**Draft**

**Environmental Assessment**

**Oxbow 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 [6](#__RefHeading___Toc161727114)

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

VI\. Regulatory Compliance [53](#vi.-regulatory-compliance)

VII\. Literature Cited [55](#vii.-literature-cited)

Appendix A. Hunt Maps [58](#appendix-a.-hunt-maps)

#  {#section .unnumbered}

# 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
(EA) 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. Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is one of the 30 refuges
which established a hunting 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 hunting
programs at Oxbow NWR.

Oxbow NWR (Map 1, Appendix A) was established in 1974 under the
authority of an Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real Property
for Wildlife, or other Purposes (16 U.S.C. §667b). The purpose of the
refuge is its particular value in carrying out the national migratory
bird management program (16 U.S.C. §667b-d, as amended).

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

Expansion of the hunt program at Oxbow 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 Oxbow
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 the 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. Please note that there were some inaccuracies in
the description of the existing refuge hunt program in the draft CCP and
the map for Alternative C contained an error. Additionally, the map of
the hunt program in the final CCP also contained an error. The
description and maps provided in this EA are accurate. All maps are
located at the end of this EA in Appendix A.

Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003 (See Map 2)

-   Under this alternative, the refuge would remain closed to big game
    and waterfowl hunting.

-   Shotgun hunting of upland game birds (ruffed grouse), turkey (spring
    season only), small game (Eastern cottontail rabbit, gray squirrel)
    and migratory bird (American woodcock and common snipe) would remain
    open on the portions of the refuge south of Route 2 and west of the
    B&M rail line.

Alternative B -- The Service's Proposed Alternative in 2003 (See Map 3)

-   White-tailed deer hunting would be allowed.

> Archery, shotgun, and primitive firearm white-tailed deer hunting
> opportunities would be provided on portions of the refuge in
> accordance with Massachusetts State regulations and requirements.
> These areas are south of Route 2 and west of the B&M railroad tracks
> and along the westerly side of the Nashua River located north of the
> commuter rail tracks in Shirley.
>
> Archery deer hunting is allowed within portions of the refuge located
> south of Route 2 and east of the B&M railroad tracks, from Route 2
> north to Hospital Road, and along the easterly side of the Nashua
> River located north of the commuter rail tracks in Shirley.
>
> No deer hunting would occur between Hospital Road and West Main Street
> or from West Main Street north to the commuter rail tracks.

-   Shotgun hunting of upland game (ruffed grouse, Eastern cottontail
    rabbit and gray squirrel) would be expanded on the refuge north of
    Route 2 to Hospital Road and the area north of Shirley Road and west
    of the Nashua River

-   Turkey hunting would not be expanded.

-   Woodcock hunting opportunities would be expanded to the portions of
    the refuge north of Route 2 to Hospital Road and the area north of
    Shirley Road and west of the Nashua River.

-   Waterfowl hunting would be allowed on the Nashua River south of
    Route 2.

-   Shotgun hunting of upland game birds (ruffed grouse), turkey (spring
    season only), small game (Eastern cottontail rabbit, gray squirrel)
    and migratory bird (American woodcock and common snipe) would remain
    open on the portions of the refuge south of Route 2 and west of the
    B&M rail line.

Alternative C (See Map 4)

-   Archery, shotgun, and primitive firearm white-tailed deer hunting
    opportunities would be provided on portions of the refuge in
    accordance with Massachusetts State regulations and requirements.
    These areas are south of Route 2 and west of the B&M railroad
    tracks. Archery deer hunting would be allowed north of Route 2 to
    Hospital Road.

-   Upland game (ruffed grouse, Eastern cottontail rabbit and gray
    squirrel) hunting would be expanded north of Route 2 to Hospital
    Road.

-   No hunting would be allowed on the portions of the refuge north of
    Hospital Road.

-   Turkey hunting would not be expanded.

-   Woodcock hunting would be expanded to the portions of the refuge
    north of Route 2 to Hospital Road.

-   Waterfowl hunting would not be allowed.

-   Shotgun hunting of upland game birds (ruffed grouse), turkey (spring
    season only), small game (Eastern cottontail rabbit, gray squirrel)
    and migratory bird (American woodcock and common snipe) would remain
    open on the portions of the refuge south of Route 2 and west of the
    B&M rail line.

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 Oxbow 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 Map 5)

-   The refuge is open for white-tailed deer hunting.

> Shotgun, archery and primitive firearms hunting for white-tailed deer
> is allowed within portions of the refuge located south of Route 2 and
> west of the B&M railroad tracks and along the westerly side of the
> Nashua River located north of the commuter rail tracks in Shirley.
>
> Archery deer hunting is allowed within portions of the refuge located
> south of Route 2 and east of the B&M railroad tracks, from Route 2
> north to Hospital Road, and along the easterly side of the Nashua
> River located north of the commuter rail tracks in Shirley.
>
> No deer hunting would occur between Hospital Road and West Main Street
> or from West Main Street north to the commuter rail tracks.

-   Upland game (ruffed grouse, Eastern cottontail rabbit, and gray
    squirrel) hunting opportunities have been expanded. In addition to
    areas south of Route 2 and west of the B&M railroad tracks, hunting
    is now allowed north of Route 2 and south of Hospital Road and along
    the westerly side of the Nashua River located north of the commuter
    rail tracks in Shirley.

-   Turkey hunting opportunities have been expanded beyond the area
    south of Route 2 and west of the B&M railroad tracks.

> Firearm and archery turkey hunting is now allowed north of Route 2 and
> south of Hospital Road and along the westerly side of the Nashua River
> located north of the commuter rail tracks in Shirley.
>
> Archery only turkey hunting is allowed south of Route 2 and east of
> the B&M railroad tracks, as well as along the easterly side of the
> Nashua River located north of the commuter rail tracks in Shirley.

-   Woodcock hunting opportunities have been expanded beyond the area
    south of Route 2 and west of the B&M railroad tracks. Woodcock
    hunting is now also allowed in areas north of Route 2 and south of
    Hospital Road and portions of the refuge along the westerly side of
    the Nashua River located north of the commuter rail tracks in
    Shirley.

-   The refuge is open for waterfowl hunting. Waterfowl hunting is
    allowed along the Nashua River and associated wetlands south of
    Route 2.

-   No hunting is allowed between Hospital Road and West Main Street.

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.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc161727114 .anchor}**III. Affected Environment**

A. Physical Resources

1\. Location

Oxbow NWR is in the towns of Ayer and Shirley in Middlesex County and
the towns of Harvard and Lancaster in Worcester County, approximately 35
miles northwest of Boston. The 1,667-acre Oxbow NWR is primarily a
riparian community located along nearly 8 miles of the Nashua River.
Habitats include floodplain forests, scrub-shrub swamps and other
wetlands, oxbow ponds, and upland.

The refuge is long and narrow with a north-south orientation. Roadways
running east-west divide the Refuge into three sections. The northern
end ("North Post") of the refuge abuts the former Fort Devens, Moore
Army Airfield just south of Massachusetts Route 2A. Shirley Road/West
Main Street in Ayer separates the northern and middle portions of the
refuge ("Main Post"). The refuge's southern boundary is at Still River
Depot Road in Harvard.

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." Oxbow 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 Nashua River flows through the refuge and is a major tributary 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 lying
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. Oxbow 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 in Flight (PIF), identifies
conservation priorities within specific physiographic areas. Oxbow 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

Oxbow NWR and the surrounding area has a glaciated topography that has
produced landform characteristics of ice sheet impacts such as drumlins,
kames, kame terraces, outwash plains, kettle-holes, glacial lake beds
and eskers. Underlying the glacial deposits is metamorphic sedimentary
and granitic bedrock. The unconsolidated glacial deposits cover most of
the bedrock, leaving little bedrock outcropping on the refuge.
Elevations range from 200 to 330 feet.

The soils of Oxbow NWR are comprised of three generalized types. Nashua
River floodplain soils are predominately the poorly drained
Winooski-Limerick-Saco map unit. To the east of the Nashua River
floodplain, where the majority of the Refuge lies, the soils are the
excessively drained outwash plain Hinckley-Merrimac-Windsor map unit.
West of the Nashua River floodplain, adjacent to the Refuge, are the
well-to-moderately drained upland soils of the Paxton-Woodbridge-Canton
map unit.

3\. Hydrology

The hydrology of Oxbow NWR is essentially that of the Nashua River. The
Nashua River flows north, drains approximately 538 square miles, and is
a major tributary of the Merrimack River system. The main stem of the
Nashua River flowing through the refuge is formed by two branches: the
north Nashua River, which originates west of Fitchburg and the south
branch, which flows out of the Wachusett Reservoir. These two branches
join in Lancaster to the south of the Refuge. Much of this section of
the Nashua River is characterized by low gradient, slow moving water
with numerous backwaters and wetlands. Primary tributaries of the Nashua
River within its course through the Refuge include New Cranberry Pond
Brook, Slate Rock Pond outlet, Phoenix Pond outlet (Catacoonamug Brook),
Trout Brook, Willow Brook (a tributary of Nonacoicus Brook), Nonacoicus
Brook, Morse Brook, Walker Brook, and Mulpus Brook.

Numerous small freshwater ponds, vernal pools and wetlands are
associated with this stretch of the Nashua River. Glaciers formed many
small ponds along the river's course; oxbow wetlands were formed as
portions of the river have become silted, and the river's course
changed, leaving these cut-off oxbows. Between the northern-most section
of the refuge and the middle section, the privately owned Ice House Dam
is located just below Shirley Road on the river. This dam has some
impounding influence on the river, at least as far upstream as Route 2,
and perhaps further upstream toward the southern part of the Refuge.

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

The refuge is primarily a riparian community consisting of forested
wetlands, shrub swamps and oxbow ponds. The Nashua River flows through a
broad, low gradient floodplain with extensive wetlands. The floodplain
extends up to 1,650 feet in width. Hardwood forests occur along the
slopes of the floodplain valley.

The University of Massachusetts surveyed both wetland and upland plant
communities along the Nashua River on the refuge north of Route 2. The
study describes and evaluates upland forest and wetland plant
communities within these areas of the refuge. The upland communities
included two rich mesic forests, an oak-hardwood forest, and a white
pine-hardwood forest. The wetland plant communities examined were
classified as red maple swamp, southern New England floodplain, acidic
seepage, and two types of oxbow pond communities (Searcy et al. 1993).

In 1994, the portion of the U.S. Army's South Post that is adjacent to
the Nashua River was more intensely surveyed. This area is directly west
of Oxbow NWR. Although it is not the refuge, many of the characteristics
and features of the west side of the river also apply to the east side
of the river. This includes the identification of this area as a
southern New England floodplain forest, a high priority habitat for
protection within the State of Massachusetts. The floodplain area of
this stretch of the Nashua River is flatter, wetter, and generally
supports a larger more continuous area of forested wetlands (Searcy et
al. 1994).

In 1995, the vegetation of the oxbow ponds and sloughs along the western
floodplain of the Nashua River south of Route 2, were inventoried and
classified as a result of a contract between the Fort Devens military
reservation and the University of Massachusetts (Hickler 1995). While
the majority of the oxbows lie west of the Nashua River, there are
oxbows on the eastern floodplain that are on the southern half of the
refuge. The characteristics and floristic inventories of the western
oxbows can be extrapolated to the oxbows that lie east of the river,
with caution. Oxbow ponds are formed when a river cuts through the neck
of a meander, leaving behind a section of river channel that forms a
pond with a characteristic oxbow shape. One of the unique
characteristics of these oxbow communities is the almost complete
turnover of species composition between vegetation zones within one or
two meters of each other. The oxbow communities have a higher variety of
plant species than the adjacent upland, but more than half of those
species are limited to only one or two oxbow ponds. Therefore, each pond
individually contributes unique plant species to the overall biological
diversity of the oxbow pond system. The oxbow communities were
classified as four major vegetation types: common buttonbush
*(Cephalanthis occidentalis)* swamp, wet meadow, deep marsh, and
open-water aquatic.

Ten of the 15 ponds studied were buttonbush swamps with a well-developed
border of common buttonbush and a few associated forb species and tree
seedlings. Seven of the 15 ponds supported wet meadow communities. The
wet meadow communities have many grass and forb plant species that vary
widely between ponds and within meadows on a single pond. The most
frequently occurring species in the wet meadow are: cutgrass (*Leerzia
oryzoides*), swampcandle *(Lysimachea terrestris*), common arrowhead
(*Sagittaria latifolia*), false nettle (*Boehmeria cylindrica*), and
needle rush (*Eleocharis acicularis*). Deep marsh communities occur
either as a band between meadow communities and open water, or covering
large areas on shallow ponds. Deep marsh is characterized by emergent
species along with floating leaved and submersed species. Pickerelweed
(*Pontederia cordata*) is the most characteristic species, forming dense
floating mats over large expanses on many of the ponds.

Within the open-water aquatic community, there are three aquatic cover
types that are delineated by water depth. Shallow water areas are
characterized by a dense cover of coontail (*Ceratophyllum demersum*),
followed by a zone lacking emergent species with an amount of watermeal
(*Wolffia spp*.), and a second variety of coontail (*Ceratophyllum
echinatum*). The deepest aquatic cover type is distinguished by a high
frequency of pondweed (*Potemogeton pusillus*) and yellow water lily
(*Nuphar variegatum*) (Hickler 1995).

Oxbow NWR supports several rare plants and "Exemplary Natural
Communities." The rare plants on the refuge are cattail sedge (*Carex
typhina*), climbing fern (*Lygopodium palmatum*), New England blazing
star (*Liatris borealis*), ovate spike-sedge (*Eleocharis obtuse* *var
ovata*), Philadelphia panic grass (*Panicum philadelphicum*), small
bur-reed (*Sparganium natans*), and wild senna (*Senna hebecarpa*). The
Rare/Exemplary Natural Communities on the refuge are: alluvial red maple
swamp, riverside seep, small-river floodplain forest, and certified
vernal pools.

Common reed (*Phragmites australis*) has invaded a portion of wetlands
within the refuge. Purple loosestrife (*Lythrum salicaria*), spotted
knapweed (*Centaurea maculosa*), glossy buckthorn (*Rhamnus
cathartica*), oriental bittersweet (*Celastrus orbiculatus*) and autumn
olive (*Elaeagnus angustifolia*) are other invasive species known to
occur on the refuge.

2\. Wildlife

Oxbow NWR provides habitat for a rich diversity of wildlife. Over 93
species of birds, 418 species of moths, butterflies and dragonflies, 26
species of mammals and 32 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.

The wetlands and open water bodies of the refuge provide important
migration, feeding and nesting habitat for waterfowl species including
American black duck (*Anas rubripes*), wood duck (*Aix sponsa*), mallard
(*Anas platyrhynchos*) and green-winged teal (*Anas crecca*). These
ducks nest on the refuge in upland habitat surrounding the wetlands that
provide brood raising habitat.

Many songbird species nest, feed, and rest on the refuge. They include,
gray catbird (*Dumetella carolinensis*), yellow warbler (*Dendroica
petechia*), common yellowthroat (*Geothlypis trichas*), Baltimore oriole
(*Icterus galbula*), eastern kingbird (*Tyrannus tyrannus*),
rose-breasted grosbeak (*Pheucticus ludovicianus*)*,* veery (*Catharus
fuscescens*), wood thrush (*Hylocichla mustelina*), scarlet tanager
(*Piranga olivacea*), ovenbird (*Seiurus aurocapillus*), great crested
flycatcher (*Myiarchus crinitus*), American redstart (*Setophaga
ruticilla*), and red-eyed vireo (*Vireo olivaceus*). A number of bird
species nesting on or migrating through the refuge are neotropical
migrants.

Marsh birds and wading birds are also commonly documented in the wetland
habitats on the refuge. The most common are great blue heron (*Ardea
herodias*), green heron (*Butorides virescens*) and Virginia rail
(*Rallus limicola*).

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 including: Virginia opossum (*Didelphis virginiana*),
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*).

While comprehensive inventories of most 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*), American toad (*Bufo americanus*) and Fowler's toad (*Bufo
fowleri*). Reptile species found on the refuge include snapping turtle
(*Chelydra serpentine*), painted turtle (*Chrysemys picta*) and
state-listed Blanding's turtle (*Emys blandingii*) and spotted turtle
(*Clemmys guttata*).

Two state-listed mussel species, the creeper (*Strophitus undulates*)
and the triangle floater (*Alasmindonta undulata*) and three dragonfly
species, the zebra clubtail (*Stylurus scudderi*), arrow clubtail
(*Stylurus spiniceps*) and the ringed boghaunter (*Williamsonia
lintneri*) have also been confirmed on the refuge.

Vernal pools are a priority habitat type within the State of
Massachusetts. Many vernal pools have been identified on Oxbow NWR,
associated with the river floodplain and the adjacent forested wetlands.
Vernal pools are temporary freshwater depressions that hold spring rains
and snow-melt waters, and then typically dry out during late summer.
Vernal pools are critical breeding habitat for amphibian and
invertebrate species due to the lack of predatory fish. The vernal pools
of Oxbow NWR are confirmed breeding habitat for the state watch-listed
spotted salamander (*Ambystoma maculatum*) and blue-spotted salamander
(*Ambystoma laterale*) which is a state species of special concern.

Detailed species lists are available in the Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan for Oxbow NWR, which can be viewed on line at
<http://www.fws.gov/northeast/planning>.

Refuge staff members are currently developing a habitat management plan
for Oxbow 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
Oxbow NWR.**

+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| **Highest Priority Habitat   | **Selected Associated Focal Species** |
| Types**                      |                                       |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| ## Rivers                    | nesting songbirds (eastern kingbird), |
| , Streams and Riparian Areas | migrating landbirds and waterfowl,    |
|                              | alewife, freshwater mussels           |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Freshwater Wetlands Complex  | breeding marsh birds, migrating       |
| (Emergent Marsh, Scrub       | songbirds and waterfowl, resident     |
| Shrub, Forested Wetland and  | turtles, rare plants                  |
| Freshwater Pond)             |                                       |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Vernal Pools                 | blue-spotted salamander               |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Open Field Mosaic            | nesting songbirds (bobolink, eastern  |
|                              | meadowlark), American woodcock,       |
|                              | Blanding's turtle                     |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
|                              |                                       |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| **Moderate Priority Habitat  | **Selected Associated Focal Species** |
| Types**                      |                                       |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Oak-Pine Forest              | nesting songbirds (scarlet tanager,   |
|                              | Baltimore oriole, black-and-white     |
|                              | warbler, rose-breasted grosbeak, wood |
|                              | thrush)                               |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+

C. Socio-economic/Cultural Resources

1\. Socioeconomic Resources

Oxbow NWR is located in both Middlesex and Worcester Counties. The four
towns in which the refuge is located (Ayer, Shirley, Harvard and
Lancaster) have a long, rich history and strive to maintain their small
town, community atmosphere. Ayer is the most densely populated town.
Predominant land uses within one mile east and northeast of the refuge
in Ayer include high and medium density residential, downtown business
and commerce, and light industrial areas. The land use profile of the
remaining area is typical of an ex-urban, semi-rural area with a large
supply of forest and agricultural land and low density housing (U.S.
Army 1995).

Protection of natural resources is of fairly strong interest to most
towns and residents. Providing affordable housing, managing residential
and industrial growth, and preserving natural resources are fairly
common themes. Maintaining or improvement the economic base of the area
is also important. With the closure and realignment of Fort Devens,
about 4,000 acres of land was sold to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
This land is being redeveloped as the Devens Regional Enterprise Zone by
the Massachusetts Development Finance Agency. Corporate headquarters,
warehouses and other facilities have been constructed; additional
construction is underway or planned.

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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife 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.

Oxbow NWR is located within the southern Merrimack River Basin. The
first Native American occupation in this area occurred during the
Paleoindian period (12500-9000 Before Present (B.P.)). During the warmer
and drier climate of the Early Archaic (9000 -- 7500 B.P.) it appears
that a complex multi-site settlement system had been established. Ten
sites from the Early Archaic have been identified in this area. By the
Middle Archaic period (7500-5000 B.P.), seasonal settlements were firmly
established (Glover 1993). However, the site density of these
settlements was less than what was seen in the Concord and Assabet river
drainages. Intensive hunting and fishing occurred all over the region
during the Late Archaic (5000-3500 B.P.). The majority of the sites in
the refuge area appear to represent single and multi-component campsites
which were used for seasonal resource procurement activities. A decline
in the regional archaeological record appears during the Transitional
Archaic period (3600 -- 2500 B.P.) and the Early Woodland period (3000
-- 1600 B.P.) It isn't until the Late Woodland Period (1000 -- 450 B.P.)
that populations appear to be moderate around the refuge.

By the Contact Period (450 -- 300 B.P.), the Nipmuck Nation was
established in the refuge region. Their settlement consisted of
semi-permanent villages focused on river drainages and tributary
systems. The area around Harvard contained permanent camps along the
river. Prior to European settlement in the first half of the seventeenth
century, the Fort Devens section of the Nashua River Valley was
primarily inhabited by a local subgroup of Nipmuck known as the
Nashaway. Subsistence systems most likely remained oriented towards
hunting and gathering of seasonally available food resources (MHC 1985).

Although the gently rolling uphill terrain of the Nashua River drainage
would have allowed a favorable range of movement, as well as an
abundance and diversity of food resources, no prehistoric occupations
from this period are documented in the area (MHC 1985). No primary or
secondary Contact Period trails pass directly within the area
encompassed by Fort Devens. Nevertheless, the refuge has the potential
to yield archaeological sites that will contribute to our understanding
of prehistoric settlement in this region. The refuge is considered
moderately to highly sensitive for archaeological resources in areas not
impacted by military ordnance.

During the Early Historic Period, the refuge area was inhabited by a few
European families engaged in farming activities. The region was heavily
affected by King Philip's War in 1675, and the people retreated to
Concord. By the end of the 17^th^ century, though, English repopulation
had begun in the refuge area (Glover 1993).

Economic activities in the area consisted primarily of farming,
supplemented by lumbering and milling. Shaker Villages in both Harvard
and Shirley were strong influences on land use. In Ayer, an influx of
Irish immigrants in the years following 1845 resulted in the development
of stores, churches, and schools (Glover 1993). During the late 1800's,
Ayer's economy and growth was tied to the regional railroads.

When the United States declared war against Germany in 1917, Camp Devens
was established as one of the earliest of a total of three new Army
cantonments nationwide. The camp consisted of two adjoining parcels of
land, known today as the Main and North Posts. After the war, Camp
Devens went through several changes, becoming known as Fort Devens in
1931. It always remained in military ownership, but at times, it was
deactivated and placed in caretaker status. In 1974, a slight reduction
in the size of the South Post occurred, and Oxbow NWR was established
with the transfer of 662 acres to the Service. The Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 and the subsequent decisions by the BRAC-1991
Commission and Congress required the closure and realignment of Fort
Devens.

There are no known archeological or historical sites at Oxbow 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 community 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 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 additional impacts from
> hunting 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, such as the parking areas off Still
> River Depot Road and Lake George Street in Harvard, Walker Road in
> Shirley and McPherson Road in Ayer. 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 areas that are planned to be converted to permanent
> parking areas in the future.
>
> To provide accessible hunt opportunities, mobility impaired hunters
> may be allowed to drive on the Tank Trail or other refuge roads. This
> would be a very minor increase in vehicle traffic. Refuge roads would
> be traveled more frequently during hunting seasons by refuge law
> enforcement officers. This will slightly increase wear on the roads
> beyond what would have occurred as a result of normal refuge
> operations.
>
> 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

> Under each alternative, 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. 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 Oxbow 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 Oxbow NWR is located is
> estimated to be 12 animals per square mile. Since 1997, MassWildlife
> has implemented a longer archery deer season for deer and increased
> the harvest of antlerless deer in an effort to retain the twelve 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 would
> become acute, causing diseases and high mortality.
>
> There would be no impact to waterfowl populations or habitat under
> this alternative, and no additional mortality to upland and small
> game. No biological impacts have been noted due to the limited hunting
> for upland game, turkey, woodcock and snipe that has occurred at Oxbow
> NWR since it was opened to hunting in 1976.

b\. Socioeconomic Impacts

> Under this alternative, Oxbow NWR would remain closed to deer hunting
> and waterfowl hunting but would remain open to upland and small game
> hunting. Opportunities to harvest upland game and turkey in additional
> parts of the refuge would be denied. The only socioeconomic impacts
> would be that potential opportunities for a modest increase in license
> sales, and food and lodging receipts attributable to opening the
> refuge to deer hunting and waterfowl hunting, would not be realized.
>
> 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 increasing the likelihood that habitat quality for
> songbirds and other wildlife dependent on understory vegetation will
> be impacted in the future. 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 could be increased cost to private landowners
> as a result of
>
> deer-motor vehicle collisions and horticultural damage. A larger deer
> population will raise the deer tick population and the associated
> transmittal of Lyme disease.
>
> Citizens wishing to engage in waterfowl or deer hunting 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. Deer browsing would not reach levels that damage understory
> habitat diversity. Habitat used by ground-nesting and near
> ground-nesting forest birds will be perpetuated. Human conflicts with
> deer would also be avoided because the deer herd would not
> overpopulate the refuge.
>
> 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. Resident wildlife
> populations will not experience significant effects as individuals are
> free to move on and off refuge property.
>
> 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. Hunting dogs may cause disturbance if they are
> not kept under control.
>
> There would be an increase in the take of American woodcock, ruffed
> grouse, gray squirrel and Eastern cottontail rabbit if this
> alternative were implemented. The increase mortality is not expected
> to be significant or have long-term effects on the populations due to
> the small amount of additional acreage that would be opened.
>
> Hunting would occur outside the breeding period of most species,
> thereby avoiding any potential disturbance. No adverse effects on
> migratory birds, fish, and endangered species as a result of expanding
> the hunt program at Oxbow NWR. Wildlife species for which hunting
> would be permitted on the refuge are those that are already regulated
> at the State or Federal level.

b\. Socioeconomic Impacts

> Expanding the hunt program at Oxbow NWR would provide a modest
> contribution in 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 either
> be negligible or there would 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.
>
> Waterfowl hunting would create noise that may disturb some visitors or
> refuge neighbors. It is unlikely that this will be a problem at Oxbow
> NWR, since the land across the Nashua River is the Devens Reserve
> Training Area and firearm practice occurs almost daily there. Firearm
> sounds are common on the refuge.
>
> Other actions proposed in the CCP for Oxbow NWR would increase
> opportunities for wildlife observation, photography, environmental
> education, hiking and other public uses. This, in combination with
> hunting, may generate conflict among public uses as some potential
> refuge visitors may be displaced by the hunt program. Some visitors
> may be reluctant to visit the refuge in areas that are open to archery
> or firearm deer hunting. Anglers and boaters on Nashua River 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Of the three northern refuges within the Eastern Massachusetts NWR
> Complex, there is more understanding and support for hunting at Oxbow
> NWR than at Assabet River NWR or Great Meadows NWR.
>
> 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 compromised.

c\. Summary of Effects for Alternative B

> We anticipate that a low to moderate increase in hunting pressure will
> occur as a result of the expansion of the hunt program at Oxbow NWR.
> Hunting would not affect the refuge goal to maintain, restore, and
> enhance habitat to support a diversity of plants and animals. Hunting
> may encourage natural diversity by limiting the growth of the deer
> population on the refuge, thereby protecting preferred forage species
> from over-browsing.
>
> 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 Oxbow NWR or expanding the woodcock, turkey,
> and upland game programs. 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 alter the times or days they visit the
> refuge or would avoid the refuge during the hunt season.
>
> As new hunters are attracted to the refuge, opportunities to
> communicate with the hunting public would increase, thereby fostering
> greater understanding and support of Oxbow 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.
>
> Economic impacts would either be negligible or there would 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.

3\. Alternative C

a\. Biological Impacts

> Biological impacts related to hunting under Alternative C would be
> less than those described for Alternative B. The refuge north of
> Shirley Road and West Main Street would not be open for hunting, so
> there would be no impacts from hunters in that area. There would be no
> impacts to waterfowl as no waterfowl hunting would be allowed under
> this alternative, and there would be less take of deer, upland game
> (ruffed grouse, gray squirrel and Eastern cottontail rabbit) and
> American woodcock.

b\. Socioeconomic Impacts

> Socioeconomic Impacts of this Alternative will be similar to those
> under Alternative B, but economic benefits to the community would be
> slightly decreased because waterfowl hunting would not be allowed and
> fewer refuge acres would be open. There would also be fewer
> disturbances to refuge visitors from the noise associated with
> waterfowl hunting.
>
> The CCP called for the establishment of new wildlife observation
> trails in Ayer and Shirley. These trails would provide an alternative
> for visitors who are uncomfortable walking in areas that are also open
> to hunting.

c\. Summary of Effects for Alternative C

> Environmental consequences related to hunting under this Alternative
> would be similar to those under Alternative B, except areas north of
> Shirley Road would received no disturbance from hunters and there
> would be no impacts from waterfowl hunters as it would not be allowed.
> Fewer animals would be harvested under this alternative.
>
> Potential for hunting-related conflicts with other public uses would
> be less than those for Alternative B. Because fewer parts of the
> refuge would be open for hunting, there would fewer opportunities for
> hunters and non-hunters to be in the same place at the same time, and
> non-hunters would have access to trails that they could walk on during
> the hunt season where hunting would not be allowed.

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

a\. Biological Impacts

> Environmental consequences related to hunting under Alternative D
> would be similar to those under Alternative B, except that there will
> be a slight expansion of hunting opportunities which will minimally
> increase temporary disturbance to wildlife and could increase in
> waterfowl and turkey mortality because hunting would occur in
> additional areas.
>
> The deer hunt program recommended in Alternative D would help sustain
> a healthy deer population that is consistent with habitat carrying
> capacity. Deer browsing would not reach levels that damage understory
> habitat diversity. Habitat used by ground-nesting and near
> ground-nesting forest birds will be perpetuated. Human conflicts with
> deer would also be avoided because the deer herd would not
> overpopulate the refuge.
>
> 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. Resident wildlife
> populations would not experience significant effects as individuals
> would be free to move on and off refuge property.
>
> 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. Retriever dogs could cause some disturbance if
> not kept under control.
>
> There would be an increase in the take of turkey, American woodcock,
> ruffed grouse, squirrels and Eastern cottontail rabbits under this
> alternative. The increase mortality is not expected to be significant
> due to the small amount of additional acreage that would be opened.
> Hunting dogs may cause disturbance if they are not kept under control.
>
> With the exception of the spring turkey hunt, hunting would occur
> outside the breeding period of most species, thereby avoiding any
> potential disturbance.
>
> No adverse effects on migratory birds, fish, and endangered species as
> a result of expanding the hunt program at Oxbow NWR. Wildlife species
> for which hunting would be permitted on the refuge are those that are
> already regulated at the State or Federal level.

c\. Summary of Effects for Alternative D

> We anticipate that a low to moderate increase in hunting pressure will
> occur as a result of the expansion of the hunt program at Oxbow NWR.
> Hunting would not affect the refuge goal to maintain, restore, and
> enhance habitat to support a diversity of plants and animals. Hunting
> may encourage natural diversity by limiting the growth of the deer
> population on the refuge, thereby protecting preferred forage species
> from over-browsing.
>
> 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 Oxbow NWR or expanding the woodcock, turkey,
> and upland game programs. 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
> altering the times or days they visit the refuge 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 Oxbow 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.
>
> There would be a slight increase in the purchase of fuel, food,
> lodging and supplies, due to the potential for new hunters to be
> attracted to the refuge for the new and expanded hunt opportunities.

C. Cumulative Impacts Analysis

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

a\. Resident Wildlife -- White-Tailed Deer

Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003

> Under this alternative, there would be no change to current public use
> and wildlife management programs. As a result, additional mortality of
> individual hunted animals would not occur under this alternative.
> Additional disturbance by hunters to hunted and non-hunted wildlife
> would also not occur.
>
> 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.

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

> The impacts of this alternative would be similar to those of
> Alternative D, the *Current Refuge Hunt Program*. Hunting areas and by
> type (archery, primitive firearm, and shotgun) are the same in both
> alternatives.

Alternative C

> Cumulative impacts related to hunting under Alternative C would be
> similar to, but less than, those under Alternative D, because areas
> north of Shirley Road would receive no disturbance from hunters.

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

> 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.
>
> Deer harvest is essential to help maintain the 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.
>
> According to public information obtained from the website of the
> Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, 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.  
>
> Oxbow NWR is located within State Wildlife Management Zone 9, which
> has a current deer density of 12-20 per square mile. Because State
> biologists have set a goal of attaining 8-12 deer per square mile in
> this zone to maintain deer health, some additional reduction in the
> deer population is warranted. This reduction will help to reduce the
> number of conflicts between deer and people including the number of
> car-deer collisions.
>
> Deer hunting does not have regional population impacts due to
> restricted home ranges; only local impacts occur.  MassWildlife
> recorded deer harvest rates of approximately 48 deer per season on
> lands adjacent to Oxbow NWR from 1999-2004 (Bill Woytek, personal
> communication).  During the 2005 deer season, 35 deer permits were
> issued on the refuge.  It is estimated that 17 deer were harvested
> from the refuge during the season.  In 2006, 40 archery, 15
> muzzleloader and 25 shotgun permits were issued. It is estimated that
> 45 deer were harvested from the refuge. These figures are below the
> average harvest rates for deer in the surrounding areas but will aid
> the state in reducing the deer population by opening up more acres for
> hunting.
>
> A total of 10,479 deer were taken statewide in 2006. A total of 1,079
> deer were harvested throughout zone 9 in 2006. Of these, 350 were
> taken by archers, 563 by shotgun, and 162 by primitive firearm
> (muzzleloader). The contribution of the refuge to the overall harvest
> in zone 10 is small.

Summary Statement on Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impacts to Resident
Wildlife -- White-Tailed Deer

> The cumulative effects to the white-tailed deer will be increased
> mortality to individual 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.

b\. Resident Wildlife - Turkey

Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003

> Under this alternative, additional opportunities to hunt turkey would
> not be available at the Oxbow NWR. There would be no change to current
> public use and wildlife management programs. As a result, additional
> mortality of individual hunted animals would not occur under this
> alternative. Additional disturbance by hunters to hunted and
> non-hunted wildlife would also not occur.

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

> Under this alternative, additional opportunities to hunt turkey would
> not be available at the Oxbow NWR. There would be no change to current
> public use and wildlife management programs. As a result, additional
> mortality of individual hunted animals would not occur under this
> alternative. Additional disturbance by hunters to hunted and
> non-hunted wildlife would also not occur.

Alternative C

> Under this alternative, additional opportunities to hunt turkey would
> not be available at Oxbow NWR. There would be no change to current
> public use and wildlife management programs. As a result, additional
> mortality of individual hunted animals would not occur under this
> alternative. Additional disturbance by hunters to hunted and
> non-hunted wildlife would also not occur.

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

> Turkeys are non-migratory and they have small home ranges; therefore
> hunting only impacts the local turkey population.  During the spring
> hunt, the harvest is limited to a maximum take of two bearded birds
> per hunter.  One bird of either sex can be taken in the fall. However,
> if a hunter took two birds in the spring hunt, they cannot participate
> in the fall hunt. According to state biologists, gobblers can be taken
> during the spring without adversely affecting turkey production.
>
> The fall turkey population in Massachusetts is estimated at around
> 18,000 birds (Jim Cardoza, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and
> Wildlife, personal communication).  During the mid-1800's turkeys were
> rare in the state. The last native bird is believed to have been
> removed in 1851, but through an active reintroduction program and
> natural movements of turkeys into Massachusetts from adjacent states,
> the turkey population has rebounded. Restoration efforts resulted in a
> huntable population level by 1980. A well established turkey
> population can easily withstand a limited either-sex hunting season
> without adverse effects. By 1990, a fall turkey season was open in
> central and western Massachusetts because the population had rebounded
> to a level to support the fall hunts. Today, turkeys range throughout
> most of the state and hunting occurs in all but two counties.
>
> The population of turkeys in Massachusetts is considered stable in
> most of the state and increasing in the Southeast portion of the state
> where there is vacant habitat (Jim Cardoza, personal communication).
>  Each summer, state biologists conduct brood counts to estimate the
> poult production and survival rates.  These data indicate that hunting
> has not had a negative effect on the local population of turkeys even
> after 25 years of hunting pressure.
>
> Statewide, 163 turkeys were harvested in the fall 2005 hunt and 2,266
> turkeys were harvested in the spring 2006 hunt.  The average take for
> 2000-2006 in Middlesex County was 72 birds and for Worcester County it
> was 623, including both spring and fall seasons. Combined, this
> represents approximately 30% of the statewide harvest and 3.9% of the
> total turkey population.  The average take of turkeys per season for
> the four towns surrounding the refuge from 2003-2006 was 23 turkeys
> per year. Eight permits were issued for the spring and fall turkey
> hunt at Oxbow NWR.  The maximum total take for turkeys on the refuge
> is 16 gobblers. It is estimated that only one in fifteen hunters are
> successful at taking a turkey which would reduce the take to less than
> 1 turkey per year on the refuge.  This number is well below the
> threshold that would negatively impact the local population.

Summary Statement on Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impacts to Resident
Wildlife -- Turkey

> The cumulative effects to the turkey will be increased individual
> mortality, but the number of turkeys likely to be harvested from the
> refuge is and will remain small due to limits in the number of permits
> issued and the availability of suitable hunting areas. Expanding hunt
> opportunities on the refuge for turkey hunting will not result in
> cumulative impacts to the local, regional or statewide population.

c\. Resident Wildlife - Upland Game (Squirrel and Eastern cottontail
rabbits)

Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003

> Under this alternative, hunting would not be increased on Oxbow NWR,
> and there would be no change to current public use and wildlife
> management programs. As a result, additional mortality of individual
> hunted animals would not occur under this alternative. Additional
> disturbance by hunters to hunted and non-hunted wildlife would also
> not occur.

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

> Impacts related to hunting under this alternative would be the same as
> under Alternative D.

Alternative C

> Impacts related to hunting under Alternative C would be similar to
> those under Alternative D, except areas north of Shirley Road would
> received no disturbance from hunters as upland game hunting in that
> area would not be allowed.

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

> Squirrels and Eastern cottontail rabbits will not be affected
> regionally by refuge hunting because of their limited home ranges.
> Only local effects will be discussed. There has been little study of
> cumulative effects of hunting on gray squirrels and Eastern cottontail
> rabbits in Massachusetts. Studies have been conducted in other areas
> including Louisiana to determine the effects of hunting on the
> population dynamics of small game. Results from studies have
> consistently shown that small game, such as Eastern cottontail rabbits
> and squirrels, are not affected by hunting, but rather are limited by
> food resources. Gray squirrels and Eastern cottontail rabbits are
> prolific breeders and their populations have never been threatened by
> hunting in Massachusetts even prior to the passing of hunting
> regulations as we know them today.
>
> In 2005, the refuge issued 156 upland game permits (squirrel, Eastern
> cottontail rabbit, and ruffed grouse). The refuge had previously been
> open for upland game hunting but had never required permits. In 2005,
> the area open to upland game hunting was also expanded. Interest in
> securing permits was high, in large part because there was no permit
> fee and it provided an opportunity for hunters to become familiar with
> parts of the refuge that they had not previously been open to hunting.
> In 2006, the refuge issued 42 upland game permits. The dramatic drop
> in the number of permits reflects general hunter awareness that the
> amount of suitable habitat on the refuge for squirrel and Eastern
> cottontail rabbit is small at the present time. Most upland game
> hunters will continue to hunt off-refuge. We anticipate that in 2007,
> we will again issue about 40 permits for upland game hunting. This
> probably reflects the local interest in hunting these species.
>
> We received feedback from 19 of the 42 hunters who received upland
> game permits for Oxbow NWR in 2006. Of these, only 1 hunter reported
> hunting squirrel. He did this for 1 day only, and he harvested no
> game. There is very little interest in squirrel hunting on this
> refuge. Two hunters reported that they hunted Eastern cottontail
> rabbit on the refuge, with a combined hunt effort of 4 hunter days. We
> received no reports of Eastern cottontail rabbit being harvested in
> 2006. We received limited feedback from hunters in 2005 with a
> reported total of no squirrels and 3 Eastern cottontail rabbits taken
> then. Few hunters spend much time on squirrel or Eastern cottontail
> rabbit hunting. Among the upland game species, the target of choice
> appears to be ruffed grouse (see below).
>
> The number of gray squirrel and Eastern cottontail rabbit hunters is
> low. Mortality will be somewhat higher than the previous hunt program
> that was effect in 2005, but due to the small number of hunters, there
> will be no cumulative impact on the squirrel and Eastern cottontail
> rabbit population.

Summary Statement on Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impacts to Resident
Wildlife -- Squirrel and Eastern cottontail rabbits

> The cumulative effects to squirrels and Eastern cottontail rabbits
> will be increased individual mortality, but the number of animals
> likely to be harvested from the refuge is and will likely remain small
> due to limitation and declines in the number of hunters who harvest
> these game species. Population studies indicate that hunting is not
> the limiting factor for squirrels and Eastern cottontail rabbit
> populations. Expanding hunt opportunities for squirrel and Eastern
> cottontail rabbit hunting will not result in cumulative impacts to the
> local, regional or statewide population.

d\. Resident Wildlife - Ruffed Grouse

Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003

> Under this alternative, hunting would not be increased on Oxbow NWR,
> and there would be no change to current public use and wildlife
> management programs. As a result, additional mortality of individual
> hunted animals would not occur under this alternative. Additional
> disturbance by hunters to hunted and non-hunted wildlife would also
> not occur.

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

> Impacts related to hunting under this Alternative would be the same as
> those under Alternative D.

Alternative C

> Impacts related to hunting under Alternative C would be similar to
> those under Alternative D, except areas north of Shirley Road would
> received no disturbance from hunters as upland game hunting in that
> area would not be allowed.

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

> Ruffed grouse are non-migratory and therefore are not regionally
> affected by hunting. Only local effects will be discussed. According
> to the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife website,
> ruffed grouse have declined 4% over the past three decades. Lack of
> suitable early successional habitat is believed to be the cause of the
> decline. A study completed by the Appalachian Cooperative Grouse
> Research Project has found that hunting is not a limiting factor for
> ruffed grouse populations (Ruffed Grouse Ecology and Management in the
> Appalachian Region 2004). Approximately 10 years ago, MassWildlife
> decreased the season on grouse. To date there has been no noticeable
> change in the population. Today, the state is working towards
> increasing suitable habitat through partnerships with private
> landowners.
>
> In 2005, the refuge issued 156 upland game permits (squirrel, Eastern
> cottontail rabbit, and ruffed grouse). The refuge had previously been
> open for upland game hunting but had never required permits. In 2005,
> the area open to upland game hunting was also expanded. Interest in
> securing permits was high, in large part because there was no permit
> fee and it provided an opportunity for hunters to become familiar with
> parts of the refuge that they had not previously been open to hunting.
> In 2006, the refuge issued 42 upland game permits. The dramatic drop
> in the number of permits reflects general hunter awareness that the
> amount of suitable habitat on the refuge for squirrel and Eastern
> cottontail rabbit is small at the present time. Most upland game
> hunters will continue to hunt off-refuge. We anticipate that in 2007,
> we will again issue about 40 permits for upland game hunting. This
> probably reflects the local interest in hunting these species.
>
> We received feedback from 19 of the 42 hunters who received upland
> game permits for Oxbow NWR in 2006. Of these, a majority sited ruffed
> grouse as their target species. Eleven hunters reported that they
> hunted grouse on the refuge; several did not hunt due to injuries or
> other commitments, but if they had, they would have been hunting
> grouse. Five of these hunters spent more than two days engaged in
> ruffed grouse hunting, but none spent more than 5 days hunting grouse.
> One of the 19 hunters we received feedback from harvested a single
> grouse from the refuge; several others did flush grouse. We know at
> least 2 hunters spent time on the refuge in 2005 hunting grouse, and
> we know that 2 grouse were harvested.
>
> The interest in hunting ruffed grouse on the refuge is limited. While
> we have no information on the number of ruffed grouse that were
> harvested annually prior to 2005, based on hunter contacts, we know
> the number of grouse taken from the refuge is low. Cumulative impacts
> from the expansion of the ruffed grouse hunt program are minimal.

Summary Statement on Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impacts to Resident
Wildlife -- Ruffed Grouse

> The cumulative effects to ruffed grouse will be increased individual
> mortality, but the number of animals likely to be harvested from the
> refuge is low and will likely remain small due to limitation and
> declines in the number of hunters who harvest this species. This is
> also not an abundant species on the refuge, and serious hunters will
> pursue this activity at other locations. Studies indicate that hunting
> is not the limiting factor for grouse populations, but rather the lack
> of suitable habitat. Expanding hunt opportunities for ruffed grouse
> will have no cumulative impacts to the local, regional or statewide
> population.

e\. Resident Wildlife -- Non-hunted Species

Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003

> Under this alternative, hunting would not be increased on Oxbow NWR,
> and there would be no change to current public use and wildlife
> management programs. Additional disturbance by hunters to non-hunted
> wildlife would not occur.

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

> The impacts to non-hunted species are similar to those discussed in
> Alternative D.

Alternative C

> The impacts to non-hunted species would be less than those described
> below in Alternative D.

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

> The cumulative impacts to non-hunted wildlife would be negligible in
> this alternative. Non-hunted wildlife on the refuge includes small
> mammals such as voles, moles, mice, shrews, and bats; larger mammals
> such as fox, mink, and fisher; 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 turkeys, grouse, cardinals and woodpeckers. These species have very
> limited home ranges and hunting could not possibly affect their
> populations regionally; thus, only local effects will be discussed.
>
> However, disturbance would be unlikely for the following reasons.
> Small mammals, including bats, are inactive during winter when hunting
> season occurs. These species are also nocturnal. Both of these
> qualities make hunter interactions with small 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
> 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.
>
> The spring turkey hunt is conducted in late April and May, at a time
> in which breeding songbirds are returning to the refuge. There could
> be some minimal disturbance to breeding songbirds, but the cumulative
> impacts would be minimal for three reasons. First, turkey hunting only
> occurs from ½ hour before sunrise to noon each day. Most turkey
> hunters are out of the field by 8 a.m. Second, the nature of the
> turkey hunt is one of stealth. Turkey hunters are usually completely
> camouflaged. They move in quietly to their hunt spot and generally
> stay in that place for the majority of their hunt. Third, the number
> of permits the refuge issues is limited by the amount of suitable land
> available for turkey hunting. Therefore, the number of turkey hunters
> on the refuge on any given day during the spring season would be very
> low, resulting in negligible impacts to migratory birds.
>
> There could be some disturbance to small, non-hunted animals from dogs
> used by hunters to retrieve or locate game species. This disturbance
> is incidental to the hunt and will be temporary in nature. Hunt dogs
> are highly trained and remain focused on their game. There may be some
> avoidance behavior exhibited by non-hunted small mammals, but these
> animals will not be the target of the hunt dogs' search, so the
> impacts will be minimal. There will be no cumulative impact on
> non-hunted wildlife by hunt dogs.
>
> Regional and flyway effects would not be applicable to species that do
> not migrate such as most woodpeckers, and some songbirds such as
> cardinals, titmice, wrens, and chickadees. Disturbance by hunting to
> local, 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. However, disturbance would be
> localized and temporary. Disturbance to birds by hunters is probably
> commensurate with that caused by non-consumptive users.
>
> Migratory waterfowl hunting at Oxbow NWR will have little or no effect
> on non-hunted resident and migratory species. Access to 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 marsh 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. Waterfowl hunting does occur during fall migration for
> some species. However, some disturbance by hunters in boats or from
> the noise of firearms would be temporary in nature and would have a
> negligible impact on non-hunted migratory birds.

Summary Statement on Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impacts to
Non-hunted Wildlife

> The cumulative effects to non-hunted wildlife will be minimal. Animals
> that feed or seek shelter within herbaceous vegetation located within
> the browse zone will benefit from a deer hunt which helps maintain
> deer at a healthy population level commensurate with the carrying
> capacity of the refuge. Impacts to other species will be temporary or
> non-existent.

f\. Migratory Birds

Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003

> Under this alternative, hunting would not be increased on Oxbow NWR,
> and there would be no change to current public use and wildlife
> management programs. As a result, disturbance by hunters to migratory
> birds would also not occur.

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

> This alternative would open the refuge to waterfowl hunting along the
> Nashua River and woodcock hunting would be expanded to some portions
> of the refuge north of Route 2. There would be mortality to individual
> ducks, geese and increased mortality to woodcock under this
> alternative. The cumulative impacts are the same as those described
> below for Alternative D.

Alternative C

> There would be few impacts to migratory birds under this alternative,
> as waterfowl hunting would not be allowed on the refuge. An expansion
> in the woodcock hunt program would occur. Because fewer refuge lands
> would be open for woodcock hunting under this alternative, impacts
> would be similar to, but less than, those described below for
> Alternative D.

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. Oxbow 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. Any cumulative impacts that may occur on
> national wildlife refuges in Massachusetts have already been
> considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during the setting of
> the annual hunt season frameworks.
>
> The hunting of resident Canada geese in the early spring will occur
> 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 480
> acres of Oxbow NWR, inviolate sanctuaries with no disturbance will
> remain on more than 1,187 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 proposed action, refuge staff estimates a
> maximum additional 126 ducks and 112 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 .4% and .8%
> respectively of Massachusetts' three-year average harvest of 28,875
> ducks and 13,400 geese (Serie and Raftovich 2005).
>
> 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 Oxbow NWR would
> represent 0.00778% of the Flyway duck harvest and 0.00014% 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 Oxbow NWR would represent 0.00099% of
> the national harvest of ducks.
>
> American woodcock are managed on the basis of two regions or
> populations, Eastern and Central, as recommended by Owen et al. 1977.
> The number of woodcock heard displaying during the 2006 singing ground
> survey in the Eastern Region was not significantly different from 2005
> levels. In Massachusetts, numbers of woodcock heard singing in 2006
> were 1.9 percent above the 10 year average (Kelley and Rau 2006).
> McAuley et al. (2005) studied the effect of hunting on survival of
> American woodcock in the Northeast. Their results suggest that hunting
> under the current regulatory frameworks is not causing the woodcock
> population to decline.
>
> Although some woodcock harvest occurs during the hunt, the numbers
> taken will not adversely affect refuge purposes or State or Atlantic
> Flyway populations. Under the proposed action, Oxbow NWR staff
> estimates that no more than 50 additional woodcock would be harvested
> each year under this alternative, based upon the average hunter
> success of 2 woodcock per hunt and 9.2 woodcock per hunting season
> (Kelley and Rau 2006). While we do not have precise harvest
> information from woodcock hunters, we estimate that about 25 woodcock
> hunters are successful on the refuge. Most hunters also hunt on other
> lands, and do not hunt daily on the refuge. This is a conservative
> number but one that we believe does not underestimate the harvest of
> woodcock from the refuge. A harvest of 50 woodcock per season
> represents 2.2% of Massachusetts' average harvest of approximately
> 2,300 birds.
>
> 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

> While there will be individual mortality to waterfowl (ducks and
> geese) and woodcock, the cumulative effects to local, regional and
> statewide populations are minimal. These species are highly regulated
> at the Federal and State level. Hunters who receive a refuge permit
> must also receive a permit from the State. There is no additional
> mortality as a result of the establishment of a waterfowl hunt or the
> expansion of the woodcock hunt. If hunt opportunities were not
> available on the refuge, hunters would go to other areas where hunting
> opportunities exist.

g\. Endangered Species

Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003

> No Federal-listed threatened or endangered species occur at Oxbow NWR.
> Under this alternative, hunting would not be increased on Oxbow NWR.
> There would be no impact on endangered species under this alternative.

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

> No Federal-listed threatened or endangered species occur at Oxbow NWR.
> The New England cottontail was listed by the Service in 2006 as a
> Candidate for Endangered Species Act protection. There is sufficient
> scientific and commercial data available to support listing the
> species as either threatened or endangered. In its current "warranted
> but precluded" status, working with conservation partners and
> individuals will occur until Service resources are available to
> complete the listing process. New England cottontails have not been
> found at Oxbow NWR, although surveys are underway. Under this
> alternative, there would be new and expanded hunt opportunities on the
> Oxbow NWR. However, there would be no impact on endangered species.

Alternative C

> No Federal-listed threatened or endangered species occur at Oxbow NWR.
> Under this alternative, there would be new and expanded hunt
> opportunities on the Oxbow NWR. New England cottontails, a candidate
> species, have not been found at Oxbow NWR, although surveys are
> underway. At this time, the hunt program in this alternative would
> have no impact on endangered species.

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

> No Federal-listed threatened or endangered species occur at Oxbow NWR.
> Under this alternative, there would be new and expanded hunt
> opportunities on the Oxbow NWR. The refuge is within the historic
> range of the New England cottontail, a species which was listed in
> 2006 by the Service as a Candidate for protection under the Endangered
> Species Act. The refuge has been surveyed for New England cottontails.
> None have been found to date, but surveys continue. If the presence of
> New England cottontail is confirmed, the Service will evaluate whether
> revisions to the Eastern cottontail hunt program are warranted to
> protect the New England cottontail. At this time, Alternative D would
> have no impact on endangered species.

Summary Statement on Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impacts to
Endangered Species

> There are no cumulative effects to endangered species. This finding
> could change if the presence of New England cottontail, a candidate
> species under the Endangered Species Act, is confirmed.

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

a\. Other Wildlife-Dependent Recreation

Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003

> The public would not have the opportunity to harvest new renewable
> resources or expand their hunt activities into new parts of the
> refuge, participate in wildlife-dependent recreation that is
> compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established,
> attain an increased awareness of Oxbow 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. The Oxbow NWR CCP
> identifies additional trails north of Route 2 that will be developed
> and opened to the public for wildlife observation, photography,
> environmental education and interpretation. Visitors using these
> trails, once opened, would not have to plan for the possible presence
> of hunters on the trails.
>
> This alternative does not support the vision and management direction
> outlined in the Oxbow 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 Oxbow NWR to waterfowl and white-tailed deer
> hunting and expanding hunting opportunities for woodcock, turkey,
> ruffed grouse, Eastern cottontail rabbits and gray squirrels 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 Oxbow 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.
>
> Some conflict could occur with canoeists and kayakers on the portions
> of the Nashua River 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. There should be adequate
> parking at the Still River Depot Road parking area to accommodate
> recreational canoeists and kayakers and waterfowl hunters.
>
> Visitor activities such as wildlife observation and wildlife
> photography that occur near hunt areas may be curtailed, particularly
> during deer and waterfowl season. Walkers on the Riverside Trail or
> Dike Trail may hear gunshot or may encounter deer or waterfowl
> hunters. Upland game (ruffed grouse, Eastern cottontail rabbit,
> squirrel), turkey, snipe and woodcock hunting have occurred at the
> refuge since the 1970's without apparent conflict with non-hunters.
>
> The Oxbow NWR CCP identifies additional trails north of Route 2 that
> will be developed and opened to the public for wildlife observation,
> photography, environmental education and interpretation. Visitors
> using these trails, once opened, could encounter hunters on these
> trails.
>
> It is possible that some refuge visitors have already made
> accommodations in their visits in response to hunting. However, these
> or other visitors may decide not to walk these trails because the
> refuge would be also open to deer or waterfowl hunting. However, as
> visitors become used to hunt patterns, conflicts may be reduced over
> time and will be fairly minimal. Because the majority of hunting
> occurs early in the morning and later in the afternoon, non-hunters
> might decide to restrict their visit to the refuge to mid-day.
> Non-hunters, who have access to the refuge on a daily basis, will have
> to accommodate hunters on certain days during the year. Hunting is not
> allowed in Massachusetts on Sundays, thereby decreasing potential
> conflicts between users.

Alternative C

> Impacts to other refuge wildlife-dependent public uses will be less
> than Alternative D. Waterfowl hunting would not be allowed under this
> alternative, and turkey hunting would not be expanded. Deer hunting
> would be established however, and upland game (ruffed grouse, gray
> squirrel, and Eastern cottontail rabbit) would be expanded. This hunt
> program would allow additional 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
> Oxbow 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.
>
> Visitor activities such as wildlife observation and wildlife
> photography that occur near hunt areas may be curtailed, particularly
> during deer season. Walkers on the Riverside Trail or Dike Trail may
> hear gunshots or may encounter deer hunters. Upland game (ruffed
> grouse, Eastern cottontail rabbit, squirrel), turkey, snipe and
> woodcock hunting have occurred at the refuge since the 1970's without
> apparent conflict with non-hunters.
>
> The Oxbow NWR CCP identifies additional trails north of Route 2 that
> will be developed and opened to the public for wildlife observation,
> photography, environmental education and interpretation. Some of these
> trails are north of Hospital Road, which would not be open to hunting
> under this Alternative. Visitors using these trails, once opened,
> would not have to plan for the possible presence of hunters on the
> trails.
>
> It is possible that some refuge visitors have already made
> accommodations in their visits in response to hunting. However, these
> or other visitors may decide not to walk these trails because the
> refuge would be also open to deer or waterfowl hunting. However, as
> visitors become used to hunt patterns, conflicts may be reduced over
> time and will be fairly minimal. Because the majority of hunting
> occurs early in the morning and later in the afternoon, non-hunters
> might decide to restrict their visit to the refuge to mid-day.
> Non-hunters, who have access to the refuge on a daily basis, will have
> to accommodate hunters on certain days during the year. Hunting is not
> allowed in Massachusetts on Sundays, thereby decreasing potential
> conflicts between users.

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

> Opening portions of Oxbow NWR to waterfowl and white-tailed deer
> hunting and expanding hunting opportunities for turkey, woodcock,
> ruffed grouse, Eastern cottontail rabbits and gray squirrels 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 Oxbow 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.
>
> Some conflict could occur with canoeists and kayakers on the portions
> of the Nashua River 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. There should be adequate
> parking at the Still River Depot Road parking area to accommodate
> recreational canoeists and kayakers and waterfowl hunters.
>
> Visitor activities such as wildlife observation and wildlife
> photography that occur near hunt areas may be curtailed, particularly
> during deer and waterfowl season. Walkers on the Riverside Trail or
> Dike Trail may hear gunshot or may encounter deer or waterfowl
> hunters. Upland game (ruffed grouse, Eastern cottontail rabbit,
> squirrel), turkey, snipe and woodcock hunting have occurred at the
> refuge since the 1970's without apparent conflict with non-hunters.
>
> The Oxbow NWR CCP identifies additional trails north of Route 2 that
> will be developed and opened to the public for wildlife observation,
> photography, environmental education and interpretation. Visitors
> using these trails, once opened, would have to plan for the possible
> presence of hunters on the trails.
>
> It is possible that some refuge visitors have already made
> accommodations in their visits in response to hunting. However, these
> or other visitors may decide not to walk these trails because the
> refuge would be also open to deer or waterfowl hunting. However, as
> visitors become used to hunt patterns, conflicts may be reduced over
> time and will be fairly minimal. Because the majority of hunting
> occurs early in the morning and later in the afternoon, non-hunters
> might decide to restrict their visit to the refuge to mid-day.
> Non-hunters, who have access to the refuge on a daily basis, will have
> to accommodate hunters on certain days during the year. Hunting is not
> allowed in Massachusetts on Sundays, thereby decreasing potential
> conflicts between users.

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

> The evolving "characteristics" of hunting at the refuge will
> ultimately determine the impact on other wildlife-dependent
> recreation. The most significant are (1) the number of hunters, (2)
> the type of hunting, (3) the behavior of hunters, (4) the spatial
> distribution of hunting, and (5) the temporal distribution of hunting.
> Refuge hunting pressure is expected to be low to moderate. The number
> of permits issued for hunting will be limited, and the number of
> people hunting on the refuge on any given day will be low.
> Furthermore, hunters will be dispersed throughout the refuge. In
> addition, experience managing hunts at Oxbow NWR and at other refuges
> within the Refuge System shows that many areas can safely support
> hunting and non-consumptive uses.
>
> []{.mark}
>
> 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 Refuge does not anticipate any
> significant impacts to other forms of wildlife-dependent activities on
> Oxbow NWR.
>
> []{.mark}
>
> b\. Refuge Facilities
>
> Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003
>
> []{.mark}
>
> 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 were returned to the hunt program.

Alternative C

> The impacts under this alternative would be the same as Alternative B
> above, except that no hunting would take place north of Hospital Road.
> Therefore, fewer temporary hunter parking lots would be identified and
> the costs associated with the proposed hunting program would be less
> as there would be fewer parking areas and informational/directional
> signage to maintain.
>
> There would be fewer visual aesthetics impacts to the refuge.
>
> []{.mark}

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 is 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. Under the preferred alternative, periodic
> maintenance or improvement of the existing small parking areas, roads,
> and trails will cause minimal negative impacts. These activities may
> cause some small-scale, site-specific soil erosion and damage to
> vegetation.

c\. Cultural Resources

Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003

> There would be no cumulative impacts to cultural resources under this
> alternative, since additional hunt opportunities would not be provided
> on the refuge.

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

> There are no known cultural resources on the refuge. No impacts to
> unknown 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

> The impacts under Alternative C would be similar, but less, than
> Alternative D, since the area north of Hospital Road would not be open
> for hunting.

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

> There are no known cultural resources on the refuge. No impacts to
> unknown 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 Program on the Refuge
Environment and Community

Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003

> Under this alternative, there would be some minor effects on the
> refuge environment and community because there would not be an
> expansion of the existing refuge hunt program.
>
> 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 the Nashua River. Some non-consumptive
> refuge visitors may be seasonally displaced due to concerns about
> safety while using the refuge during hunting season.

Alternative C

> The impacts from Alternative C would be less than Alternative B.
> Waterfowl hunting would not be allowed, and no hunting would be
> allowed north of Hospital Road. There would be little difference in
> impact than from Alternative A, except that shotgun hunting of upland
> game would be allowed north of Route 2 to Hospital Road.
>
> This alternative would have less impact on solitude than Alternatives
> B or D.

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

> Only minimal impacts to the refuge environment, which consists of
> soils, vegetation, air quality, and water quality, 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}
>
> There would be some impact on solitude, but the number of hunters is
> kept low on the refuge and visitors can time their visit to maximize
> the likelihood of solitude. The biggest conflict will be shotgun noise
> from hunters. Given the distance most neighbors live from the refuge,
> disturbance from firearm noise is considered to be a minor impact.
>
> There is a large and active local hunt community. Expanding the hunt
> program, especially by opening the refuge to waterfowl and deer
> hunting, will provide 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.
>
> 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 additional hunt opportunities would occur.
> Hunting has been allowed on the refuge since the late 1970's. As there
> would be no additional hunting on the refuge, 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. This alternative
> is both an expansion of previous hunt programs authorized on the
> refuge (woodcock, ruffed grouse, Eastern cottontail rabbit, gray
> squirrel, and turkey) and new programs (waterfowl and white-tailed
> deer). Areas that would be open to hunting have been depicted on Map 3
> 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. Alternative B will not
> negatively impact the existing hunt program and no additional hunts
> are being considered for Oxbow 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. This alternative
> is both an expansion of previous hunt programs authorized on the
> refuge (woodcock, ruffed grouse, Eastern cottontail rabbit, and gray
> squirrel) and new programs (white-tailed deer). Areas that would be
> open to hunting have been depicted on Map 4 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. Alternative C will not negatively impact the existing hunt
> program and no additional hunts are being considered for Oxbow 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 1,667 acres. This
> alternative is both an expansion of previous hunt programs authorized
> on the refuge (woodcock, ruffed grouse, Eastern cottontail rabbit,
> gray squirrel, and turkey) and new programs (waterfowl and
> white-tailed deer). Changes to the status of hunting on the refuge
> occurred on September 13, 2005, when a Federal Register notice was
> posted, officially opening parts of Oxbow NWR for deer hunting and
> waterfowl hunting and expanding other hunt programs throughout the
> refuge. Areas that are open to hunting have been depicted on Map 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 will be open for a shorter duration, limited hours,
> or limited days of the week.
>
> It was determined in the Oxbow NWR CCP, signed in January 2005, that a
> public 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 Oxbow NWR.

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

> 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. No
> additional hunt programs are anticipated during the next 15 years.

E. Anticipated Impacts if Individual Hunts are Allowed to Accumulate

> The other sections (A through D) 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 new hunting seasons are proposed at Oxbow
> NWR. Because this alternative does not allow for any additional
> hunting on the refuge, there can be no impacts of accumulated hunts.
> The information provided below shows that the refuge is already open
> for hunting on a total of 164 days. There are also a total of 340
> hunting days on the refuge, as on some days there are multiple hunt
> seasons open. There are many days when the refuge is officially open
> for hunting, but little or no hunting occurs. This is particularly
> true during snipe, turkey, goose and upland game seasons. No hunting
> occurs in Massachusetts on Sundays.

  ------------------------------ --------------------------- -------------
  **Refuge Hunt**                **Hunt Season**             **Hunt Days**

  Spring turkey                  April 30 - May 26           24

  Snipe (2006)                   September 1- December 16    81

  Ruffed grouse                  October 13 - November 24    37

  Gray squirrel                  October 13 - January 2      57

  Eastern cottontail rabbit      October 13 - February 29    108

  American woodcock (2006)       October 12-November 11      27

  Fall turkey                    October 29 - November 3     6
  ------------------------------ --------------------------- -------------

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

> The following table details the hunting seasons that would be open at
> Oxbow NWR under Alternative B.

+----------------------------+----------------------------+------------+
| **Refuge Hunt**            | **Hunt Season**            | **Hunt     |
|                            |                            | Days**     |
+----------------------------+----------------------------+------------+
| Spring turkey              | April 30 - May 26          | 24         |
+----------------------------+----------------------------+------------+
| Snipe (2006)               | September 1-December 16    | 80         |
+----------------------------+----------------------------+------------+
| Waterfowl - Geese          | September 5 -- September   | 18         |
|                            | 25                         |            |
|                            |                            | 36         |
|                            | October 16 -- November 25  |            |
|                            |                            | 24         |
|                            | December 11 -- January 6   |            |
|                            |                            | 27         |
|                            | January 15- February 14    |            |
+----------------------------+----------------------------+------------+
| Waterfowl - Ducks          | October 7 & October 9      | 2          |
|                            |                            |            |
|                            | October 16 -- November 25  | 36         |
|                            |                            |            |
|                            | December 11 -- January 6   | 24         |
+----------------------------+----------------------------+------------+
| American woodcock (2006)   | October 12- 28 and         | 27         |
|                            |                            |            |
|                            | October 30-November 11     |            |
+----------------------------+----------------------------+------------+
| Ruffed grouse              | October 13 - November 24   | 37         |
+----------------------------+----------------------------+------------+
| Gray squirrel              | October 13 - January 2     | 57         |
+----------------------------+----------------------------+------------+
| Eastern cottontail rabbit  | October 13 - February 29   | 108        |
+----------------------------+----------------------------+------------+
| Deer (archery)             | October 15 - November 24   | 36         |
+----------------------------+----------------------------+------------+
| Fall Turkey                | October 29 - November 3    | 6          |
+----------------------------+----------------------------+------------+
| Deer (shotgun)             | November 26-December 8     | 12         |
+----------------------------+----------------------------+------------+
| Deer (muzzleloader)        | December 10- December 31   | 19         |
+----------------------------+----------------------------+------------+

> Under this alternative, the refuge would be open for hunting on a
> total of 164 days. There are also a total of 660 hunting days on the
> refuge, as on some days there are multiple hunt seasons open. There
> are many days when the refuge is officially open for hunting, but
> little or no hunting occurs. This is particularly true during snipe,
> turkey, goose and upland game seasons. No hunting occurs in
> Massachusetts on Sundays.

Alternative C

The following table details the hunting seasons that would be open at
Oxbow NWR under Alternative C.

+-----------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| **Refuge Hunt**             | **Hunt Season**          | **Hunt     |
|                             |                          | Days**     |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| Spring turkey               | April 30-May 26          | 24         |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| Snipe (2006)                | September 1-December 16  | 93         |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| American woodcock (2006)    | October 12-28 and        | 27         |
|                             |                          |            |
|                             | October 30-November 11   |            |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| Ruffed grouse               | October 13 - November 24 | 37         |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| Gray squirrel               | October 13 - January 2   | 57         |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| Eastern cottontail rabbit   | October 13 - February 29 | 108        |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| Deer (archery)              | October 15-November 24   | 36         |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| Fall turkey                 | October 29-November 3    | 6          |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| Deer (shotgun)              | November 26-December 8   | 12         |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| Deer (muzzleloader)         | December 10-December 31  | 19         |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------+------------+

> A total of days of hunting would occur under this alternative is also
> 172, the same as Alternative B. There are also a total of 419 hunting
> days on the refuge, as on some days there are multiple hunt seasons
> open. There are many days when the refuge is officially open for
> hunting, but little or no hunting occurs. This is particularly true
> during snipe, turkey, goose and upland game seasons. No hunting occurs
> in Massachusetts on Sundays.

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

> The following table shows hunting seasons at Oxbow NWR under
> Alternative D, along with the dates when these seasons are open.

+------------------------+----------------------+----------+----------+
| **Refuge Hunt**        | **Hunt Season**      | **Hunt   | **Di     |
|                        |                      | Days**   | fference |
|                        |                      |          | from     |
|                        |                      |          | Alt. B** |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------+----------+
| Spring turkey season   | April 30-May 26      | 24       | Hunt     |
|                        |                      |          | area     |
|                        |                      |          |          |
|                        |                      |          | expanded |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------+----------+
| Snipe (2006)           | September 1-December | 93       | None     |
|                        | 16                   |          |          |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------+----------+
| Waterfowl - Geese      | September            | 18       | Hunt     |
|                        | 5--September 25      |          | area     |
|                        |                      | 36       | expanded |
|                        | October 16 --        |          |          |
|                        | November 25          | 24       |          |
|                        |                      |          |          |
|                        | December 11 --       | 27       |          |
|                        | January 6            |          |          |
|                        |                      |          |          |
|                        | January 15- February |          |          |
|                        | 14                   |          |          |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------+----------+
| Waterfowl - Ducks      | October 7 & October  | 2        | Hunt     |
|                        | 9                    |          | area     |
|                        |                      | 36       | expanded |
|                        | October 16 --        |          |          |
|                        | November 25          | 24       |          |
|                        |                      |          |          |
|                        | December 11 --       |          |          |
|                        | January 6            |          |          |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------+----------+
| American woodcock      | October 12-28 and    | 27       | None     |
|                        |                      |          |          |
|                        | October 30-November  |          |          |
|                        | 11                   |          |          |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------+----------+
| Ruffed grouse          | October 14-November  | 37       | None     |
|                        | 24                   |          |          |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------+----------+
| Gray squirrel          | October 13 - January | 57       | None     |
|                        | 2                    |          |          |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------+----------+
| Eastern cottontail     | October 13 -         | 108      | None     |
| rabbit                 | February 29          |          |          |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------+----------+
| Deer (archery)         | October 15-November  | 36       | None     |
|                        | 24                   |          |          |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------+----------+
| Fall turkey season     | October 29-November  | 6        | Hunt     |
|                        | 30                   |          | area     |
|                        |                      |          |          |
|                        |                      |          | expanded |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------+----------+
| Deer (shotgun)         | November 26-December | 12       | None     |
|                        | 8                    |          |          |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------+----------+
| Deer (muzzleloader)    | December 10-December | 19       | None     |
|                        | 31                   |          |          |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------+----------+

> The total number of days in which hunting occurs is under Alternative
> D is 172, which is the same number as in Alternative B. The main
> difference between Alternative B and Alternative D is that hunt areas
> for turkey and waterfowl hunting are expanded in Alternative D. There
> are also a total of 673 hunting days on the refuge, as on some days
> there are multiple hunt seasons open. There are many days when the
> refuge is officially open for hunting, but little or no hunting
> occurs. This is particularly true during snipe, turkey, goose and
> upland game seasons. With the addition of one month in the spring for
> turkey hunting, the refuge is open to hunting for approximately 5 ½
> months of the year. No hunting occurs in Massachusetts 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,
> deer hunting does not occur at the same time as turkey hunting and
> 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 Environmental Assessment for expanding hunting opportunities on
Oxbow 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 NWRs.

In February of 2001 we recognized that producing a CCP/EIS for the
entire Complex would be far too cumbersome to be efficient. At that
time, we published a Notice of Intent to prepare a CCP/EA for five of
the refuges in the Complex, Assabet River, Great Meadows, Oxbow, Mashpee
and Massasoit NWRs. Additional issues and a need for more information
prompted us to later split Mashpee and Massasoit NWRs from 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 Massachusetts Division of Fisheries
and Wildlife 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 environmental assessment will be made available for public review
and comment prior to the making of any final decisions regarding the
refuge hunt program.

# VI. Regulatory Compliance

**Comprehensive Conservation Plan**

A draft CCP/EA which identified and evaluated three alternatives for a
public hunt program at Oxbow 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 big game, upland
game and migratory bird hunting on Oxbow 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 27,
2004 for big game, upland game, and migratory bird hunting on Oxbow 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 Oxbow 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 Oxbow
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
Oxbow 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 Oxbow 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.

Glover, Suzanne. 1993. *Final Report Archaeological Inventory Survey
Fort Devens, Massachusetts, Volume 1*. Contract No. DACA33-92-D-0005,
prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Prepared by the Public
Archaeology Laboratory, Inc.

Hickler, M. 1995. *Floristic and Vegetation Analysis of the Oxbow Ponds
in the Nashua River Floodplain Fort Devens, Massachusetts -- Final
Report*. Department of Biology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst,
MA. Unpublished report.

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.

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.

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.

Massachusetts Historical Commission. 1985. *Historic and Archaeological
Resources of Central Massachusetts: A Framework for Preservation
Decisions*.

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.

Searcy, Karen B., B. Lindwall and T. Enz. 1993. *Plant Community and
Vegetation Analysis of Floodplain Areas Along the Nashua River, Fort
Devens with Particular Emphasis on the Floodplain and Adjacent Slopes of
the Nashua River between Jackson and Hospital Roads*. University of
Massachusetts, Biology Department, Amherst, MA. Unpublished report. 62
pp.

Searcy, Karen B., B. Lindwall and T. Enz. 1994. *The Forested Wetlands
on the South Post in the Floodplain of the Nashua River*. University of
Massachusetts, Biology Department, Amherst, MA. Unpublished report. 20
pp.

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. Army. 1995. *Draft Master Environmental Plan, Fort Devens Sudbury
Training Annex, Middlesex County, Massachusetts*. Prepared by ABB
Environmental Service, Inc., Portland, ME for the U.S. Army
Environmental Center, Aberdeen, MD.

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](http://www.arec.umd.edu/policy/Deer-Management-in- Maryland/Warren.html).

# Appendix A. Hunt Maps

#  

# Map 1: Oxbow NWR

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="5.997916666666667in"
height="8.544444444444444in"}

Map 2: Alternative A -- Current Refuge Management in 2003

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="5.993055555555555in"
height="8.404861111111112in"}

Upland hunting: Woodcock, snipe, turkey, squirrel, rabbit, ruffed grouse

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

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="5.99375in" height="8.30625in"}

Type I: All 3 deer seasons, turkey, woodcock, snipe, squirrel, rabbit,
ruffed grouse; Type II: Archery deer, woodcock, squirrel, rabbit, ruffed
grouse; Type III: Archery deer; Type IV: All 3 deer seasons, woodcock,
squirrel, rabbit, ruffed grouse

Map 4: Alternative C

![](media/image4.jpeg){width="5.999305555555556in"
height="8.414583333333333in"}

Upland game (squirrel, rabbit, and ruffed grouse), snipe, and turkey
hunting would also be allowed on the refuge south of Route 2 and west of
the B&M railroad tracks.

Map 5: Alternative D -- The Current Refuge Hunt Program

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="5.99375in" height="8.115277777777777in"}

Type I: All 3 deer seasons, turkey, woodcock, snipe, squirrel, rabbit,
ruffed grouse; Type II: Archery deer, woodcock, squirrel, rabbit, ruffed
grouse; Type III: Archery deer and archery turkey; Type IV: All 3 deer
seasons, turkey, woodcock, squirrel, rabbit, ruffed grouse