**Draft**

**Environmental Assessment**

**Assabet River 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 [5](#__RefHeading___Toc161724657)

IV\. Environmental Consequences [16](#iv.-environmental-consequences)

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

VI\. Regulatory Compliance [52](#vi.-regulatory-compliance)

VII\. Literature Cited [54](#vii.-literature-cited)

Appendix A. Hunt Maps [57](#appendix-a.-hunt-maps)

# I. Purpose and Need for Action

As a result of a 2003 lawsuit filed by the Fund for Animals, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is addressing the cumulative impacts
of hunting at 37 national wildlife refuges across the country which
initiated new hunt programs from 1997-2003. Environmental assessments
(EAs) prepared for these programs, as well as for the 30 refuges that
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. Assabet River 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 Assabet River NWR.

Assabet River NWR was established in 2000 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

Hunting at Assabet River 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 Assabet
River 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 maps for Alternative B and C in the draft CCP. These errors have
been corrected in the figures included in this EA. All maps are located
at the end of the EA in Appendix A.

Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003 (See Map 1)

-   Under this alternative, the refuge would remain closed to general
    public access and use due to a number of unmitigated safety hazards
    that existed on the property. No hunting for upland game, big game,
    or migratory game birds would be proposed.

Alternative B -- The Service's Proposed Alternative in 2003 (See Map 2)

-   Archery, shotgun, and primitive firearm deer hunting opportunities
    would be provided on the refuge in accordance with Massachusetts
    State regulations and requirements. While deer hunting would be
    allowed throughout the refuge, archery only areas would be
    established external to Patrol Road from its southerly intersection
    with White Pond Road, northwesterly and then easterly, to its
    intersection with Old Marlborough Road in Maynard. Archery only
    areas would also be established on the west side of the parcel south
    of Hudson Road and in the very southeast corner of this parcel near
    Moore Road in Sudbury. A total of 2,230 acres would be opened to
    white-tailed deer hunting.

-   Shotgun hunting of upland game (ruffed grouse, Eastern cottontail
    rabbit and gray squirrel) would be allowed. All State regulations
    and restrictions would apply and be enforced. While upland game
    hunting would be allowed throughout the refuge, archery only areas
    would be established external to Patrol Road from its southerly
    intersection with White Pond Road, northwesterly and then easterly,
    to its intersection with Old Marlborough Road in Maynard. Archery
    only areas would also be established on the west side of the parcel
    south of Hudson Road and in the very southeast corner of this parcel
    near Moore Road in Sudbury. A total of 2,230 acres would be opened
    to upland game hunting.

-   Turkey hunting (spring season only per current State regulations)
    would be allowed throughout the refuge. Archery only areas would be
    established external to Patrol Road from its southerly intersection
    with White Pond Road, northwesterly and then easterly, to its
    intersection with Old Marlborough Road in Maynard. Archery only
    areas would also be established on the west side of the parcel south
    of Hudson Road and in the very southeast corner of this parcel near
    Moore Road in Sudbury. A total of 2,230 acres would be opened to
    turkey hunting.

-   Hunting for American woodcock would be allowed. Woodcock would be
    the only migratory bird hunting allowed on the refuge. Archery only
    areas would be established external to Patrol Road from its
    southerly intersection with White Pond Road, northwesterly and then
    easterly, to its intersection with Old Marlborough Road in Maynard.
    Archery only areas would also be established on the west side of the
    parcel south of Hudson Road and in the very southeast corner of this
    parcel near Moore Road in Sudbury. A total of 2,230 acres would be
    opened to woodcock hunting.

Alternative C (See Map 3)

-   White-tailed deer hunting would be limited to archery and primitive
    firearms (muzzleloader) seasons only. A total of 2,230 acres would
    be opened hunting.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Shotgun hunting of upland game (ruffed grouse, Eastern cottontail
    rabbit and gray squirrel) would be allowed. All State regulations
    and restrictions would apply and be enforced. While upland game
    hunting would be allowed throughout the refuge, archery only areas
    would be established external to Patrol Road from its southerly
    intersection with White Pond Road, northwesterly and then easterly,
    to its intersection with Old Marlborough Road in Maynard. Archery
    only areas would also be established on the west side of the parcel
    south of Hudson Road and in the very southeast corner of this parcel
    near Moore Road in Sudbury. A total of 2,230 acres would be opened
    to upland game hunting.

-   Turkey hunting (spring season only per current State regulations)
    would be allowed throughout the refuge. Archery only areas would be
    established external to Patrol Road from its southerly intersection
    with White Pond Road, northwesterly and then easterly, to its
    intersection with Old Marlborough Road in Maynard. Archery only
    areas would also be established on the west side of the parcel south
    of Hudson Road and in the very southeast corner of this parcel near
    Moore Road in Sudbury. A total of 2,230 acres would be opened to
    turkey hunting.

-   Hunting for American woodcock would be allowed. Woodcock would be
    the only migratory bird hunting allowed on the refuge. Archery only
    areas would be established external to Patrol Road from its
    southerly intersection with White Pond Road, northwesterly and then
    easterly, to its intersection with Old Marlborough Road in Maynard.
    Archery only areas would also be established on the west side of the
    parcel south of Hudson Road and in the very southeast corner of this
    parcel near Moore Road in Sudbury. A total of 2,230 acres would be
    opened to woodcock hunting.

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 Assabet
River 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 4)

-   Archery, shotgun, and primitive firearm deer hunting opportunities
    is provided on the refuge in accordance with Massachusetts State
    regulations and requirements. While deer hunting is allowed
    throughout the refuge, archery only areas would be established
    external to Patrol Road from its southerly intersection with White
    Pond Road, northwesterly and then easterly, to its intersection with
    Old Marlborough Road in Maynard. The entire 290-acre tract south of
    Hudson Road is archery deer hunting only. A total of 2,230 acres
    would be opened to white-tailed deer hunting.

-   Turkey hunting (spring season only) is allowed throughout the
    refuge. Archery only areas would be established external to Patrol
    Road from its southerly intersection with White Pond Road,
    northwesterly and then easterly, to its intersection with Old
    Marlborough Road in Maynard. The entire 290-acre tract south of
    Hudson Road is archery turkey hunting only. A total of 2,230 acres
    would be opened to turkey hunting.

-   Hunting for American woodcock is allowed only on the main part of
    the refuge north of Hudson Road with the exception of the
    archery-only area identified above. No woodcock hunting is allowed
    in archery only areas.

-   Upland game (ruffed grouse, Eastern cottontail rabbit, and gray
    squirrel) hunting is allowed only on the main part of the refuge
    north of Hudson Road with the exception of the archery-only area
    identified above. No upland game hunting is allowed in archery only
    areas.

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.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc161724657 .anchor}**III. Affected Environment**

A. Physical Resources

1\. Location

The 2,230-acre Assabet River NWR is approximately 20 miles west of
Boston in the towns of Hudson, Maynard, Stow, and Sudbury. The Refuge is
in two separate parcels---a 1,930-acre section unit north of Hudson Road
and a 300-acre area south of Hudson Road -- and covers approximately 3.5
miles. Before its establishment in 2000, the land had been under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army since the early 1940's. It had served as a
military base and is still known locally as the "Army Depot" or the
"Sudbury Annex".

The main entrance and parking area is on Hudson Road in Sudbury,
Massachusetts near the Stow town line. A second entrance with a 10-car
parking lot, known as the North Gate or the Stow Gate, is located in
Stow off White Pond Road. A third entrance, which at the present time is
for foot traffic only, is located on Old Marlborough Road in Maynard at
the East Gate or FEMA Gate. Visitors also enter the south section from
Moore Road in Sudbury. This is an unofficial, walk-in entrance that will
be made official sometime in the near future.

From a biological and ecosystem perspective, it is useful to consider
how Assabet River NWR fits into other classification frameworks. 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." Assabet River
NWR is within the Lower New England/Northern Piedmont Ecoregion that
stretches from Maine to Virginia.

The Refuge lies with 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
Assabet River flows just north of the refuge. At its confluence with the
Sudbury River in Concord, it becomes the Concord River, which flows
through the Great Meadows NWR. These rivers are major tributaries to the
Merrimack River which flows into the Gulf of Maine.

Flyways have been used for many years in North America as the unit for
managing waterfowl populations because they allow land managers to link
efforts to conserve migratory bird species and their habitats on
breeding, migration, and wintering grounds. The Atlantic Coast Joint
Venture (JV) area includes the entire U.S. Atlantic Coast 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. Assabet River NWR is within the
Atlantic Coast Joint Venture -- Sudbury-Assabet-Concord and Nashua River
Systems. [http://www.fws.gov/northeast/migratorybirds/plans
partnerships.htm](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. Assabet
River NWR is in BCR 30, the Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic Coast
region and PIF Physiographic Area 9---Southern New England, a subset of
BCR 30. PIF 9 covers parts of northern New Jersey, southern New York
including Long Island, the majority of Connecticut, all of Rhode Island,
most of eastern Massachusetts, the southeastern corner of New Hampshire,
and south-coastal Maine.
<http://www.fws.gov/northeast/migratorybirds/plans_partnerships.htm>

2\. Geology and Soils

Evidence of glaciation at Assabet River NWR is readily observable. The
Wisconsin glacier (12,000 B.P.) deposited sediment and other materials
that shaped the local landscape and the landform of the refuge. Eight
surface depositional types are found on the refuge, and six of these are
from glacial action: kames, kame terraces, kame fields, outwash plains,
ground moraines and drumlins. The remaining two sediment deposits are
alluvium swamps. Glacial tills are compact, unsorted mixtures of clay,
silt, sand, gravel and boulders. The hilly portions of the refuge tend
to be till, with the flatter areas being glacial outwash. The tills may
reach thicknesses of up to 40 feet in moraine areas, and up to 80 feet
in drumlins. Alluvium is generally fine gravel, and the swamps are
predominately sand, silt and organic matter. Kames are irregularly
shaped mounds of poorly sorted sands and gravels. Kame fields are simply
described as areas of closely spaced kames. Kame terraces were formed by
glacial meltwater depositing suspended matter between ice sheets. Vose
Hill and the hill immediately south of Tuttle Hill are mapped as
drumlins, glacially formed accumulations of till indicating by their
orientation the direction of ice flow. A million-year old river valley
underlies Lake Boon, White Pond and the southern portion of the Refuge.

Soils across the refuge are comprised of a diverse range of types
reflecting varied glacial and alluvial depositional processes. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service maps
the more common as Carver, Windsor, Merrimac, Paxton, Deerfield,
Montauk, and Charlton-Hollis series in the uplands; and, the Swansea and
Freetown series in the wetlands.

3\. Hydrology

Most of the northern section and westernmost parts of the southern
section of Assabet River NWR are within the Assabet River drainage
basin. The majority of the northern portion of the refuge drains
northward through Taylor Brook and its tributaries, including Honey
Brook. Two small, intermittent streams also flow from the northern
portion of the refuge into the Assabet River. The central and eastern
area of the southern portion of the refuge is within the Sudbury River
drainage basin. Marlboro Brook drains from the southeastern portion of
this section of the refuge into Hop Brook, a tributary of the Sudbury
River, just above Stearns Millpond. The western portions of this section
of the refuge drain toward White Pond, which has no surface outlet, but
is thought to drain underground to Lake Boon and thence to the Assabet
River.

The water table under much of Assabet River NWR is shallow, as indicated
by the extensive swamps, bogs, and waterholes found on the property.
Groundwater discharge is thought to be supplying much of the flow
occurring through the outwash plains underlying the lowlands of the
site. The poorly drained lowland soils have supported the establishment
of extensive and diverse wetland habitats, which include forested and
shrub-dominated wetlands, bogs, emergent wetlands, open-water bodies in
the form of several lakes and ponds, an abandoned cranberry bog, and
scattered seasonally flooded vernal pools. Puffer Pond is a natural
pond, most likely of glacial origin. It is approximately 30 acres, and
lies wholly within the refuge. A portion of the northern shoreline of
Willis Pond is on the refuge boundary. Willis Pond is approximately 68
acres. The western edge of Cutting Pond, a privately owned 20-acre pond,
borders the refuge.

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

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

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

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

All sections of the Assabet River are included in the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection 303(d) List of Waters as failing
to meet Class B standards, primarily due to elevated levels of
phosphorus and nitrogen, and low dissolved oxygen concentrations. The
source of nutrient input is thought to be associated with discharges
from seven municipal wastewater treatment facilities, storm water runoff
from lawns and agricultural lands and releases from nutrients previously
settled in the sediments of the river bottom (USFWS 2005).

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

Seventy percent (1,561 acres) of the refuge is forested, predominantly
in white pine-mixed hardwoods. About 9 % (193) is in an old
field/grassland mosaic. The remaining 21% (476 acres) is wetland
habitat, including a remnant Atlantic white cedar swamp, six dwarf-shrub
bogs, two minerotrophic peatland bogs, several vernal pools, and
historical cranberry bogs.

A floristic survey of the refuge in 1992 documented 667 plant species
including several rarities (Hunt 1992). A review of aerial photos,
discussions with local people, and the field reconnaissance noting
extensive stone walls, second growth forests and old cranberry bogs,
confirm the extensive farming history of the land prior to the Army's
acquisition in the early 1940s.

Poorly drained lowland soils on the refuge support extensive and diverse
wetland communities. Hunt (1992) reported forested wetlands with an
overstory of red maple (*Acer rubrum*), black ash (*Fraxinus niger*),
swamp white oak (*Quercus bicolor*), eastern hemlock (*Tsuga
canadensis*) and white pine (*Pinus strobus*) and a shrub understory of
sweet pepperbush (*Clethra alnifolia*), swamp azalea (*Rhododendron
viscosum*) , winterberry (*Ilex verticillata*), and maleberry (*Lyonia
ligustrina*). The shrub-dominated wetlands supported speckled alder
(*Alnus serrulata*), silky dogwood (*Cornus ammomum*), gray-stemmed
dogwood (*Cornus racemosa*), elderberry (*Sambucus canadensis*), black
chokeberry (*Aronia melanocarpa*), buttonbush (*Cephalanthus
occidentalis*), meadowsweet (*Spiraea latifolia*), and steeplebush
(*Spiraea tomentosa*). Emergent wetland vegetation included broad-leaved
cattail (*Typha latifolia*), sedges (*Abildgaardia*), blue-joint grass
(*Hemarthria*), boneset (*Tamaulipa*), joe-pye-weed (*Eupatorium*),
pickerelweed (*Pontederia cordata*), arrowhead (*Sagittaria L.*),
smartweed (*Polygonum amphibium*), spike rush (*Eleocharis R. Br.*),
waterlily (*Nymphaea*), and purple loosestrife (*Lythrum salicaria*).
The dwarf shrub bogs, peatlands, Atlantic white cedar swamp, and
kettlehole pond support exceptionally high plant diversity. Assabet
River NWR also supports at least 50 vernal pools (Hunt 1992).

Assabet River NWR lies within the central hardwoods (Appalachian
oak)-hemlock, white pine zone. This is a region where the northern
hardwoods (beech, birch, maple) overlap with the oaks and hickories of
the south. A majority of the uplands on the refuge have succeeded back
to forest dominated by white pine, red oak (*Quercus rubra*), and other
hardwoods. Common hardwoods include red maple (*Acer rubrum*), red oak ,
white oak (*Quercus alba*), quaking aspen (*Populus tremuloides*),
American beech (*Fagus grandifolia*), black cherry (*Prunus serotina
var. serotina*), American elm (*Ulmus* *americana*), shagbark hickory
(*Carya ovata var. ovata*), and birch (*Betula sp*.). The understory is
a mix of sassafras (*Sassafras albidum*), blueberry (*Vaccinium sp.),*
and dogwood (*Cornus sp.).*

Rare plants that are found on the refuge are: Few-fruited sedge (*Carex
oligosperma*), Grass-leaved ladies-tresses (*Spiranthes vernalis*), New
England blazing star (*Liatris borealis*), and Philadelphia panic grass
(*Panicum philadelphicum*).

Hunt (1992) recorded 19 exotic plant species on the refuge (see Table 1
below). In 2002, the Service's Region 5 initiated a systematic effort to
identify, locate, and map invasive plant species occurring on Refuge
lands, leading to an integrated management plan that guides invasive
species control, monitoring and evaluation projects. Funding from the
Service, the Friends of Assabet River NWR, and the Sudbury Foundation
led to a three-year evaluation of the entire refuge by Massachusetts
Audubon Society to identify, map, and determine the abundance of
invasive species. Exotic, invasive species known to occur on the refuge
are listed below.

  ------------------------- ----------------------------- ---------------
  **Table 1. Invasive Plant                               
  Species on Assabet River                                
  NWR**                                                   

  **Common Name**           **Scientific Name**           **Presence**

  Asiatic Bittersweet       *Celastrus orbiculata*        X

  Autumn Olive              *Elaeagnus umbellate*         X

  Bittersweet Nightshade    *Solanum dulcamara*           X

  Black Locust              *Robinia pseudoacacia*        X

  Black swallowwort         *Cynanchum louiseae*          X

  Burning Bush              *Euonymous alata*             X

  Celandine                 *Chelidonium majus*           X

  Common Barberry           *Berberis vulgaris*           X

  Cypress Spurge            *Euphorbia cyparissias*       X

  European Buckthorn        *Rhamnus cathartica*          X

  Garlic Mustard            *Alliaria petiolata*          X

  Gill-over-the-Ground      *Glechoma hederacea*          X

  Glossy Buckthorn          *Rhamnus frangula*            X

  Honeysuckle               *Lonicera sp.*                X

  Japanese Barberry         *Berberis thunbergii*         X

  Japanese Honeysuckle      *Lonicera japonica*           X

  Japanese Knotweed         *Polygonum cuspidatum*        X

  Moneywort                 *Lysimachia nummularia*       X

  Multiflora Rose           *Rosa multiflora*             X

  Norway Maple              *Acer platanoides*            X

  Phragmites                *Phragmites australis*        X

  Privet                    *Ligustrum spp.*              X

  Purple Loosestrife        *Lythrum salicaria*           X

  Sheep Sorrel              *Rumex acetosella*            X

  Spotted Knapweed          *Centaurea biebersteineii*    X

  Tree-of-Heaven            *Ailanthus altissima*         X

  True Forget-me-not        *Myosotis scorpioides*        X

  Yellow Iris               *Iris pseudacorus*            X

  White Poplar              *Populus alba*                X
  ------------------------- ----------------------------- ---------------

2\. Wildlife

Assabet River NWR provides habitat for a rich diversity of wildlife.
Over 137 species of birds, 120 species of moths, butterflies and
dragonflies, 25 species of mammals and 20 species of reptiles and
amphibians occur on the refuge for at least part of the year. The refuge
provides a mix of wetland, upland field, scrub-shrub and forested
habitats. This combination provides excellent habitat for a variety of
bird species year round. A number of state-listed species are found on
the refuge during various seasons.

Many songbird species nest, feed, and rest on the refuge. They include
gray catbird (*Dumetella carolinensis*), redwinged blackbird (*Agelaius
pheoniceus*), swamp sparrow (*Melospiza georgiana*), common yellowthroat
(*Geothlypis trichas*), Baltimore oriole (*Icterus galbula*), veery
(*Catharus fuscescens*), wood thrush (*Hylocichla mustelina*), hermit
thrush (*Catharus guttatus*), scarlet tanager (*Piranga olivacea*),
ovenbird (*Seiurus aurocapillus*), great crested flycatcher (*Myiarchus
crinitus*), and eastern towhee (*Pipilo erythrophthalmus*). A number of
bird species nesting on or migrating through the refuge are neotropical
migrants.

Nesting marshbirds have been consistently recorded on some parts of the
refuge, particularly the wetlands at the south end of Taylor Brook and
the north end of Puffer Pond. This wetland complex was monitored
annually from 2000-2005 and nesting great blue heron (*Ardea herodias*)
and Virginia rail (*Rallus limicola*) were regularly recorded. In
addition, sora (*Porzana carolina*), least bittern (*Ixobrychus
exilis*), American bittern (*Botaurus lentiginosus*) and king rail
(*Rallus elegans*) have all been recorded in this wetland complex during
the breeding season since 2000.

The Service has not conducted any formal surveys or inventories on the
refuge for mammals. Since 2003, however, volunteers with Assabet Keeping
Track have been monitoring transects four times a year at various
locations throughout the refuge. Major wildlife travel corridors have
been identified and the presence of several mammalian species has been
confirmed. These species include: Virginia opossum (*Didelphis
virginiana*), shrew species (*Sorex spp.* and *Blarina spp.*), chipmunks
(*Tamias striatus*), eastern gray squirrel (*Sciurus carolinensis*),
white-tailed deer (*Odocoileus* *virginianus*), muskrat (*Ondatra
zibethica*), coyote (*Canis latrans*), red fox (*Vulpes fulva*),
American beaver (*Castor canadensis*), mink (*Mustela vison*), and
fisher (*Martes pennanti*).

While comprehensive inventories of reptiles and amphibians have not been
conducted, we have conducted surveys since 2000 to monitor frog and toad
species on the refuge. Species recorded include: green frog (*Rana
clamitans*), bullfrog (*Rana catesbiana*), northern spring peeper
(*Pseudacris crucifer*), pickerel frog (*Rana palustris*), gray tree
frog (*Hyla versicolor*), wood frog (*Rana sylvatica*) and American toad
(*Bufo americanus*). Reptile species found on the refuge include spotted
turtle (*Clemmys guttata*), painted turtle (*Chrysemys picta*), snapping
turtle (*Chelydra serpentine*), common garter snake (*Thamnophis
sirtalis*) and northern water snake *(Nerodia sipedon*). Suitable
habitat exists for the Blanding's turtle (*Emys blandingii*). The
Service is evaluating options to repatriate Blanding's turtles to the
refuge in the near future.

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

No formal surveys have been conducted for butterflies, dragonflies,
damselflies, and other invertebrates. Mello and Peters conducted an
extensive moth survey in 1992. Invertebrates are an important component
of the food chain and are of biological importance to other refuge
wildlife.

Detailed species lists are available in the Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan for Assabet River 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 Assabet River NWR. The species and habitats that are likely to be of
greatest management concern are listed below in Table 2.

> **Table 2. Highest Priority Habitats and Associated Focal Species on
> Assabet River NWR.**

  ------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
  **Highest Priority Habitat      **Selected Associated Focal Species**
  Types**                         

  Freshwater Wetlands Complex     breeding marsh birds, migrating
  (Emergent Marsh, Scrub Shrub,   songbirds and waterfowl, resident
  Forested Wetland, Freshwater    turtles, rare plants
  Pond, Peatlands)                

  Vernal Pools                    blue-spotted salamander

  Oak-Pine Forest                 nesting songbirds (scarlet tanager,
                                  Baltimore oriole, black-and-white
                                  warbler, rose-breasted grosbeak, wood
                                  thrush)

  Shrubland                       nesting birds (Eastern towhee,
                                  blue-winged warbler, whip-poor-will,
                                  woodcock), migrating songbirds

  **Moderate Priority Habitat     **Selected Associated Focal Species**
  Types**                         

  Grassland                       nesting birds (bobolink)

  Exposed Sands                   nesting turtles, rare plants
  ------------------------------- ---------------------------------------

C. Socio-economic/Cultural Resources

1\. Socioeconomic Resources

Assabet River NWR is located in Middlesex County. The four towns in
which the refuge is located have a long, rich history and strive to
maintain their small town, community atmosphere. Each refuge town offers
a unique blend of urban or suburban and rural qualities. A rich
agricultural past is sometimes evident through the protection of former
farmland as private, local, state or Federal conservation land or open
space. However, agriculture has been replaced by residential land use,
interspersed with small retail and light industry. Hudson and Maynard
have a past history as mill towns. Old mills have been converted to
office space; others that are vacant are poised for redevelopment.

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

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.

Assabet River NWR is located within the southern Merrimack River Basin
and the SuAsCo rivers basin. The first Native American occupation in
this area occurred during the Paleoindian period (11000-8000 Before
Present (B.P.)). Settlement and land use patterns were most likely a
widely spaced network of site locations within a very large territory.
By the Middle Archaic period (8000-4500 B.P.), hunters and gatherers
focused their subsistence strategies on drainage systems. Fishing gear
appeared during that time, and people heavily used local sources of
stone. The refuge environment was ideal for the people of the Middle
Archaic, and several sites near the refuge are known. Intensive hunting
and fishing occurred all over the region during the Late Archaic
(4500-3000 B.P.). Toward the end of the prehistoric period (Late
Woodland period 1000 B.P. to the arrival of Europeans in New England),
it appears that interior river drainages and some upland settings were a
vital part of settlement patterns.

Within the Assabet River NWR, there are a variety of environmental zones
that represent areas of both high and low natural resource potential.
Puffer Pond and the complex of streams and wetlands associated with it
is the most clear general zone of high natural resource potential
(Hudson 1889; Ritchie 1980, Hoffman 1983). This pond, along with Willis
Pond, is one of the few natural lakes or ponds in the western portion of
the town of Sudbury (Gallagher et. al. 1986). It is directly connected
to the Assabet River by Taylor Brook. Large areas of marsh and wooded
wetlands, extending the entire length of Taylor Brook, form the outlet
at the north end of Puffer Pond to the confluence with the Assabet
River. This area would have been excellent habitat for a variety of
waterfowl, fur-bearing mammals, and other species exploited by Native
Americans.

The central portion of the refuge contains several large areas of wooded
wetlands covering several hundred acres. These wetlands will have
provided seasonally concentrated natural resources suitable to winter
camps for humans. One prehistoric site has been located in the central
wetland portion of the refuge, and with further testing, several more
will likely be found.

The elevated, rocky hills within the refuge will have provided another
type of environment for humans to utilize. This area will have sustained
deciduous forest which will have provided habitat for deer, bear,
raccoon and bobcat, as well as acorns, chestnuts and hickory nuts. Five
prehistoric sites have been identified through limited archaeological
testing (Gallagher et. al. 1986). Most likely, more sites located in
this environment representing all the major time periods within Native
American history will be identified. Assabet River NWR offers a wide
variety of environmental zones ideal for Native American settlement
throughout history. This area was a cultural focus of the Merrimack
River Basin. The limited archaeological studies completed have revealed
prehistoric archaeological sites in all of the various refuge
environments (Gallagher et. al. 1986). The refuge should be considered
highly sensitive for such cultural resources. The refuge has the
potential to contribute information that is significant in understanding
Native American settlement patterns and environmental uses for this
region of Massachusetts.

Europeans began to settle the refuge area around 1650. After King
Philip's War in 1675, with Native American nations losing political
strength, the English were able to develop and settle the refuge area
(Gallagher et. al. 1986). The people that settled in the refuge area
were primarily involved with farming activities. By 1750, the settlement
pattern of the refuge area was influenced by increasing development. The
towns that lie within the refuge supplied Boston with timber and
agricultural products. Mills developed during the 19^th^ century.

Within the boundaries of the refuge, many farms and residences were
built since the early 19^th^ century. Some, such as the Rice/Vose Tavern
and Puffer House, were 17^th^ and 18^th^ century in origin. Land use
within the refuge was almost exclusively agricultural and pastoral, with
some tracts of woodland. By the early 20^th^ century, many of the older
farms were acquired and new houses were constructed by Finnish
immigrants until 1942, when the military acquired the property
(Gallagher et. al. 1986). A few of the farmhouses still remain on the
refuge, although all are in a serious state of decay and will be removed
at a future date.

The area that is now the refuge became government property when a formal
petition was filed by the United States to acquire the land by eminent
domain. The location was selected for strategic reasons -- it was well
out of range of naval guns -- and for its close proximity to four active
railroad lines. Originally known as the Maynard Ammunition Backup
Storage Point, the facility was used to store surplus ammunition during
the war effort. Provision for the safe storage of ordnance was ensured
by the construction of 50 earth-covered bunkers located around the
central section of the facility. Railroad spurs were developed to
provide access between bunkers and the existing main railroad lines
(U.S. Army 1995). Some of these railroad spurs have been and are
currently being converted to wildlife observation trails.

# IV. Environmental Consequences 

A. Effects Common to all Alternatives

1\. Environmental Justice

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

2\. Refuge Physical Environment

> Other than Alternative A, which would have no impacts to refuge lands,
> impacts of each remaining alternative on the refuge physical
> environment would be minimal to negligible.
>
> No adverse impact to vegetation from trampling by hunters is likely,
> as most species will have senesced or become dormant. The refuge would
> control hunter access to minimize any local vegetation disturbance
> that may be caused by hunters. 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.
>
> 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 roads and trails. Existing State
> water quality criteria and use classifications are adequate to achieve
> desired on-refuge conditions.

3\. Cultural Resources

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

B. Effects of Specific Alternatives

1\. Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003

a\. Biological Impacts

> Long-term closure of Assabet River 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 Assabet River NWR is
> located is estimated to be 20-35 animals per square mile. MassWildlife
> recommends a density of 6-8 animals per square mile to avoid habitat
> degradation due to over-browsing. Since 1997, MassWildlife has
> implemented a longer archery deer season for deer and increased the
> harvest of antlerless deer in an effort to reach the eight deer per
> square mile objective (Woytek, MassWildlife, personal communication).
>
> Habitat degradation by deer would negatively impact other wildlife
> that depends on this habitat. Deer hunting would help keep deer within
> the carrying capacity of their habitat. When the population exceeds
> the carrying capacity, biological parameters within the herd (weight,
> antler size, reproductive rates, etc.) indicate the deterioration of
> the herd quality. Stress factors associated with overpopulation could
> become acute, causing diseases and high mortality. Browsing pressure
> will continue to reduce overall habitat quality for deer, stress the
> health of individual animals, and diminish diversity of habitats that
> sustain other wildlife species.
>
> There would be no additional impact to migratory game birds, upland
> game, or big game populations or habitats under this alternative.

b\. Socioeconomic Impacts

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

c\. Summary of Effects for Alternative A

> Alternative A would allow the white-tailed deer population to
> increase, thereby decreasing habitat quality for songbirds and other
> wildlife dependent on understory vegetation. Browsing pressure will
> continue to reduce overall habitat quality for deer and stress the
> health of individual animals. There could be increased cost to private
> landowners as a result of vehicle collisions, horticultural damage, or
> illness from Lyme's disease.
>
> Citizens wishing to engage in hunting of upland game, big game, or
> migratory game birds 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.
>
> There would be an increase in the take of turkey, American woodcock,
> ruffed grouse, squirrels and Eastern cottontail rabbits if this
> alternative were implemented. The increase mortality is not expected
> to be significant or have long-term effects on the populations.
>
> 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 opening a hunt program at Assabet River NWR would occur.
> 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

> We anticipate that a low to moderate degree of hunting pressure will
> occur as a result of opening the refuge to hunting. Under this
> alternative, hunting at Assabet River NWR would contribute to
> satisfying local demand for hunting, and provide opportunities for
> refuge staff to convey Service and refuge messages to hunting
> enthusiasts and the public. Economic impacts would likely be a minimal
> increase in the purchase of fuel, food, lodging and supplies, due to
> the potential for new hunters to be attracted to the area near the
> refuge. It is anticipated that most hunters would be local hunters,
> many of whom would hunt in the morning or late afternoon and go to
> work during the day.
>
> Other actions proposed in the CCP for Assabet River NWR would increase
> opportunities for wildlife observation, photography, environmental
> education, hiking and other public uses in parts of the refuge. This,
> in combination with hunting, may generate some conflict among public
> uses as some potential refuge visitors may feel displaced by the hunt
> program. Some visitors may be reluctant to visit the refuge in areas
> that are open to hunting or during certain hunting seasons. It is
> possible that there would be a slight reduction in non-hunter use of
> the refuge which would result in fewer small purchases for food and
> fuel. There would be some refuge visitors who would avoid areas open
> for firearm hunting by concentrating their visits to parts of the
> refuge that are only open for archery hunting. This could be perceived
> by some to be a negative impact on their refuge experience.
> Additionally, some visitors might avoid the refuge altogether and
> would visit non-refuge lands instead.
>
> To reduce conflict and promote safety, State hunting regulations
> prohibit the discharge of any arrow or firearm upon or across any
> State or hard-surfaced highway or within 150 feet of any such highway,
> and hunting within 500 feet of any dwelling or building in use, except
> as authorized by the owner or occupant thereof. The refuge will
> require a permit be issued to all hunters on the refuge and fee will
> be required.
>
> Refuge staff will work to anticipate such conflicts, and if any arise,
> will adjust public use activities to ensure that visitor safety and
> the interests of all refuge user groups are not unduly compromised.

c\. Summary of Effects for Alternative B

> 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.
>
> No adverse effects on migratory birds, fish, and endangered species
> are anticipated as a result of establishing an upland game, big game
> or migratory game hunt program at Assabet River NWR. Wildlife species
> for which hunting would be permitted on the refuge are those that are
> already regulated at the State or Federal level.
>
> Hunting noise may disturb refuge visitors or neighbors. There would be
> some refuge visitors who would 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 Assabet River 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 this Alternative would be
> similar to those under Alternative B, except that the refuge may
> attract fewer deer hunters as hunting would be limited to archery and
> primitive firearms only.
>
> The elimination of shotgun deer hunting on refuge lands would result
> in a decrease in deer mortality. This decrease in mortality may cause
> a slightly higher deer population in the area as opposed to
> Alternative B and therefore negatively affect the natural diversity of
> the plant community.
>
> All other aspects of the hunt program would remain the same as
> Alternative B.

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 less as there would be fewer hunters in the area. Disturbance
> to refuge visitors from noise associated with shotgun hunting would be
> reduced but there could be an increase in deer-car collisions and
> other conflicts between deer and people with a slightly larger herd
> than would be obtained under Alternative B.

c\. Summary of Effects for Alternative C

> Environmental consequences related to hunting under this alternative
> would be similar to those under Alternative B, except shotgun hunting
> would not be allowed for deer. All other aspects of the hunt program
> would remain the same as Alternative B.
>
> The deer population may remain at a slightly higher level than would
> be obtained through Alternative B. Potential for hunting-related
> conflicts would be reduced because fewer hunters would be on the
> refuge.

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

a\. Biological Impacts

> Under the *Current Refuge Hunt Program*, white-tailed deer, turkey,
> American woodcock, ruffed grouse, gray squirrel and Eastern cottontail
> rabbit hunting will be allowed, in accordance with regulations
> published by MassWildlife and refuge regulations. Among other
> restrictions, these regulations prohibit the discharge of any arrow 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. A refuge permit and fee will be required.
>
> The *Current Refuge Hunt Program* differs from Alternative B in that
> portions of the refuge will be closed to shotgun hunting for all
> species and open to archery only for deer and turkey hunting. The
> archery only area includes the 290-acre tract south of Hudson Road and
> the areas on the main part of the refuge that are external to Patrol
> Road from its southerly intersection with White Pond Road,
> northwesterly and then easterly, to its intersection with Old
> Marlborough Road in Maynard. Hunting with firearms is allowed only on
> portions of the main part of the refuge north of Hudson Road.
> Migratory bird and upland game hunting would be limited to the portion
> that is open to firearms. Environmental consequences related to
> hunting under this alternative would be similar to those under
> Alternative B, except that there will be a slight reduction in the
> shotgun hunting opportunity which will minimally decrease biological
> impacts.
>
> The deer hunt program recommended in Alternative D would help sustain
> a healthy deer population that is consistent with habitat carrying
> capacity. Although it is anticipated that less deer will be harvested
> on the refuge under this alternative, there should still be sufficient
> reduction in the population so that 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.
>
> There would be a slight decrease in the take of turkey, American
> woodcock, ruffed grouse, gray squirrels and Eastern cottontail rabbits
> if this alternative were implemented. The decrease in mortality is not
> expected to be significant due to the slight decrease in acreage for
> hunting woodcock, grouse, squirrels and cottontails and for hunting
> turkeys with a shotgun.
>
> 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 Assabet River NWR. Impacts
> from turkey hunters will be minimal due to the limited number of
> permits that will be issued, the limited hours that can be hunted, and
> the nature of the hunt itself. 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

> We anticipate that a low to moderate degree of hunting pressure will
> occur as a result of opening the refuge to hunting. Under this
> alternative, hunting at Assabet River NWR would contribute to
> satisfying local demand for hunting, and provide opportunities for
> refuge staff to convey Service and refuge messages to hunting
> enthusiasts and the public. Economic impacts would likely be a minimal
> increase in the purchase of fuel, food, lodging and supplies, due to
> the potential for new hunters to be attracted to the area near the
> refuge. It is anticipated that most hunters would be local hunters,
> many of whom would hunt in the morning or late afternoon and go to
> work during the day.
>
> Other actions proposed in the CCP for Assabet River NWR would increase
> opportunities for wildlife observation, photography, environmental
> education, hiking and other public uses in parts of the refuge. This,
> in combination with hunting, may generate some conflict among public
> uses as some potential refuge visitors may feel displaced by the hunt
> program. Some visitors may be reluctant to visit the refuge in areas
> that are open to hunting or during certain hunting seasons. There
> would be some refuge visitors who would avoid areas open for firearm
> hunting by concentrating their visits to parts of the refuge that are
> only open for archery hunting. This could be perceived by some to be a
> negative impact on their refuge experience. Additionally, some
> visitors might avoid the refuge altogether and would visit non-refuge
> lands instead. 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.
>
> Areas of the refuge that are next to residential areas will be open
> for archery deer and turkey hunting only. This will decrease noise and
> should decrease concerns about safety that have been expressed by some
> neighbors.
>
> To reduce conflict and promote safety, State hunting regulations
> prohibit the discharge of any arrow or firearm upon or across any
> State or hard-surfaced highway or within 150 feet of any such highway,
> and hunting within 500 feet of any dwelling or building in use, except
> as authorized by the owner or occupant thereof. The refuge will
> require a permit be issued to all hunters on the refuge and fee will
> be required.
>
> Refuge staff will work to anticipate such conflicts, and if any arise,
> will adjust public use activities to ensure that visitor safety and
> the interests of all refuge user groups are not unduly compromised.

c\. Summary of Effects of Alternative D

> 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.
>
> No adverse effects on migratory birds, fish, and endangered species
> are anticipated as a result of establishing an upland game, big game
> or migratory game hunt program at Assabet River NWR. Wildlife species
> for which hunting would be permitted on the refuge are those that are
> already regulated at the State or Federal level.
>
> Hunting noise may disturb refuge visitors or neighbors, although that
> noise is reduced in this alternative by the extensive archery only
> areas that are located next to most residential areas. 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 new hunters are attracted to the refuge, opportunities to
> communicate with the hunting public would increase, thereby fostering
> greater understanding and support of Assabet River 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.

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

> Deer harvest is essential to help maintain the deer herd at or below
> habitat carrying capacity as well as below the human tolerance level
> where once exceeded, deer become pests.  When deer are overpopulated,
> they over-browse their habitat and can completely change the species
> composition of a forest by doing so.  Furthermore, overpopulation
> leads to starvation, decreased herd health, increased car-deer
> collisions, increased property damage and Lyme disease.
>
> Under this alternative, no deer hunting would occur at Assabet River
> NWR, thus increasing the probability of deer deaths due to other means
> such as noted in the paragraph above. Disturbance to non-hunted
> species would not exist under this alternative as the refuge would
> remain closed to the public.

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*. Because this
> alternative opened a larger area of the refuge to shotgun hunting,
> additional deer mortality would occur. This additional mortality would
> further reduce the number of conflicts between deer and people and
> help to bring the local deer density closer to the Zone 10 goal of 6-8
> deer per square mile.
>
> Impacts to non-hunted wildlife species under this alternative would be
> similar to that described under Alternative D. See text under
> Alternative D for more information.

Alternative C

> The impacts of this alternative would be similar to those of
> Alternative D, the *Current Refuge Hunt Program*. Because this
> alternative excludes shotgun hunting less mortality would occur. This
> reduction in mortality would have minimal impacts on the State's goal
> of bringing deer density down to 6-8 deer per square mile.
>
> Impacts to non-hunted wildlife species under this alternative would be
> similar to that described under Alternative D. See text under
> Alternative D for more information.

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
> MassWildlife, there are currently between 85,000 and 95,000 deer in
> Massachusetts. Densities of deer per square mile range from
> approximately 10 in the northwestern part of the state to
> approximately 55 on Nantucket Island.
>
> Assabet River NWR is located within State Wildlife Management Zone 10,
> which has a current deer density of 20-35 per square mile. Because
> State biologists have set a goal of attaining 6-8 deer per square mile
> in this zone to maintain deer health, some additional reduction in the
> deer population is warranted. 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 has
> recorded deer harvest rates of approximately 23 deer per season on
> lands adjacent to Assabet River NWR from 1999-2004 (Bill Woytek,
> personal communication).  During the 2005 deer season, 70 deer permits
> were issued on the refuge.  It is estimated that a total of 35 deer
> were harvested from the refuge during the season. In 2006, 50 archery,
> 30 muzzleloader and 60 shotguns permits were allotted. It is estimated
> that 33 deer were harvested from the refuge. These numbers are only
> slightly higher than the average take of deer in the area before
> hunting began on the refuge in 2005.\
> \
> Harvest data confirm that decades of deer hunting on surrounding lands
> has not had a local cumulative adverse effect on the deer population.
>  In fact, the State would like more lands opened to hunting in Zone 10
> to aid in the reduction of deer populations. Much of the land in Zone
> 10 has hunting restrictions on it (Bill Woytek, personal
> communication). Therefore, expanding hunting on 2,230 acres of refuge
> lands should aid the State in reaching their goals of limiting the
> deer herd in this suburban area.  This reduction will help to reduce
> the number of conflicts between deer and people including the number
> of car-deer collisions.
>
> Non-hunted wildlife includes non-hunted migratory birds such as
> songbirds, wading birds, raptors, and woodpeckers; small mammals such
> as voles, moles, mice, shrews, and bats; larger mammals such as
> fisher, otter, and mink; reptiles and amphibians such as snakes,
> turtles, lizards, salamanders, frogs and toads; and invertebrates such
> as butterflies, moths, insects and spiders. Except for migratory
> birds, these species have very limited home ranges and hunting could
> not possibly affect their populations regionally; thus, only local
> effects will be discussed.
>
> Disturbance by hunting to non-hunted wildlife would be the most likely
> negative cumulative impact. 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. 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.
>
> Disturbance to non-hunted migratory birds, resident birds, such as
> most woodpeckers and some songbirds such as cardinals, titmice, wrens,
> and chickadees, would be minimal. Regional and flyway effects would
> not be applicable to species that do not migrate. Disturbance by
> hunting to non-hunted migratory birds should not have cumulative
> negative impacts for the following reasons. Deer hunting season does
> not coincide with the nesting season. Long-term future impacts that
> could occur if reproduction was reduced by hunting are not relevant
> for this reason. Disturbance to the daily wintering activities, such
> as feeding and resting, of birds may occur. Disturbance to birds by
> hunters is probably commensurate with that caused by non-consumptive
> users.

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

> The cumulative effects to the white-tailed deer population 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. This will benefit species that rest and feed in vegetation
> eaten by deer. Impacts to non-hunted resident wildlife will be
> minimal.

b\. Resident Wildlife - Turkey

Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003

> Under this alternative the refuge would remain closed to hunting. No
> impacts to the turkey population would be anticipated. Disturbance to
> non-hunted species would not exist under this alternative as the
> refuge would remain closed to the public.

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

> Under this alternative, cumulative impacts would be similar to those
> experienced under Alternative D, the *Current Refuge Hunt Program*.
> The difference between Alternative B and the *Current Refuge Hunt
> Program* is that some of the hunt area would be limited to archery
> only instead of both archery and shotgun. This would reduce the turkey
> mortality but only slightly. Since so few hunters are successful at
> taking turkey, there would be no impact on the local population.
> Impacts to non-hunted species would be similar to those that occur
> under the *Current Refuge Hunt Program*.

Alternative C

> There is no difference in regard to turkey hunting between Alternative
> C and Alternative B above. See the text under Alternative B for
> cumulative impacts of Alternative C.

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

> The fall turkey population in Massachusetts is estimated at
> approximately18,000 birds (Jim Cardoza, personal communication).
>  During the mid-1800's turkeys were rare in the state. The last native
> bird was taken in 1851, but through an active reintroduction program
> and natural movements of turkeys into Massachusetts from adjacent
> states, the turkey population has rebounded. Restoration resulted in a
> huntable population level by 1980. Today, turkeys range throughout
> most of the state and hunting occurs in all but two counties.\
> \
> Turkeys are non-migratory and have a small home range, therefore
> hunting only impacts the local population.  Turkey hunting is limited
> to a spring hunt with a maximum take of two bearded birds per hunter.
>  According to state biologists, gobblers can be taken during the
> spring without adversely affecting turkey production.\
> \
> Statewide, 2,266 turkeys were harvested in the spring 2006 hunt and
> 163 turkeys harvested in the fall. The average take for 2000-2006 in
> Middlesex County was 72 birds, including both spring and fall seasons,
> which is approximately 22% of the statewide harvest and 0.4% of the
> total turkey population.  (The refuge is in Zone 10, which does not
> allow a fall turkey hunt, but other towns within Middlesex County are
> located in Zone 9, which does allow a fall hunt.) The average take of
> turkeys per season for the four towns surrounding the refuge from
> 2003-2006 was 10 turkeys per year.  Ten permits were issued for the
> spring turkey hunt at Assabet River NWR.  The maximum total take for
> turkeys on the refuge is 20 gobblers.  It is estimated that only one
> in fifteen hunters are successful at taking a turkey which would
> reduce the take to approximately 1 turkey per year on the refuge.
>  This number is well below the threshold that would negatively impact
> the local population.\
> \
> 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.
>
> Disturbance to non-hunted species including birds, reptiles,
> amphibians, small mammals and invertebrates will occur during the
> spring turkey hunt but is expected to be minimal. We expect to issue
> 10 -- 20 permits for turkey hunting on the refuge. The restricted
> number of turkey hunters allowed on the refuge and the limited
> movements of turkey hunters while hunting limit the amount of
> disturbance to these species. Long-term future impacts that could
> occur if reproduction was reduced by hunting are not relevant for this
> reason. Disturbance to the daily activities, such as feeding, resting
> and nesting, of birds may occur. Disturbance to reptiles, amphibians,
> and small mammals will be minimal since hunter interaction is expected
> to be rare. Disturbance to birds, reptiles, amphibians, small mammals
> and invertebrates by hunters is probably commensurate with that caused
> by non-consumptive users.

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

> The cumulative effects to the turkey population 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 average success rate for turkey hunters.
> Providing hunt opportunities on the refuge for turkey hunting will not
> result in cumulative impacts to the local, regional or statewide
> population.

c\. Resident Wildlife - Small Game (Gray Squirrel and Eastern Cottontail
Rabbit)

Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003

> Under this alternative the refuge would remain closed to hunting. No
> impacts to squirrel or rabbit populations are anticipated. Disturbance
> to non-hunted species would not exist under this alternative as the
> refuge would remain closed to the public.

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

> Impacts to squirrels and Eastern cottontail rabbits under this
> alternative will be similar to Alternative D. Impacts are slightly
> greater under this alternative because upland game hunting would be
> allowed on most of the 290-acre part of the refuge located south of
> Hudson Road. However, the difference in the amount of land open to
> upland game hunting between these alternatives is so small, that
> cumulative impacts would be the same for both alternatives.

Alternative C

> There is no difference in regard to squirrel and rabbit hunting
> between Alternative C and Alternative B above.

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

> Squirrels and rabbits will not be affected regionally by refuge
> hunting because of their limited home ranges. Only local effects will
> be discussed. There is little study of cumulative effects of hunting
> on gray squirrel and 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 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. The refuge does not have extensive
> areas of prime squirrel and rabbit habitat, and the population of
> these species is not high.
>
> In 2005, the refuge issued 171 upland game permits (squirrel, rabbit,
> and ruffed grouse). This was the first year the refuge was open to
> hunting, and interest in securing permits was high. In 2006, the
> refuge issued 44 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 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 20 of the 44 hunters who received upland
> game permits for Assabet River NWR in 2006. Of these, only 1 hunter
> reported hunting squirrel. He did this for 1 day only, and he
> harvested no game. Five hunters reported that they hunted rabbit on
> the refuge. Only one of these hunters spent more than two days engaged
> in rabbit hunting. Most hunters hunted rabbit while they were also
> hunting grouse. We received no reports of rabbit being harvested in
> 2006. We received limited feedback from hunters in 2005 with a
> reported total of 9 squirrels and 0 rabbits taken then. Few hunters
> spend much time on squirrel or rabbit hunting. Among the upland game
> species, the target of choice appears to be ruffed grouse (see below).
>
> Disturbance to non-hunted migratory birds would not have regional,
> local, and flyway effects. 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, chickadees, etc.
> Disturbance by hunting to non-hunted migratory birds should not have
> cumulative negative impacts since the hunt season does not coincide
> with the nesting season.
>
> Disturbance by hunting to non-hunted resident wildlife would be the
> most likely negative cumulative impact. 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.
>
> Significant disturbance would be unlikely for the following reasons.
> Small mammals, including bats, are inactive during winter when the
> majority of hunting occurs. These species, as well as some larger
> species such as mink, are nocturnal. Fisher, otter and fox are active
> during hunt periods, but all are secretive. Hunters are more likely to
> see signs from these animals rather than the animals themselves.
> Interactions, if and when they occur, would be brief and have a
> temporary impact. Both of these qualities make hunter interactions
> with small mammals extremely rare. Hibernation or torpor by cold-blood
> reptiles and amphibians also limits their activity during the hunting
> season when temperatures low. Hunters will rarely encounter reptiles
> and amphibians during most of the hunting season. Encounters with
> reptiles and amphibians in the early fall are few and should not have
> cumulative negative effects on reptile and amphibian populations.
> Invertebrates are also not active during cold weather and will have
> few interactions with hunters during the hunting season.

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

> The cumulative effects to squirrels and rabbits will be increased
> individual mortality, but the number of animals likely to be harvested
> from the refuge is very low and will likely remain low due to lack of
> abundant habitat 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 rabbit populations. Providing
> hunt opportunities for squirrel and rabbit hunting will not result in
> cumulative impacts to the local, regional or statewide population.

d\. Resident Wildlife -Grouse

Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003

> Under this alternative the refuge would remain closed to hunting. No
> impacts to grouse populations are anticipated. Disturbance to
> non-hunted species would not exist under this alternative as the
> refuge would remain closed to the public.

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

> The impacts under this alternative are similar to Alternative D.
> Impacts are slightly greater under this alternative because ruffed
> grouse hunting would be allowed on most of the 290-acre part of the
> refuge located south of Hudson Road. However, the difference in the
> amount of land open to upland game hunting between these alternatives
> is so small, that cumulative impacts would be the same for both
> alternatives.

Alternative C

> There is no difference in regard to grouse hunting between Alternative
> C and Alternative D, except that less acreage is open to ruffed grouse
> hunting in Alternative D. See the text under Alternative D for
> cumulative impacts of Alternative C.

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 MassWildlife website, ruffed grouse have declined 4% over the
> past three decades. Lack of suitable early succession 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 Massachusetts 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. Assabet River
> NWR provides limited grouse habitat so hunting opportunities will be
> minimal.
>
> In 2005, the refuge issued 171 upland game permits (squirrel, rabbit,
> and ruffed grouse). This was the first year the refuge was open to
> hunting, and interest in securing permits was high. In 2006, the
> refuge issued 44 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 ruffed grouse 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 20 of the 44 hunters who received upland
> game permits for Assabet River NWR in 2006. Of these, a majority sited
> ruffed grouse as their target species. Seven 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. Only two of these hunters spent more than two days engaged in
> ruffed grouse hunting. None of the 20 hunters we received feedback
> from harvested grouse from the refuge, although several did flush
> grouse. We know at least 3 hunters spent time on the refuge in 2005
> hunting grouse, and we know that 1 grouse was harvested.
>
> Disturbance to non-hunted migratory birds would not have regional,
> local, and flyway effects. 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, chickadees, etc.
> Disturbance by hunting to non-hunted migratory birds should not have
> cumulative negative impacts since the hunt season does not coincide
> with the nesting season.
>
> Disturbance by hunting to non-hunted resident wildlife would be the
> most likely negative cumulative impact. However, disturbance would be
> unlikely for the following reasons. Small mammals, including bats, are
> inactive during winter when the majority of hunting occurs. These
> species, as well as some larger species such as mink, are nocturnal.
> Fisher, otter and fox are active during hunt periods, but all are
> secretive. Hunters are more likely to see signs from these animals
> rather than the animals themselves. Interactions, if and when they
> occur, would be brief and have a temporary impact. Both of these
> qualities make hunter interactions with small mammals extremely rare.
> Hibernation or torpor by cold-blood reptiles and amphibians also
> limits their activity during the hunting season when temperatures 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.
>
> Dogs used by grouse hunters may flush or disturb non-hunted wildlife,
> but they are well trained and focused on their prey. Disturbance to
> non-hunted wildlife will be temporary and minor. Additionally, the
> number of individuals who hunt grouse on the refuge is small, thereby
> further reducing impacts to non-hunted species.

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 harvested from the refuge is low
> and will likely remain small due to limited habitat 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. Providing hunting opportunities for ruffed grouse
> will have no cumulative impacts to the local, regional or statewide
> population.

e\. Migratory Species

Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003

> Woodcock hunting would not be permitted under this alternative and,
> therefore, additional mortality of woodcock would not occur.
> Disturbance to non-hunted species would not exist under this
> alternative as the refuge would remain closed to the public.

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

> There is little difference between Alternative B and Alternative D,
> the *Current Refuge Hunt Program*. There might be a slight increase in
> the take of woodcock in this alternative because a majority of the
> 290-acre parcel south of Hudson Road would be open to woodcock hunting
> in Alternative B. However, due to the small number of woodcock hunters
> on the refuge and the small amount of additional land available for
> hunting, there would be no difference in the cumulative impacts. See
> the text under Alternative D for cumulative impacts of this
> alternative.

Alternative C

> There is no difference between Alternative B and Alternative C. See
> the text under Alternative B for cumulative impacts of Alternative C.

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. Assabet River 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.
>
> 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).
>
> American woodcock are the only migratory birds currently allowed to be
> hunted at Assabet River NWR.
>
> 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, refuge staff members
> estimate that no more than 40 woodcock are harvested each year, based
> upon the average hunter success of 2 woodcock per hunt and 9.2
> woodcock per hunting season (Kelley and Rau 2006). This harvest impact
> represents 1.7% of Massachusetts' average harvest of approximately
> 2,300.
>
> Refuge staff believes that woodcock hunting at Assabet River NWR will
> have little or no effect on non-hunted resident and migratory species.
> The area open to American woodcock hunting is only the part of the
> refuge located north of Hudson Road (1,400 acres). Hunting season does
> not overlap with the nesting season for non-hunted migratory birds and
> therefore, long-term future impacts are not likely.
>
> NEPA considerations by the Service for hunted migratory game bird
> species are addressed by the programmatic document, "Final
> Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual
> Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES
> 88-14)," filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on June 9,
> 1988. Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register on
> June 16, 1988 (53 FR 22582), and the Record of Decision was published
> on August 18, 1988 (53 FR 31341). Annual NEPA considerations for
> waterfowl hunting frameworks are covered under a separate
> Environmental Assessment, "Duck Hunting Regulations for 2006-07," and
> on August 24, 2006, Finding of No Significant Impact. Further, in a
> notice published in the September 8, 2005, Federal Register (70 FR
> 53376), the Service announced its intent to develop a new Supplemental
> Environmental Impact Statement for the migratory bird hunting program.
> Public scoping meetings were held in the spring of 2006, as announced
> in a March 9, 2006, Federal Register notice (71 FR 12216). More
> information may be obtained from: Chief, Division of Migratory Bird
> Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the
> Interior, MS MBSP-4107-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NWR, Washington, D.C.
> 20240.

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

> While there will be individual mortality to woodcock, the cumulative
> effects to local, regional, statewide and national 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 cumulative impact as a result
> of the establishment of a woodcock hunt. If hunt opportunities were
> not available on the refuge, hunters would go to other areas where
> hunting opportunities exist.

f\. Endangered Species

Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003

> With the exception of occasional (most likely wintering) bald eagles,
> no Federal listed threatened or endangered species are currently known
> from the Assabet River NWR. A small number of New England Blazing
> Stars (a Federal Candidate Species in 1992) were recorded in 1992, but
> were not found by the New England Wildflower Society during a 1999
> re-survey for the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered
> Species Program. Under Alternative A there would be no negative
> cumulative impacts and no impacts to non-hunted species as the refuge
> would remain closed to the public.

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

> With the exception of occasional (most likely wintering) bald eagles,
> no Federally listed threatened or endangered species are currently
> known from the Assabet River NWR. A small number of New England
> Blazing Stars ( a Federal Candidate Species in 1992) were recorded in
> 1992, but were not found by the New England Wildflower Society during
> a 1999 re-survey for the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered
> Species Program. A Section 7 Evaluation associated with the refuge
> hunting program was conducted, and it was determined that the proposed
> action was not likely to adversely affect these bald eagle populations
> (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005b).

Alternative C

> With the exception of occasional (most likely wintering) bald eagles,
> no Federally- listed threatened or endangered species are currently
> known from the Assabet River NWR. A small number of New England
> Blazing Stars ( a Federal Candidate Species in 1992) were recorded in
> 1992, but were not found by the New England Wildflower Society during
> a 1999 re-survey for the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered
> Species Program. A Section 7 Evaluation associated with the refuge
> hunting program was conducted, and it was determined that the proposed
> action was not likely to adversely affect these bald eagle populations
> (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005b).

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

> With the exception of occasional (most likely wintering) bald eagles,
> no Federally- listed threatened or endangered species are currently
> known from the Assabet River NWR. A small number of New England
> Blazing Stars (a Federal Candidate Species in 1992) were recorded in
> 1992, but were not found by the New England Wildflower Society during
> a 1999 re-survey for the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered
> Species Program. A Section 7 Evaluation associated with the refuge
> hunting program was conducted, and it was determined that the proposed
> action was not likely to adversely affect these bald eagle populations
> (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005b).

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

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

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 a renewable
> resource, participate in wildlife-dependent recreation that is
> compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established,
> attain an increased awareness of Assabet River 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
> parts of the refuge that offer abundant wildlife observation and
> photography, environmental education and interpretation.
>
> This alternative does not support the vision and management direction
> outlined in the Assabet River 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 Assabet River NWR to white-tailed deer hunting,
> turkey, woodcock, ruffed grouse, Eastern cottontail rabbit and gray
> squirrel 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 Assabet River
> 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 in hunt areas may be curtailed, particularly
> during deer season. There are currently twelve miles of unnamed nature
> trails at Assabet River NWR. Visitors on these trails may hear gunshot
> or may encounter hunters. Upland game (ruffed grouse, Eastern
> cottontail rabbit, squirrel), turkey, deer and woodcock hunting have
> occurred at the refuge for the past two years without apparent
> conflict with non-hunters.
>
> The Assabet River NWR CCP identifies additional trails 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.
>
> As visitors become used to hunting 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

> The impacts to visitors under Alternative C would be less than
> Alternatives B or D because shotgun deer hunting would not be allowed.
> Primitive firearm hunting would be allowed, but like archery,
> muzzleloader hunting is conducted at fairly close range. The remaining
> impacts are similar to those described above in Alternative B.

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

> Opening Assabet River NWR to white-tailed deer, turkey, woodcock,
> ruffed grouse, Eastern cottontail rabbit and gray squirrel hunting
> 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 Assabet River
> 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 on trails in hunt areas may be curtailed,
> particularly during deer season. There are currently twelve miles of
> unnamed nature trails at Assabet River NWR. Visitors on these trails
> may hear gunshot or may encounter hunters. Upland game (ruffed grouse,
> Eastern cottontail rabbit, squirrel), turkey, deer and woodcock
> hunting have occurred at the refuge for the past two years without
> apparent conflict with non-hunters.
>
> The Assabet River NWR CCP identifies additional trails 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.
>
> As visitors become used to hunting 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.
>
> Modifications have occurred to visitor services actions since the CCP
> was completed in January 2005. A decision was made in 2005 to build a
> new visitor center for the Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife
> Refuge Complex at Assabet River NWR. It is estimated that the visitor
> center, which will be located on Craven Lane, will eventually draw up
> to 100,000 visitors a year. Due in large part to the plan to site the
> visitor center on the refuge, the trail network is being modified to
> increase environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation
> and wildlife photography opportunities near the visitor center. The
> new trail network will also reduce the trail miles located on old Army
> roads and increase the number of trail miles that are in the woods and
> are more "trail like". Once the visitor center is open, bicycles will
> be allowed on certain roads and trails to provide access to the
> visitor center and some wildlife viewing locations.
>
> After the visitor center is built, we will likely modify the hunting
> zones on the refuge. A change to the hunt areas would reduce potential
> conflicts between hunting and wildlife observation or environmental
> interpretation. The new trail system will facilitate a better
> partitioning of the refuge between hunters and non-hunters. It would
> also ensure a quality hunting experience by creating a buffer between
> the user types. It is likely that hunting opportunities may be altered
> and somewhat reduced on the refuge.

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 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. 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 at Assabet River NWR.

b\. Refuge Facilities

Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003

> Additional use of roads and trails 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 a
> 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

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

Alternative C

> The impacts under this alternative would be the same as Alternative B
> above.

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

> The impacts under this alternative would be the same as Alternative B
> above.
>
> Additional use of roads, trails and parking areas to accommodate the
> hunt program would occur. Under Alternative D, periodic maintenance or
> improvement of the existing small parking areas, roads, and trails
> will cause minimal negative impacts 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.

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 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 the refuge would not be opened to the public under
> this alternative.

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

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

Alternative C

The impacts under this alternative are the same as Alternative B.

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

> The preferred alternative requires little development such as
> construction of new trails and facilities, thereby producing no
> negative effect on the refuge's cultural and historic resources. 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. Therefore, there are no anticipated adverse cumulative
> impacts to this resource from implementing Alternative D.

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

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

> The impacts of allowing hunting may include disturbance of non-target
> species in the course of tracking prey, trampling of vegetation,
> possible creation of unauthorized trails by hunters, subsequent
> erosion, littering, and possible vandalism. Refuge staff will control
> hunter access to minimize any impacts. Hunts would be monitored for
> impact on refuge resources and, if any are found, appropriate
> adjustments would be made to eliminate them.
>
> There is the potential for negative interactions between non-hunters
> and hunters. Opportunities for solitude for visitors walking trails on
> the refuge would be diminished while shotgun hunting was taking place
> on the main parcel north of Hudson Road.

Alternative C

> Impacts would be similar to those identified above in Alternative B.
> However, there would be less of an impact on solitude because deer
> hunting during the shotgun season, which draws the greatest number of
> hunters to the refuge, would not occur under this alternative.

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

> Only minimal impacts to the refuge environment, which consists of
> soils, vegetation, air quality, 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 an impact on solitude, but visitors can time their
> visit to maximize the likelihood of solitude. The biggest conflict
> with visitors 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 to neighbors.
>
> Comments on the refuge CCP and discussions with refuge visitors,
> suggest there exists both support and opposition to the refuge hunt
> program. There is less opposition to archery deer hunting than firearm
> hunting.
>
> Many landowners suffer landscape damage due to deer on a regular
> basis. Transmission of Lyme disease may become a significant issue
> with large numbers of deer. Starvation can occur when deer numbers are
> high as food supplies dwindle in bad weather and deer-vehicle
> collisions become more common and problematic. Positive impacts from a
> well managed hunt program are expected to address these issues.
>
> The newly opened hunts will result in a net gain of public hunting
> opportunities positively impacting the general public, nearby
> residents, and refuge visitors. Refuge staff expects increased
> visitation and tourism to bring additional revenues to local
> communities but not a significant increase in overall revenue in any
> area.

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

[]{.mark}

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

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

Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003

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

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

> Cumulative effects on the environment result from incremental effects
> of a proposed action when these are added to other past, present, and
> reasonably foreseeable future actions. While cumulative effects may
> result from individually minor actions, they may, when viewed as a
> whole, become significant over time.
>
> The implementation of any of the proposed actions described in this EA
> includes actions relating to the refuge hunt program. There were no
> previous hunt programs authorized on the refuge. Areas that would be
> open to hunting have been depicted on Map 2 showing species available
> for harvest and weapons permitted for use. As part of the hunt plan we
> determine exactly when hunting will be allowed. The maximum amount of
> time that the refuge will be open for hunting is the full state
> seasons for each type of hunting. It is possible that we would be open
> for a shorter duration, limited hours, or limited days of the week. It
> is not anticipated that this alternative would result in significant
> cumulative effects during the 15 years before the next CCP is
> prepared. No additional hunts are being considered for Assabet River
> NWR.

Alternative C

> Cumulative effects on the environment result from incremental effects
> of a proposed action when these are added to other past, present, and
> reasonably foreseeable future actions. While cumulative effects may
> result from individually minor actions, they may, when viewed as a
> whole, become significant over time.
>
> The implementation of any of the proposed actions described in this EA
> includes actions relating to the refuge hunt program. There were no
> previous hunt programs authorized on the refuge. Areas that would be
> open to hunting have been depicted on 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. No additional hunts are being considered for Assabet River
> 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.
>
> Changes to the status of hunting on the refuge occurred on September
> 13, 2005, when a Federal Register notice was posted, officially
> opening Assabet River NWR for deer, woodcock, turkey, ruffed grouse,
> Eastern cottontail rabbit, and gray squirrel hunting throughout the
> refuge. Areas that are open to hunting have been depicted on a 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 will be open for a shorter duration, limited hours,
> or limited days of the week.
>
> It was determined in the Assabet River NWR CCP, signed in January
> 2005, that a public big game (white-tailed deer and turkey), migratory
> bird (woodcock), and upland game (ruffed grouse, gray squirrel and
> Eastern cottontail rabbit) hunting program, conducted in accordance
> with State regulations and refuge regulations, was compatible with the
> purposes of the refuge and with the Mission of the National Wildlife
> Refuge System.
>
> The implementation of the refuge hunt program as described will have
> both direct and indirect effects (e.g., new site inclusion may result
> in increased public use, thus increasing littering, noise, and
> vehicular traffic); however, the cumulative effects of these actions
> are not expected to be significant during the next 15 years.
>
> It is anticipated that steps will be taken in 2008 to reduce and
> change hunt areas on the refuge in response to the opening of the
> Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex visitor center.

5\. 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 has
> discussed the impacts associated with individual hunt programs. In
> this section, potential impacts of accumulated hunts will be
> addressed.

Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003

> Under this alternative, no hunting would occur at Assabet River NWR.
> Because this alternative does not allow for any hunting on the refuge,
> there can be no impacts of accumulated hunts.

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

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

+-----------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| **Refuge Hunt**             | **Hunt Season**          | **Hunt     |
|                             |                          | Days**     |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| Spring turkey season        | April 24-May 20          | 24         |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| American woodcock           | October 12-28 and        | 27         |
|                             |                          |            |
|                             | October 30-November 11   |            |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| Ruffed grouse               | October 12 -- November   | 37         |
|                             | 24                       |            |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| Gray squirrel               | October 13 -- January 2  | 57         |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| Eastern cottontail rabbit   | October 13 -- February   | 108        |
|                             | 29                       |            |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| Deer (archery)              | October 15 -November 24  | 36         |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| 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 145 days. There are also a total of 320 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 turkey,
> woodcock and upland game seasons. No hunting occurs in Massachusetts
> on Sundays.

Alternative C

> Impacts are the same under Alternative C as they are under Alternative
> B.

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

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

+------------------------+----------------------+----------+----------+
| **Refuge Hunt**        | **Hunt Season**      | **Hunt   | **Di     |
|                        |                      | Days**   | fference |
|                        |                      |          | from     |
|                        |                      |          | Alt. B** |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------+----------+
| American woodcock      | October 12-28 and    | 27       | None     |
|                        |                      |          |          |
|                        | October 30-November  |          |          |
|                        | 11                   |          |          |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------+----------+
| Upland game            | October 14-February  | 117      | None     |
|                        | 28                   |          |          |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------+----------+
| Big game (archery)     | October 16-November  | 36       | Hunt     |
|                        | 25                   |          | area     |
|                        |                      |          | expanded |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------+----------+
| Big game (shotgun)     | November 27-December | 12       | Hunt     |
|                        | 9                    |          | area     |
|                        |                      |          | d        |
|                        |                      |          | ecreased |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------+----------+
| Big game               | December 11-December | 18       | Hunt     |
| (muzzleloader)         | 30                   |          | area     |
|                        |                      |          | d        |
|                        |                      |          | ecreased |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------+----------+
| Spring turkey season   | April 24-May 20      | 24       | None     |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------+----------+

> Under this alternative, the refuge would be open for hunting on a
> total of 145 days, the same as Alternatives C and D. There are also a
> total of 320 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 turkey, woodcock upland game seasons. No
> hunting occurs in Massachusetts on Sundays.
>
> The main difference between Alternative B and Alternative D is that
> the area open to big game (archery) is expanded and the areas open to
> big game (firearms) and big game (muzzleloader) are decreased.
>
> Because many of the hunt seasons overlap, there are many days during
> the calendar year when no hunting occurs. Most refuge hunting occurs
> from mid October to the end of February. With the addition of one
> month in the spring for turkey hunting, the refuge is open to hunting
> for approximately 3 ½ months of the year, with no hunting on Sundays.
>
> Because refuge hunting seasons overlap and are spread out in space and
> in time, the effect of accumulating impacts is decreased. For example,
> deer hunting does not occur at the same time as turkey 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, refuge uses 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 creating hunting opportunities on the
Assabet River NWR, tiers from the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) of July 2003 for the Assabet
River, Great Meadows, and Oxbow National Wildlife Refuges.

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.

Many people wrote in to express opposition to hunting in general. Others
recommended hunting be restricted to archery deer hunting. Others either
supported hunting opportunities specifically or supported the preferred
alternative, which included establishing the hunt programs.

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

**Hunt Plan**

Refuge staff prepared a Hunt Plan in January 2005.

**Federal Rule Making**

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

**Compatibility Determination**

A compatibility determination was written and approved on December 21,
2004 for white-tailed deer, woodcock, turkey, and upland game (ruffed
grouse, Eastern cottontail rabbit, and gray squirrel) hunting at Assabet
River 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 Assabet River 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
Assabet River 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
Assabet River 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 Assabet
River 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.

Gallagher, Joan, Duncan Ritchie, Ann Davin. 1986. *An Intensive
Archaeological Survey of the Sudbury Training Annex, Sudbury, MA*.
Prepared by The Public Archaeology Lab, Inc., report number 58-1.
Providence, RI. Submitted to Department of the Army, Headquarters
FORSCOM, Fort Devens, MA 01433.

Hoffman, C. 1983. A Dated Feature Complex from Charlestown Meadows and
Its Implications for Regional Prehistory. *Massachusetts Archaeological
Society Bulletin* 44(2):43.

Hudson, A. 1889. *History of the Town of Sudbury*. Town of Sudbury, MA.

Hunt, D. M. 1992. *Floristic Survey with Emphasis on Rare Species of the
Sudbury Annex of Fort Devens, Massachusetts*. November 30, 1992.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mello, Mark J. and E. Peters. 1992. *Survey of Lepidoptera at Fort
Devens, with Notes on Sudbury Annex*. Lloyd Center for Environmental
Studies, South Dartmouth, MA. A Report to MA Natural Heritage and
Endangered Species Program. Lloyd Center Report #92-3.

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

Ritchie, Duncan. 1980. Prehistoric Cultural Resources in the Suburban
Fringe: A Preliminary Assessment of the Sudbury/Assabet Drainage. In
*Widening Horizons*, *Studies Presented to Maurice Robbins*, edited by
C. Hoffman; Trustees of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society,
Attleboro, MA.

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, Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge*. Northeast Regional
Office, Hadley, MA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005b. *Hunt Plan for Assabet River
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. Alternative A -- Current Management in 2003

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="5.997916666666667in"
height="8.518055555555556in"}

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

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="5.993055555555555in"
height="8.527777777777779in"}

Map 3. Alternative C

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="5.999305555555556in"
height="8.51736111111111in"}

Map 4. Alternative D -- The Current Refuge Hunt Program

![](media/image4.jpeg){width="5.993055555555555in"
height="8.51388888888889in"}