could adversely affect their ability to store fat reserves necessary
> for migration and breeding.

Alternative D -- *The* *Current Refuge Hunt Program* (Preferred
Alternative)

> The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service annually prescribes frameworks, or
> outer limits, for dates and times when hunting may occur as well as
> for the number of birds that may be taken and possessed. These
> frameworks are necessary to allow State selections of hunt seasons and
> take limits for recreation and sustenance; aid Federal, State, and
> tribal governments in the management of migratory game birds; and
> permit harvests at levels compatible with population status and
> habitat conditions. Because the Migratory Bird Treaty Act stipulates
> that all hunting seasons for migratory game birds are closed unless
> specifically opened by the Secretary of the Interior, the Service
> annually promulgates regulations (50 CFR Part 20) establishing the
> frameworks from which States may select season dates, bag limits,
> shooting hours, and other options for each migratory bird hunting
> season. The frameworks are essentially permissive in that hunting of
> migratory birds would not be permitted without them. Thus, in effect,
> Federal annual regulations both allow and limit the hunting of
> migratory birds.
>
> Migratory game birds are those bird species so designated in
> conventions between the United States and several foreign nations for
> the protection and management of those birds. Under the Migratory Bird
> Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), the Secretary of the Interior is
> authorized to determine when "hunting, taking capture, killing,
> possession, sale, purchase, shipment, transportation, carriage, or
> export of any ... bird, or any part, nest, or egg" of migratory game
> birds can take place, and to adopt regulations for this purpose. These
> regulations are written after giving due regard to "the zones of
> temperature and to the distribution, abundance, economic value,
> breeding habits, and times and lines of migratory flight of such
> birds, and are updated annually (16 U.S.C. 704(a)). This
> responsibility has been delegated to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
> Service as the lead federal agency for managing and conserving
> migratory birds in the United States. Acknowledging regional
> differences in hunting conditions, the Service has administratively
> divided the nation into four Flyways for the primary purpose of
> managing migratory game birds. Each Flyway (Atlantic, Mississippi,
> Central, and Pacific) has a Flyway Council, a formal organization
> generally composed of one member from each State and Province in that
> Flyway. Great Meadows NWR is within the Atlantic Flyway.
>
> The process for adopting migratory game bird hunting regulations,
> located in 50 CFR Part 20, is constrained by three primary factors.
> Legal and administrative considerations dictate how long the rule
> making process will last. Most importantly, however, the biological
> cycle of migratory game birds controls the timing of data-gathering
> activities and thus the dates on which these results are available for
> consideration and deliberation. The process of adopting migratory game
> bird hunting regulations includes two separate regulations-development
> schedules, based on "early" and "late" hunting season regulations.
> Early hunting seasons pertain to all migratory game bird species in
> Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; migratory game
> birds other than waterfowl (e.g. dove, woodcock, etc.); and special
> early waterfowl seasons, such as teal or resident Canada geese. Early
> hunting seasons generally begin prior to October 1. Late hunting
> seasons generally start on or after October 1 and include most
> waterfowl seasons not already established. There are basically no
> differences in the processes for establishing either early or late
> hunting seasons. For each cycle, Service biologists and others gather,
> analyze, and interpret biological survey data and provide this
> information to all those involved in the process through a series of
> published status reports and presentations to Flyway Councils and
> other interested parties (USFWS 2006).
>
> Because the Service is required to take abundance of migratory birds
> and other factors into consideration, the Service undertakes a number
> of surveys throughout the year in conjunction with the Canadian
> Wildlife Service, State and Provincial wildlife-management agencies,
> and others. To determine the appropriate frameworks for each species,
> we consider factors such as population size and trend, geographical
> distribution, annual breeding effort, the condition of breeding and
> wintering habitat, the number of hunters, and the anticipated harvest.
> After frameworks are established for season lengths, bag limits, and
> areas for migratory game bird hunting, migratory game bird management
> becomes a cooperative effort of State and Federal governments. After
> Service establishment of final frameworks for hunting seasons, the
> States may select season dates, bag limits, and other regulatory
> options for the hunting seasons. States may always be more
> conservative in their selections than the Federal frameworks but never
> more liberal. Season dates and bag limits for national wildlife
> refuges open to hunting are never longer or larger than the State
> regulations. In fact, based upon the findings of an environmental
> assessment developed when a national wildlife refuge opens a new
> hunting activity, season dates and bag limits may be more restrictive
> than the State allows.
>
> The total acreage for migratory bird hunting on Great Meadows National
> Wildlife Refuge is within the 40-percent limit prescribed by the
> Migratory Bird Conservation Act. The hunting of resident Canada geese
> in September before migration and in late winter after the migratory
> waterfowl have left the area, and will not occur in sensitive nesting
> areas for colonial, marsh, and water birds, or endangered species.
> Since waterfowl hunting will only occur on 334 acres of Great Meadows
> NWR, inviolate sanctuaries with no disturbance will remain on more
> than 3,529 acres of the refuge
>
> Waterfowl harvests will occur, but the overall numbers will not
> adversely affect refuge purposes or State or Atlantic Flyway
> populations. Under the preferred alternative, refuge staff estimates a
> maximum 221 ducks and 196 geese will be harvested each year. This
> estimate is based on the 2001-2004 average seasonal Massachusetts duck
> harvest of 6.3 ducks and 5.6 geese per hunter (Serie and Raftovich
> 2005). This harvest impact represents 0.8% and 1.5% respectively of
> Massachusetts' three-year average harvest of 28,875 ducks and 13,400
> geese (Serie and Raftovich 2005). While these numbers are supportable
> estimates, we believe these numbers to be high. Based on interviews
> with hunters, hunter feedback, and field observations, we believe
> these numbers are high. We know that fewer hunters participate than
> are permitted.
>
> The potential refuge harvest is even less significant when compared to
> the Atlantic Flyway annual harvests. Between 2001 and 2004, the
> average annual duck harvest in the Atlantic Flyway was 1,619,550 and
> the annual Canada goose, snow goose and brant harvest combined
> averaged 755,950. The anticipated maximum harvest at Great Meadows NWR
> would represent 0.0136% of the Flyway duck harvest and 0.0003% of the
> goose harvest. To further extrapolate to the national scale, the duck
> harvest in the United States from 2001-2004 averaged 12,687,975. The
> anticipated maximum harvest at Great Meadows NWR would represent
> 0.0017% of the national harvest of ducks.
>
> Migratory waterfowl hunting at Great Meadows NWR will have little or
> no effect on non-hunted resident and migratory species. Access to the
> majority of hunting areas will be by boat. Temporary impacts are
> likely to occur to non-hunted bird species in the form of disturbance
> during feeding and resting. The disturbance will be commensurate with
> the disturbance caused by recreational boaters. Waterfowl hunters will
> primarily be utilizing temporary hunting blinds in open water areas.
> This reduces hunter interaction with upland or mash resident and
> migratory species. Hunting season also does not overlap with the
> nesting season for non-hunted migratory birds and therefore, long-term
> future impacts are not likely.
>
> NEPA considerations by the Service for hunted migratory game bird
> species are addressed by the programmatic document, "Final
> Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual
> Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES
> 88-14)," filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on June 9,
> 1988. Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register on
> June 16, 1988 (53 FR 22582), and the Record of Decision was published
> on August 18, 1988 (53 FR 31341). Annual NEPA considerations for
> waterfowl hunting frameworks are covered under a separate
> Environmental Assessment, "Duck Hunting Regulations for 2006-07," and
> on August 24, 2006, Finding of No Significant Impact. Further, in a
> notice published in the September 8, 2005, Federal Register (70 FR
> 53376), the Service announced its intent to develop a new Supplemental
> Environmental Impact Statement for the migratory bird hunting program.
> Public scoping meetings were held in the spring of 2006, as announced
> in a March 9, 2006, Federal Register notice (71 FR 12216). More
> information may be obtained from: Chief, Division of Migratory Bird
> Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the
> Interior, MS MBSP-4107-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NWR, Washington, D.C.
> 20240.

Summary Statement on Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impacts to
Migratory Birds

> Mortality of waterfowl will comprise a minor part of the local,
> regional (State) and flyway duck and goose population. Monitoring of
> waterfowl populations at the flyway level, combined with stringent bag
> limits and seasons for individual game species, will ensure the
> stability of the waterfowl population. Cumulative impacts to non-game
> migratory birds will be negligible.

c\. Endangered Species

Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003

> No Federal-listed endangered or threatened species reside on the
> refuge. Bald eagles are occasionally seen over the Concord
> Impoundments. Because current public use activities on the refuge
> would remain the same, there would be no increased chance of adversely
> affecting threatened and endangered species.

Alternative B -- The Service's Proposed Alternative in 2003

> No Federal-listed endangered or threatened species reside on the
> refuge. Bald eagles are occasionally seen over the Concord
> Impoundments, an area where hunting is prohibited. A Section 7
> Evaluation associated with the refuge hunting program was conducted,
> and it was determined that the preferred alternative was not likely to
> adversely affect these bald eagle populations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
> Service 2005b).

Alternative C

> No Federal-listed endangered or threatened species reside on the
> refuge. Bald eagles are occasionally seen over the Concord
> Impoundments, an area where hunting is prohibited. A Section 7
> Evaluation associated with the refuge hunting program was conducted,
> and it was determined that the preferred alternative was not likely to
> adversely affect these bald eagle populations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
> Service 2005b).

Alternative D -- *The* *Current Refuge Hunt Program* (Preferred
Alternative)

> No Federal-listed endangered or threatened species reside on the
> refuge. Bald eagles are occasionally seen over the Concord
> Impoundments, an area where hunting is prohibited. A Section 7
> Evaluation associated with the refuge hunting program was conducted,
> and it was determined that the preferred alternative was not likely to
> adversely affect these bald eagle populations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
> Service 2005b).

Summary Statement on Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impacts to
Endangered Species

> There will be no impact to Federal-listed endangered or threatened
> species.

2\. Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
on Refuge Programs, Facilities, and Cultural Resources

a\. Other Refuge Wildlife-Dependent Recreation

Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003

> The public would not have the opportunity to harvest a renewable
> resource, participate in wildlife-dependent recreation that is
> compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established,
> attain an increased awareness of Great Meadows NWR and the National
> Wildlife Refuge System; nor would the Service be addressing demand for
> this activity. Continued loss of opportunities to offer safe hunting
> on large parcels of public land in an otherwise heavily populated area
> would persist.
>
> Refuge visitation could potentially drop on a seasonal basis due to
> increases in the sheer numbers of deer ticks whose presence was
> attributed to a burgeoning deer population. Refuge visitors, fearful
> and apprehensive about the prospect of obtaining Lyme disease, would
> be less inclined to engage in wildlife-dependent recreational programs
> such as fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography,
> interpretation and/or environmental education programs.
>
> Non-hunters would feel free to enjoy other wildlife-dependent
> recreational activities without concerns, real or perceived, related
> to hunting conflicts. These positive impacts would be most apparent on
> refuge lands that offer abundant wildlife observation and photography,
> environmental education and interpretation.
>
> This alternative does not support the vision and management direction
> outlined in the Great Meadows NWR CCP, specifically Goal 3, which
> seeks to build a public that understands, appreciates, and supports
> refuge goals for wildlife by providing opportunities for hunting where
> appropriate and compatible with refuge purposes (Objective 4).

Alternative B -- The Service's Proposed Alternative in 2003

> Opening portions of Great Meadows NWR to archery hunting for deer and
> shotgun hunting for waterfowl would allow greater opportunities for
> the public to harvest a renewable resource. The refuge would be
> promoting a wildlife-dependent recreational opportunity that is
> compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established.
> Public awareness of Great Meadows NWR and the National Wildlife Refuge
> System would have increased. In addition, some public demand for more
> local hunting activities would be met. This alternative would allow
> the public to enjoy hunting at an affordable rate in a region where
> private land and public land is often closed for hunting.
>
> Several areas on the refuge would open to waterfowl hunting. Some
> conflict will occur with canoeists and kayakers on the portions of the
> Sudbury and Concord Rivers that would be open for waterfowl hunting.
> Some individuals will reschedule river trips to Sundays when hunting
> is not allowed in the State or to mid-day periods, when hunter
> activity on the water is anticipated to be very light. Competition for
> parking spaces along the rivers will increase. Only the Bedford boat
> launch on Route 225 is large enough to accommodate a number of cars
> and a variety of boaters.
>
> Visitor activities such as wildlife observation and wildlife
> photography that occur near hunt areas may be curtailed during deer
> season. This impact would be relatively minor in Bedford and Billerica
> and Wayland due to the limited number of visitors the trails in those
> town receive during the late fall and winter. The trails on the
> O'Rourke property in Carlisle connect two parcels of town-owned
> conservation land where hunting is not allowed. These are popular
> trails, especially on Saturday. Some refuge visitors will decide not
> to walk these trails because the refuge is open to deer hunting.
> However, as visitors become used to hunt patterns and because only
> archery hunting would be allowed, conflicts will be reduced over time
> and will be fairly minimal.
>
> The remaining public use areas at Great Meadows NWR, which receives
> around 375,000 visitors per year, are located in parts of the refuge
> that would not be open to hunting under this alternative. The majority
> of refuge visits occur at the Concord Impoundments, which is
> considered by many to be one of the best inland birding areas in the
> State. Hunting will also not be allowed at the refuge headquarters in
> Sudbury, which hosts about a mile of trails and connects to trails on
> private conservation land.
>
> Experience has proven that time and space zoning (e.g., establishment
> of separate use areas, use periods, and restrictions on the number of
> users) is an effective tool in eliminating conflicts between user
> groups. Historically, hunting has had minimal impacts on those
> opportunities that occur during the hunting season. The Refuge does
> not anticipate any significant impacts to other forms of wildlife
> dependent activities on Great Meadows NWR.

Alternative C

[]{.mark}

> Impacts and consequences under this alternative would be similar to
> those of Alternative B. However, use of primitive firearms and
> shotguns for deer hunting and expansion of waterfowl hunting into
> additional areas would increase the potential for user conflicts with
> refuge neighbors. Waters and lands in Concord, including the Concord
> Impoundments, and lands around the refuge headquarters in Sudbury,
> would remain closed to hunting. Real or perceived conflicts about
> visitor safety would exist for some visitors to trails in Bedford,
> Billerica, Carlisle and Wayland.
>
> This alternative increases opportunities for waterfowl hunting on the
> Sudbury and Concord rivers. There would be greater real or perceived
> conflicts with canoeists and kayakers because more river miles would
> be open for hunting. Some non-consumptive visitor uses would likely be
> curtailed during hunting seasons. Visitor uses that could be affected
> include trail use and canoeing near wetland areas that would be open
> to waterfowl hunting. Conflict would most likely occur in October,
> which can still have warm days which could attract considerable number
> of boaters on the rivers.

Alternative D -- *The* *Current Refuge Hunt Program* (Preferred
Alternative)

> Impacts to other refuge users are similar as Alternative B, although
> less river miles would be open to hunting, thereby decreasing real or
> perceived conflicts with waterfowl hunters.
>
> Opening portions of Great Meadows NWR to archery hunting for deer and
> shotgun hunting for waterfowl would allow greater opportunities for
> the public to harvest a renewable resource. The refuge would be
> promoting a wildlife-dependent recreational opportunity that is
> compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established.
> Public awareness of Great Meadows NWR and the National Wildlife Refuge
> System would have increased. In addition, some public demand for more
> local hunting activities would be met. This alternative would allow
> the public to enjoy hunting at an affordable rate in a region where
> private land and public land is often closed for hunting.
>
> Several areas on the refuge would open to waterfowl hunting. Some
> conflict will occur with canoeists and kayakers on the portions of the
> Sudbury and Concord Rivers that would be open for waterfowl hunting.
> Some individuals will reschedule river trips to Sundays when hunting
> is not allowed in the State or to mid-day periods, when hunter
> activity on the water is anticipated to be very light. Competition for
> parking spaces along the rivers will increase. Only the Bedford boat
> launch on Route 225 is large enough to accommodate a number of cars
> and a variety of boaters.
>
> Visitor activities such as wildlife observation and wildlife
> photography that occur near hunt areas may be curtailed during deer
> season. This impact would be relatively minor in Bedford and Billerica
> and Wayland due to the limited number of visitors the trails in those
> town receive during the late fall and winter. The trails on the
> O'Rourke property in Carlisle connect two parcels of town-owned
> conservation land where hunting is not allowed. These are popular
> trails, especially on Saturday. Some refuge visitors will decide not
> to walk these trails because the refuge is open to deer hunting.
> However, as visitors become use to hunt patterns and because only
> archery hunting would be allowed, conflicts will be reduced over time
> and will be fairly minimal.
>
> The remaining public use areas at Great Meadows NWR, which receives
> around 375,000 visitors per year, are located in parts of the refuge
> that would not be open to hunting under this alternative. The majority
> of refuge visits occur at the Concord Impoundments, which is
> considered by many to be one of the best inland birding areas in the
> State. Hunting will also not be allowed at the refuge headquarters in
> Sudbury, which hosts about a mile of trails and connects to trails on
> private conservation land.
>
> Experience has proven that time and space zoning (e.g., establishment
> of separate use areas, use periods, and restrictions on the number of
> users) is an effective tool in eliminating conflicts between user
> groups. Historically, hunting has had minimal impacts on those
> opportunities that occur during the hunting season. The Refuge does
> not anticipate any significant impacts to other forms of wildlife
> dependent activities on Great Meadows NWR.
>
> The current hunt program provides the public with a high quality
> recreational experience and provides the refuge with a wildlife
> management tool to promote the biological integrity of the refuge.

Summary Statement of Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impacts on Other
Refuge Wildlife Dependent Recreation Programs

> There will be some impact to other refuge visitors. However, these
> impacts are not significant. Most refuge visitors will be able to
> fully enjoy the refuge with some or no modifications to their
> activities. The threat to visitor safety is much more a perceived
> threat than a real threat. The zoning of refuge uses by place and
> time, and the restriction against hunting in Concord and near the
> refuge headquarters in Sudbury, provides ample opportunities for
> people to continue to come to the refuge for wildlife-dependent
> recreation during the hunt season.

b\. Refuge Facilities

Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003

> Temporary hunter parking lots would not need to be established and
> seasonally maintained. Additional use of roads, trails and temporary
> parking lots would not occur. Periodic maintenance of existing roads
> and trails would not increase. However, other users would still be
> using permanent parking areas and trails, thereby necessitating
> periodic maintenance. Costs associated with an expanding hunt program
> in the form of temporary parking area establishment, maintenance and
> snowplowing, as well as instructional signs, would not be needed.

Alternative B -- The Service's Proposed Alternative in 2003

> Permanent and temporary hunter parking lots would be identified or
> established to accommodate the new hunt program. Additional use of
> roads, trails and temporary parking lots would occur. Periodic
> maintenance of existing roads and trails would not likely increase, as
> the volume of hunters and the amount of hunter use is expected to be
> light to moderate. Costs associated with the proposed hunting program
> will increase in order to maintain informational/directional signage
> and parking lots. These costs should be minimal relative to total
> refuge operations and maintenance costs and should not significantly
> diminish resources dedicated to other refuge management programs.
>
> The visual aesthetics of the refuge would be diminished as there would
> be additional signs and parking areas on the refuge.
>
> Refuge amenities related to the hunt program would improve as revenue
> from the expanded amenity fees was returned to the hunt program.

Alternative C

> The impacts under this alternative would be the same as Alternative B
> above.
>
> Permanent and temporary hunter parking lots would be identified or
> established to accommodate the new hunt program. Additional use of
> roads, trails and temporary parking lots would occur. Periodic
> maintenance of existing roads and trails would not likely increase, as
> the volume of hunters and the amount of hunter use is expected to be
> light to moderate. Costs associated with the proposed hunting program
> will increase in order to maintain informational/directional signage
> and parking lots. These costs should be minimal relative to total
> refuge operations and maintenance costs and should not significantly
> diminish resources dedicated to other refuge management programs.
>
> The visual aesthetics of the refuge would be diminished as there would
> be additional signs and parking areas on the refuge.
>
> Refuge amenities related to the hunt program would improve as revenue
> from the expanded amenity fees were returned to the hunt program.

Alternative D -- *The* *Current Refuge Hunt Program* (Preferred
Alternative)

> The impacts under this alternative would be the same as Alternative B
> above.
>
> Permanent and temporary hunter parking lots would be identified or
> established to accommodate the new hunt program. Additional use of
> roads, trails and temporary parking lots would occur. Periodic
> maintenance of existing roads and trails would not likely increase, as
> the volume of hunters and the amount of hunter use is expected to be
> light to moderate. Costs associated with the proposed hunting program
> will increase in order to maintain informational/directional signage
> and parking lots. These costs should be minimal relative to total
> refuge operations and maintenance costs and should not significantly
> diminish resources dedicated to other refuge management programs.
>
> The visual aesthetics of the refuge would be diminished as there would
> be additional signs and parking areas on the refuge.
>
> Refuge amenities related to the hunt program would improve as revenue
> from the expanded amenity fees were returned to the hunt program.

Summary Statement of Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impacts on Refuge
Facilities

> There will be some impact to refuge facilities, primarily to refuge
> parking lots and signs. The costs to maintain temporary parking areas
> and provide adequate signs will be reimbursed through fees generated
> by hunter permits.

c\. Cultural Resources

Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003

> There would be no cumulative impacts to cultural resources under this
> alternative, since the refuge would not be open for hunting.

Alternative B -- The Service's Proposed Alternative in 2003

> No impacts to cultural resources are anticipated above what may be
> caused by any refuge visitor. Although hunters would be able to access
> parts of the refuge that are closed to non-hunters, this access alone
> is not expected to increase vandalism or disturbance to cultural
> resources by individuals while they are hunting, nor is it likely that
> hunters will be more likely to engage in vandalism or disturbance than
> any other refuge visitor.

Alternative C

> No impacts to cultural resources are anticipated above what may be
> caused by any refuge visitor. Although hunters would be able to access
> parts of the refuge that are closed to non-hunters, this access alone
> is not expected to increase vandalism or disturbance to cultural
> resources by individuals while they are hunting, nor is it likely that
> hunters will be more likely to engage in vandalism or disturbance than
> any other refuge visitor.

Alternative D - *The* *Current Refuge Hunt Program* (Preferred
Alternative)

> No impacts to cultural resources are anticipated above what may be
> caused by any refuge visitor. Although hunters would be able to access
> parts of the refuge that are closed to non-hunters, this access alone
> is not expected to increase vandalism or disturbance to cultural
> resources by individuals while they are hunting, nor is it likely that
> hunters will be more likely to engage in vandalism or disturbance than
> any other refuge visitor.

Summary Statement of Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impacts on Cultural
Resources

> Impacts to cultural resources are not anticipated.

3\. Anticipated Impacts of the Proposed Hunt on the Refuge Environment
and Community

Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003

> Under this alternative, there would be no effects of a hunt program on
> the refuge environment and community.
>
> A larger deer population could raise the deer tick population and the
> associated transmission of Lyme disease. Increased negative
> interactions between humans and deer would occur as greater numbers of
> deer forage on gardens and ornamental plants in residential
> neighborhoods and on agricultural crops. Incidents of deer-motor
> vehicle collisions may increase.

Alternative B -- The Service's Proposed Alternative in 2003

> The impacts of allowing hunting may include disturbance of non-target
> species in the course of tracking prey, trampling of vegetation,
> possible creation of unauthorized trails by hunters, subsequent
> erosion, littering, and possible vandalism. Refuge staff will control
> hunter access to minimize any impacts. Hunts would be monitored for
> impact on refuge resources and, if any are found, appropriate
> adjustments would be made to eliminate them.
>
> Noise from waterfowl hunters may disturb refuge neighbors in addition
> to visitors seeking solitude on or near the Wild and Scenic Rivers.
> This may necessitate the closure of some areas during the hunting
> season. Some non-consumptive refuge visitors may be seasonally
> displaced due to concerns about safety while using the refuge during
> hunting season.

Alternative C

> Same as Alternative B, except shotgun deer opportunities are offered,
> potentially creating additional negative interactions between
> non-hunters and hunters. Opportunities for solitude for visitors
> walking trails in Bedford, Billerica, Carlisle and Wayland would be
> diminished while shotgun hunting was taking place.
>
> Waterfowl hunting would be allowed on more sections of the Concord and
> Sudbury rivers. A decrease in solitude, primarily due to noise, would
> also occur under this alternative.

Alternative D -- *The* *Current Refuge Hunt Program* (Preferred
Alternative)

> Only minimal impacts to the refuge environment, which consists of
> soils, vegetation, air quality, water quality and solitude, are
> anticipated. Hunting may benefit vegetation, as it is used to keep
> many resident wildlife populations in balance with the habitat's
> carrying capacity. Other impacts to vegetation are expected to be
> minimal and temporary. Refuge staff will control hunter access to
> minimize impacts.
>
> The impacts of allowing hunting may include disturbance of non-target
> species in the course of tracking prey, trampling of vegetation,
> possible creation of unauthorized trails by hunters, subsequent
> erosion, littering, and possible vandalism. Refuge staff will control
> hunter access to minimize any impacts. Hunts would be monitored for
> impact on refuge resources and, if any are found, appropriate
> adjustments would be made to eliminate them.
>
> Some non-consumptive refuge visitors may be seasonally displaced due
> to concerns about safety while using the refuge during hunting season.
>
> []{.mark}
>
> Impacts associated with solitude are expected to be minimal given time
> and space zone management techniques, such as seasonal access and area
> closure, used to avoid conflicts among user groups. The biggest
> conflict will be from shotgun noise from waterfowl hunters which could
> disturb refuge neighbors in addition to visitors seeking solitude on
> or near the Wild and Scenic Rivers.
>
> []{.mark}
>
> There is a large and active local hunt community. Opening the refuge
> to hunting will provide waterfowl and deer hunt opportunities to local
> residents and their families. Most hunters will come from the local
> area.
>
> Comments on the refuge draft CCP and discussions with refuge visitors
> indicate both support and opposition to the refuge hunt program. There
> is less opposition to archery deer hunting than firearm hunting.
>
> Many landowners suffer landscape damage due to deer on a regular
> basis. Transmission of Lyme disease may become a significant issue
> with large numbers of deer. Starvation can occur when deer numbers are
> high as food supplies dwindle in bad weather and deer-vehicle
> collisions become more common and problematic. Positive impacts from a
> well managed hunt program are expected to address these issues.

Summary Statement of Anticipated Effects of Alternatives on Refuge
Environment and Community

[]{.mark}

> The refuge's preferred alternative, the current hunt program, will
> have minimal impact on most refuge visitors. It will provide
> opportunities for members of the community to engage in
> wildlife-dependent and will reduce threats to homes and property from
> damage caused by deer.

4\. Other Past, Present, Proposed, and Reasonably Foreseeable Hunts and
Anticipated Impacts

Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003

> Under this alternative, no hunting for big game or migratory game
> would occur. Hunting would not be proposed in the future. There would
> be no hunting allowed on the refuge and therefore, no cumulative
> effects on other past, present, proposed and reasonable foreseeable
> hunts are expected.

Alternative B -- The Service's Proposed Alternative in 2003

> Cumulative effects on the environment result from incremental effects
> of a proposed action when these are added to other past, present, and
> reasonably foreseeable future actions. While cumulative effects may
> result from individually minor actions, they may, when viewed as a
> whole, become significant over time.
>
> The implementation of any of the proposed actions described in this EA
> includes actions relating to the refuge hunt program. There were no
> previous hunt programs authorized on the refuge. Areas that would be
> open to hunting have been depicted on Maps 3-5 showing species
> available for harvest and weapons permitted for use. As part of the
> hunt plan we determine exactly when hunting will be allowed. The
> maximum amount of time that the refuge will be open for hunting is the
> full state seasons for each type of hunting. It is possible that we
> would be open for a shorter duration, limited hours, or limited days
> of the week. It is not anticipated that this alternative would result
> in significant cumulative effects during the 15 years before the next
> CCP is prepared. No additional hunts are being considered for Great
> Meadows NWR.

Alternative C

> Cumulative effects on the environment result from incremental effects
> of a proposed action when these are added to other past, present, and
> reasonably foreseeable future actions. While cumulative effects may
> result from individually minor actions, they may, when viewed as a
> whole, become significant over time.
>
> The implementation of any of the proposed actions described in this EA
> includes actions relating to the refuge hunt program. There were no
> previous hunt programs authorized on the refuge. Areas that would be
> open to hunting have been depicted on Maps 6-8 showing species
> available for harvest and weapons permitted for use. As part of the
> hunt plan we determine exactly when hunting will be allowed. The
> maximum amount of time that the refuge will be open for hunting is the
> full state seasons for each type of hunting. It is possible that we
> would be open for a shorter duration, limited hours, or limited days
> of the week. It is not anticipated that this alternative would result
> in significant cumulative effects during the 15 years before the next
> CCP is prepared. No additional hunts are being considered for Great
> Meadows NWR.

Alternative D -- *The Current Refuge Hunt Program* (Preferred
Alternative)

> Cumulative effects on the environment result from incremental effects
> of a proposed action when these are added to other past, present, and
> reasonably foreseeable future actions. While cumulative effects may
> result from individually minor actions, they may, when viewed as a
> whole, become significant over time.
>
> The current extent of the refuge includes 3,863 acres. Additional
> changes to the status of hunting on the refuge occurred on Tuesday,
> July 12, 2005, when a Federal Register notice was posted, granting
> permission to open parts of Great Meadows NWR for archery deer hunting
> and waterfowl hunting. Areas that are open to hunting have been
> depicted in Maps 9-11 showing species available for harvest and
> weapons permitted for use. As part of the hunt plan we determine
> exactly when hunting will be allowed. The maximum amount of time that
> the refuge will be open for hunting is the full state seasons for each
> type of hunting. It is possible that we will be open for a shorter
> duration, limited hours, or limited days of the week.
>
> It was determined in the Great Meadows NWR CCP, signed in January
> 2005, that a public migratory bird (waterfowl) and big game
> (white-tailed deer) hunting program, conducted in accordance with
> State regulations and refuge regulations, will not interfere with the
> purpose for which the refuge was established. A determination has been
> made that hunting is compatible with the mission of the Service and
> the purposes of the refuge.
>
> It is not anticipated that this alternative would result in
> significant cumulative effects during the 15 years before the next CCP
> is prepared. No additional hunts are being considered for Great
> Meadows NWR.

Summary Statement -- Other Past, Present, Proposed, and Reasonably
Foreseeable Hunts and Anticipated Impacts

> The *Current Refuge Hunt Program* provides the public with a high
> quality recreational experience and provides the refuge with a
> wildlife management tool to promote the biological integrity of the
> refuge. No additional hunt programs are anticipated during the next 15
> years.

5\. Anticipated Impacts if Individual Hunts are Allowed to Accumulate

> The other sections (1 through 4) of this cumulative impact analysis
> have looked at each type of hunting allowed on refuge lands and have
> discussed the impacts associated with individual hunt programs. In
> this section, potential impacts of accumulated hunts will be
> addressed.

Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003

> Under this alternative, no hunting seasons are proposed at Great
> Meadows NWR. Because this alternative does not allow for any hunting
> on the refuge, there can be no impacts of accumulated hunts.

Alternative B -- The Service's Proposed Alternative in 2003

> Archery deer hunting in accordance with Massachusetts State
> regulations and requirements would be allowed on a portion of the
> refuge south of Sherman's Bridge in the towns of Sudbury, Lincoln,
> Wayland and Framingham. Archery deer hunting would also be opened on
> portions of the refuge north of the Route 225 bridge in the towns of
> Bedford, Billerica, and Carlisle. A total of 2,280 acres would be open
> to archery deer hunting during the State archery and shotgun seasons
> (the refuge would not be opened to firearm deer hunting, but archery
> hunting could take place during the shotgun season).
>
> No hunting for upland game would be allowed.
>
> Waterfowl hunting in accordance with Massachusetts State regulations
> and requirements would be allowed on the portions of the Sudbury River
> south of Sherman's Bridge and from Pantry Brook to Route 117 in the
> towns of Sudbury, Lincoln, Wayland and Framingham. Waterfowl hunting
> would also be opened on refuge portions of the Concord River north of
> the Town of Concord in the towns of Bedford, Billerica and Carlisle.
> Approximately 575 acres of the refuge would be opened to migratory
> bird hunting.
>
> The following table details the hunting seasons that would be open at
> Great Meadows NWR under Alternative B.

+-----------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| **Refuge Hunt**             | **Hunt Season**          | **Hunt     |
|                             |                          | Days**     |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| Big game (archery)          | October 16-November 25   | 36         |
|                             |                          |            |
|                             | November 27-December 9   | 12         |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| Waterfowl -Ducks            | October 7 and 9          | 2          |
|                             |                          |            |
|                             | October 16-November 25   | 36         |
|                             |                          |            |
|                             | December 11-January 6    | 24         |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| Waterfowl - Geese           | September 5--September   | 18         |
|                             | 25                       |            |
|                             |                          | 36         |
|                             | October 16-November 25   |            |
|                             |                          | 24         |
|                             | December 11-January 6    |            |
|                             |                          | 27         |
|                             | January 15-February 14   |            |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------+------------+

> A total of 215 days of hunting would occur under this alternative.
> Because many of the hunt seasons overlap, there are many days during
> the calendar year when no hunting occurs. No hunting occurs in
> Massachusetts on Sundays.

Alternative C -- The Same as Alternative B, but with some additions, as
follows:

> Primitive firearms and shotgun hunting would be allowed in the same
> areas where archery deer hunting was identified.
>
> All refuge waters would be opened to waterfowl hunting, except in the
> Concord Impoundments.
>
> The following table details the hunting seasons that would be open at
> Great Meadows NWR under Alternative C.

+-----------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| **Refuge Hunt**             | **Hunt Season**          | **Hunt     |
|                             |                          | Days**     |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| Big game (archery)          | October 16-November 25   | 36         |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| Big game (shotgun)          | November 27-December 9   | 12         |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| Big game (muzzleloader)     | December 11-December 30  | 18         |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| Waterfowl -Ducks            | October 7 and 9          | 2          |
|                             |                          |            |
|                             | October 16-November 25   | 36         |
|                             |                          |            |
|                             | December 11-January 6    | 24         |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| Waterfowl - Geese           | September 5--September   | 18         |
|                             | 25                       |            |
|                             |                          | 36         |
|                             | October 16-November 25   |            |
|                             |                          | 24         |
|                             | December 11-January 6    |            |
|                             |                          | 27         |
|                             | January 15-February 14   |            |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------+------------+

> A total of 233 days of hunting would occur under this alternative,
> which is an increase of 18 days compared to Alternative B. Because
> many of the hunt seasons overlap, there are many days during the
> calendar year when no hunting occurs. No hunting occurs in
> Massachusetts on Sundays.

Alternative D -- The *Current Refuge Hunt Program* (Preferred
Alternative)

> 2,280 acres are open to archery deer hunting. Areas open for
> white-tailed deer hunting in the Concord Division include all refuge
> lands in Bedford, Billerica and Carlisle. Route 225 serves as the
> southern border of this hunt area, and the Concord River bisects the
> area. No deer hunting is allowed on refuge lands south of Route 225 in
> Bedford or anywhere in Concord. In the Sudbury Division, all refuge
> lands south of Sherman's Bridge in Sudbury and Wayland, with the
> exception of lands south of Stonebridge Road in Wayland, are open for
> hunting.
>
> 334 acres are open for waterfowl hunting in four distinct areas. 86
> acres from Route 225 north to the northern boundary of the "O'Rourke
> Farm" in Carlisle forms the hunt area along the Concord River. No
> waterfowl hunting is allowed on refuge lands south of Route 225 in
> Bedford or anywhere in Concord. In the Sudbury Division, waterfowl
> hunting is allowed on 136 acres south of Sherman's Bridge Road along
> the Sudbury River to just south of the intersection of Water Row Road
> and Plymouth Road. About 38 acres of the Sudbury River and its
> associated wetlands in refuge ownership between Routes 27 and 20 are
> open for waterfowl hunting. 74 acres of wetlands along the southern
> portion of Heard Pond and along the Sudbury River south of Heard Pond
> are open for waterfowl hunting.
>
> The following table shows hunting seasons at Great Meadows NWR under
> Alternative D, along with the dates when these seasons are open.

+------------------------+----------------------+----------+----------+
| **Refuge Hunt**        | **Hunt Season**      | **Hunt   | **Di     |
|                        |                      | Days**   | fference |
|                        |                      |          | from     |
|                        |                      |          | Alt. B** |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------+----------+
| Big game (archery)     | October 16-November  | 66       | 18 days  |
|                        | 25                   |          | added    |
|                        |                      |          |          |
|                        | November 27-December |          |          |
|                        | 9                    |          |          |
|                        |                      |          |          |
|                        | December 11-December |          |          |
|                        | 30                   |          |          |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------+----------+
| Waterfowl - Ducks      | October 7 and 9      | 2        | Hunt     |
|                        |                      |          | area     |
|                        | October 16-November  | 36       | d        |
|                        | 25                   |          | ecreased |
|                        |                      | 24       |          |
|                        | December 11-January  |          |          |
|                        | 6                    |          |          |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------+----------+
| Waterfowl - Geese      | September            | 18       | Hunt     |
|                        | 5--September 25      |          | area     |
|                        |                      | 36       |          |
|                        | October 16-November  |          | d        |
|                        | 25                   | 24       | ecreased |
|                        |                      |          |          |
|                        | December 11-January  | 27       |          |
|                        | 6                    |          |          |
|                        |                      |          |          |
|                        | January 15-February  |          |          |
|                        | 14                   |          |          |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------+----------+

> The total number of days in which hunting occurs under Alternative D
> is 233, which is 18 more than the number in Alternative B, but remains
> the same as Alternative C. The only difference between Alternative B
> and Alternative D is that Alternative D allows archery deer hunting
> during the archery, shotgun, and muzzleloader seasons established by
> the State. Alternative D removes the primitive firearms and shotgun
> hunting that would be allowed in Alternative C. In addition,
> Alternative D minimizes the waterfowl hunting areas proposed in both
> Alternatives B and C.
>
> Because many of the hunt seasons overlap, there are many days during
> the calendar year when no hunting occurs. All refuge hunting occurs
> from mid October until early January. The refuge is open to hunting
> for approximately 5 ½ months of the year, with no hunting on Sundays.
> Because refuge hunting seasons overlap and are spread out in space and
> in time, the effect of accumulating impacts is decreased. For example,
> waterfowl hunting does not occur in the same location as deer hunting.
>
> U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff recognize that all uses of refuge
> lands create some impact to refuge wildlife and their habitats. These
> uses, when taken together, have the potential to create accumulating
> impacts as the number of refuge uses increases. Because of this
> potential, all uses allowed on a national wildlife refuge are limited
> to those uses which have been formally determined to be compatible
> with the purposes for which the refuge was established and with the
> Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. When these formal
> compatibility determinations are reviewed (every ten to fifteen years)
> possible accumulating impacts that may have occurred in succeeding
> years will be considered and will be addressed as necessary.
> Accumulated impacts of the refuge hunts proposed in Alternative D are
> not expected to have significant impacts.

# V. Consultation and Coordination with Others

This EA for establishing a hunt program at the Great Meadows NWR tiers
from the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental
Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) of July 2003 for the Assabet River, Great
Meadows, and Oxbow National Wildlife Refuges and the Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan for Great Meadows NWR.

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 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge
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 the draft as well. The Draft
CCP/EA was distributed for a 45 day public review and comment period
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 as well as a database of individual comments. We utilized the
original comments received, CAT report and comment database to develop a
list of comments that required responses. Editorial suggestions and
notes of concurrence with or opposition to certain proposals were noted
and included in the decision making process, but did not receive formal
responses. Based on results of the public review process, changes were
made to the CCP where appropriate.

The final product of the process resulted in three stand-alone CCPs, one
for each refuge. Implementation of the CCPs occurred after a Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed by the Regional Director on
January 5, 2005.

During the CCP planning effort, Service personnel consulted with a
number of State agencies, with particular focus on MassWildlife. In many
cases, these meetings regarded specific management efforts on refuges or
land protection efforts associated with refuges in the Complex. We
consulted with the following State agencies:

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife\
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management\
Buzzards Bay Project Office\
Massachusetts District Commission\
Massachusetts Natural Heritage Office\
Massport-Hanscom\
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management\
Massachusetts Land Protection Task Force\
Massachusetts GIS representatives\
Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs: Boston Harbor
Watershed Team, Buzzards Bay Watershed Team, Cape and Islands Watershed
Team, Ipswich and Parker Rivers Watershed Team, Merrimack and Shawsheen
Watershed Team, Nashua River Watershed Team, North Coastal Watershed
Team, South Coastal Watershed Team, Taunton River Watershed Team, Ten
Mile River and Narragansett Bay Watershed Team, and the Concord/
Assabet/ Sudbury Rivers Watershed Team

Additionally, refuge staff and Service biologists met with other
partners gathering information and providing briefings and updates on
our CCP and land protection efforts. Many of these groups work toward
protecting land and natural resources in the vicinity of the Complex.
These groups include:

Sudbury Valley Trustees, Nashua River Watershed Association,
Organization for the Assabet River, The Nature Conservancy-
Massachusetts Chapter, The Trust for Public Land, Massachusetts Audubon
Society, Merrimack River Watershed Council, Massachusetts Watershed
Coalition, Harvard Conservation Foundation, Conservation Commissions:
Town of Concord, Town of Billerica, Town of Bedford, Town of Carlisle.

During the preparation of the current Environmental Assessment, refuge
staff contacted biologists from the MassWildlife to obtain up-to-date
species population estimates and hunter take information. Experts within
the Service were also contacted to obtain migratory bird population
estimates and hunter take information.

This EA will be made available for public review and comment prior to
the making of any final decisions regarding the refuge hunt program.

This amended Environmental Assessment will be available for public
review at the refuge headquarters, 73 Weir Hill Road, Sudbury,
Massachusetts for 30 days. It will also be posted on the refuge website
and notices will be posted at refuge kiosks and the refuge headquarters.
The availability of this document will also be mentioned in talks to
local interest groups such as refuge neighbors and Friends groups.

# VI. Regulatory Compliance

**Comprehensive Conservation Plan**

A draft CCP/EA which identified and evaluated three alternatives for a
public hunt program at Great Meadows NWR was distributed for public
review and comment in July 2003. The Final CCP for Great Meadows NWR was
issued in January 2005, when the Regional Director determined that the
implementation of modified Alternative B (presented in this EA as
Alternative D), would not have a significant impact on the quality of
the human environment in accordance with section 102 (2) (c) of the
National Environmental Policy Act. It was determined that an
Environmental Impact Statement was not required and a Finding of No
Significant Impact was signed on January 5, 2005.

**Hunt Plan**

Refuge staff prepared a Hunt Plan in January 2005.

**Federal Rule Making**

Before hunting was allowed on the refuge, the Code of Federal
Regulations was amended to authorize the hunting of migratory game birds
and big game (white tailed deer) on Great Meadows NWR. A public comment
period for the Proposed Rule was announced in the Federal Register July
12, 2005. The Final Rule was published in the Federal Register on
September 13, 2005.

**Compatibility Determination**

A compatibility determination was written and approved on December 21,
2004 for white-tailed deer and waterfowl hunting on Great Meadows NWR.
Hunting (with some restrictions) was found to be compatible with both
the mission of the System and the purposes for which the refuges were
established. The compatibility determination was published in the final
CCP for Great Meadows NWR.

**National Environmental Policy Act Documentation**

This Environmental Assessment meets the NEPA requirements.

**Endangered Species Act Section 7 Evaluation**

A Section 7 Biological Evaluation for the proposed hunt program at Great
Meadows NWR was completed in December of 2004.

**Coordination with the State of Massachusetts**

We consulted with MassWildlife in the development of the hunt program at
Great Meadows NWR. Official comments from the State were received on
December 24, 2004.

**Outreach Plan**

An outreach plan was written and implemented. Information about the
proposed opening of the refuge to waterfowl and archery deer hunting was
made available to media, Federal, State and local officials, refuge
visitors, adjacent landowners, and sportsmen's groups via the internet,
traditional press, kiosk postings, meetings, and one-on-one
conversations.

**News Release**

A news release announcing the proposed hunting regulations at Great
Meadows NWR was released on July 18, 2005. The news release was sent to
28 newspapers throughout eastern Massachusetts.

This amended Environmental Assessment will be available for public
review at the refuge headquarters, 73 Weir Hill Road, Sudbury,
Massachusetts for 30 days. It will also be posted on the refuge website
and notices will be posted at refuge kiosks and the refuge headquarters.
The availability of this document will also be mentioned in talks to
local interest groups such as refuge neighbors and Friends groups.

# VII. Literature Cited

Alverson, W.W., D.M. Waller and S.L. Solheim. 1988. Forests to deer:
edge effects in Northern Wisconsin. *Conservation Biology* 2:348-358.

Appalachian cooperative Grouse Research Project. 2004. *Ruffed grouse
Ecology and Management in the Appalachian region*.

Behrend, D.F., G.F. Mattfield, W.C. Tierson and J.E. Wiley III. 1970.
Deer density control for comprehensive forest management. *Journal of
Forestry* 68: 695-700.

DeCalesta, D.S. 1994. Effects of white-tailed deer on songbirds within
managed forests in Pennsylvania. *Journal of Wildlife Management*58:
711-718.

Donahue, Brian. 2004. The Great Meadow: Farmers and the Land in Colonial
Concord. Yale University Press. 311 pp.

Gupta, Carol. 2004. Concord's Great Meadows: A Human History. Trafford
Publishing. HayMeadows Press, P.O. Box 485, Concord, MA 01742. 93 pp.

Kelley, James R. and Rebecca D. Rau. 2006. *American Woodcock Population
Status, 2006*. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland. 15 pp.

Kilpatrick et al. 2002. A shotgun-archery deer hunt in a residential
community: evaluation of hunt strategies and effectiveness. *Wildlife
Society Bulletin* 30: 478-486.

Kilpatrick, H.J. and W.D.Walter 1999. A controlled archery deer hunt in
a residential community: cost, effectiveness and deer recovery rates.
*Wildlife Society Bulletin* 27: 115-123.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Waste
Prevention, Division of Planning and Evaluation, Air Assessment Branch.
*Commonwealth of Massachusetts 2005 Air Quality Report*. June 2006. 41
pp.

McAuley, D.G., Longcore, J.R., Clugston, D.A., Allen, R.B., Weik,
A.,Williamson, S., Dunn, J., Palmer, B., Evans, K., Staats, W., Sepik,
G. and W. Halteman. 2005. Effects of hunting on survival of American
woodcock in the Northeast. *Journal of Wildlife Management* 69(4):
1565-1577.

McShea, W.J. and J.H. Rappole 1992. White-tailed deer as keystone
species within forested habitats of Virginia. *Virginia Journal of
Science* 43:177-186.

Owen, R.B., Jr., J.M. Anderson, J.W. Artmann, E.R. Clark, T.G. Dilworth,
L.E. Gregg, F.W. Martin, J.D. Newsom, and S.R. Pursglove, Jr. 1977.
American woodcock. Pages 149-186 in G.C. Sanderson, editor. *Management
of Migratory Shore and Upland Game Birds in North America*.
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Washington,
D.C.

Ritchie, Duncan. 1985. Archaeological Investigations of a Maintenance
Building Site, Weir Hill Tract, Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge,
Sudbury, Massachusetts. Prepared by Public Archaeology Laboratory,
Providence, Rhode Island for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, One Gate
Center, Suite 700, Newton Corner, MA.

Serie, Jerry and Bob Raftovich. 2005. *Atlantic Flyway Waterfowl Harvest
and Population Survey Data*. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel,
Maryland. 87 pp.

Tilghman, N.G. 1989. Impacts of white-tailed deer on forest regeneration
in Northwestern Pennsylvania. *Journal of Wildlife Management* 53:
524-532.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. *Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan and Environmental Assessment: Assabet River, Great Meadows and
Oxbow National Wildlife Refuges*. Northeast Regional Office, Hadley, MA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005a. *Final Comprehensive Conservation
Plan, Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge*. Northeast Regional
Office, Hadley, MA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005b. *Hunt Plan for Great Meadows
National Wildlife Refuge.* Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife
Refuge Complex, Sudbury, MA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. *Migratory bird hunting activity
and harvest during the 2004 and 2005 hunting seasons: Preliminary
estimates*. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. U.S.A.

Warren, R.J. 1998. *Deer Population Management Through Hunting and
Alternative Means of Control*.
Http://www.arec.umd.edu/policy/Deer-Management-in- Maryland/Warren.html.

# Appendix A. Hunt Maps 

Map 1: Alternative A - Current Management in 2003, Sudbury Unit

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="5.999305555555556in" height="8.55625in"}

Map 2: Alternative A - Current Management in 2003, Concord Unit

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="5.993055555555555in"
height="8.549305555555556in"}

Map 3: Alternative B - The Service's Proposed Alternative in 2003,
Sudbury Unit

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="5.996527777777778in"
height="8.559027777777779in"}

Map 4: Alternative B -- The Service's Proposed Alternative in 2003,
Sudbury Unit Detail

![](media/image4.jpeg){width="5.999305555555556in"
height="8.513194444444444in"}

Map 5: Alternative B -- The Service's Proposed Alternative in 2003,
Concord Unit

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="5.995138888888889in"
height="8.504166666666666in"}

Map 6: Alternative C Sudbury Unit

![](media/image6.jpeg){width="5.999305555555556in"
height="8.611805555555556in"}

Map 7: Alternative C Sudbury Unit Detail

![](media/image7.jpeg){width="5.995138888888889in"
height="8.424305555555556in"}

Map 8: Alternative C Concord Unit

![](media/image8.jpeg){width="5.997916666666667in"
height="8.527083333333334in"}

Map 9: Alternative D -- The Current Refuge Hunt Program, Sudbury Unit

![](media/image9.jpeg){width="5.995138888888889in"
height="8.48263888888889in"}

Map 10: Alternative D -- The Current Refuge Hunt Program, Sudbury Unit
Detail

![](media/image10.jpeg){width="5.998611111111111in"
height="8.504166666666666in"}

Map 11: Alternative D -- The Current Refuge Hunt Program, Concord Unit

![](media/image11.jpeg){width="5.996527777777778in" height="8.5375in"}