U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Great Meadows National

Wildlife Refuge

Final Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan

January 2005
This goose, designed by J.N. “Ding” 

Darling, has become the symbol of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principle federal agency for conserving, protecting, and 

enhancing fish and wildlife in their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. 

The Service manages the 96-million acre National Wildlife Refuge System comprised of 544 

national wildlife refuges and thousands of waterfowl production areas. It also operates 65 national

fish hatcheries and 78 ecological services field stations. The agency enforces federal wildlife laws, 

manages migratory bird populations, restores significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife 

habitat such as wetlands, administers the Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign 

governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program which 

distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to 

state wildlife agencies. 

Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long term guidance for management decisions; set 

forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and, identify the 

Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are

sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service 

strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment 

for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land

acquisition. 

 

Cover photo: Marsh Wren by USFWS Staff




Table of Contents 

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background..............................................................................................- 1 -

Refuge Overview ...................................................................................................................................- 1 -

Purpose and Need for a CCP ..............................................................................................................- 3 -

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission..............................................................................................- 4 -

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission.........................................................................................- 4 -

Laws ........................................................................................................................................................- 5 -

National and Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding this CCP ............................- 6 -

Gulf of Maine - Ecosystem Priorities .............................................................................................- 6 -

North American Waterfowl Management Plan............................................................................- 6 -

Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plans .................................................................................- 8 -

Regional Wetlands Concept Plan- Emergency Wetlands Resources Act ..............................- 12 -

Our Irreplaceable Heritage - Protecting Biodiversity in Massachusetts ...............................- 12 -

Existing Partnerships.....................................................................................................................- 12 -

Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process.....................................................- 15 -

Wilderness Assessment......................................................................................................................- 16 -

Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities................................................................................................- 17 -

Issues and Concerns Considered Outside the Scope of This Plan...............................................- 18 -

Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions...................................................................................- 21 -

Geographic/Ecosystem Setting.........................................................................................................- 21 -

Socio-Economic Setting......................................................................................................................- 22 -

Refuge Resources................................................................................................................................- 23 -

Climate..............................................................................................................................................- 23 -

Geology and Topography ...............................................................................................................- 23 -

Soils ...................................................................................................................................................- 24 -

Hydrology.........................................................................................................................................- 24 -

Air Quality........................................................................................................................................- 26 -

Water Quality and Quantity...........................................................................................................- 27 -

Aircraft Noise ..................................................................................................................................- 28 -

Contaminants...................................................................................................................................- 29 -

Special Designations ...........................................................................................................................- 29 -

Wild and Scenic River Designation ..............................................................................................- 29 -

Biological Resources ...........................................................................................................................- 30 -

Vegetation and Habitat Types ......................................................................................................- 30 -

Invasive Plants.................................................................................................................................- 32 -

Wildlife Resources...............................................................................................................................- 32 -

Migratory Birds...............................................................................................................................- 32 -

Mammals ..........................................................................................................................................- 33 -

Reptiles and Amphibians ...............................................................................................................- 34 -

Fish....................................................................................................................................................- 34 -

Invertebrates ...................................................................................................................................- 34 -

Threatened and Endangered Species ..........................................................................................- 35 -

Cultural Resources..............................................................................................................................- 35 -

Prehistoric Period ...........................................................................................................................- 35 -

The Historic Period.........................................................................................................................- 38 -

Socio-economics ...................................................................................................................................- 39 -

Bedford .............................................................................................................................................- 39 -

Billerica.............................................................................................................................................- 40 -
Carlisle..............................................................................................................................................- 40 -

Concord.............................................................................................................................................- 41 -

Framingham ....................................................................................................................................- 41 -

Lincoln ..............................................................................................................................................- 42 -

Sudbury ............................................................................................................................................- 42 -

Wayland............................................................................................................................................- 43 -

Chapter 4: Management Direction .......................................................................................................- 45 -

Complex Vision ....................................................................................................................................- 45 -

Complex Goals .....................................................................................................................................- 45 -

General Refuge Management............................................................................................................- 68 -

Refuge Access and Fees.................................................................................................................- 68 -

Accessibility .....................................................................................................................................- 70 -

Non-Wildlife Dependent Public Uses...........................................................................................- 70 -

Fire Management............................................................................................................................- 70 -

Land Protection...............................................................................................................................- 71 -

Resource Protection and Visitor Safety.......................................................................................- 72 -

Special Use Permits and Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement..........................- 72 -

Research ...........................................................................................................................................- 73 -

Wild and Scenic River Designation ..............................................................................................- 74 -

Chapter 5: Refuge Administration........................................................................................................- 75 -

Refuge Staffing....................................................................................................................................- 75 -

Refuge Funding...................................................................................................................................- 77 -

Refuge Buildings and Facilities ........................................................................................................- 77 -

Step-Down Management Plans .........................................................................................................- 78 -

Maintaining Existing Facilities .........................................................................................................- 79 -

Compatibility Determinations ...........................................................................................................- 79 -

Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................................................- 80 -

Adaptive Management........................................................................................................................- 81 -

Additional NEPA Analysis ................................................................................................................- 82 -

Plan Amendment and Revision .........................................................................................................- 82 -

Literature Cited.......................................................................................................................................- 83 -

Glossary ....................................................................................................................................................- 89 -

List of Preparers .....................................................................................................................................- 99 -

Appendices .............................................................................................................................................- 101 -

Appendix A: Relevant Laws ................................................................................................................- 103 -

Appendix B: U.S. Forest Service Content Analysis Team Summary Report..............................- 111 -

Appendix C: Responses to substantive comments ...........................................................................- 165 -

Appendix D: Species Lists ...................................................................................................................- 179 -

Appendix E: RONS and MMS.............................................................................................................- 195 -

Appendix F: Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Staffing Chart .........- 200 -

Appendix G: Final Compatibility Determinations............................................................................- 204 -
List of Maps

Map 1-1: Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex...........................................- 2 -

Map 1-2: Gulf of Maine Ecosystem .....................................................................................................- 7 -

Map 4-1: Public Use at Concord Division.........................................................................................- 55 -

Map 4-2: Public Use at Concord Impoundments ............................................................................- 56 -

Map 4-3: Public Use at Sudbury Division.........................................................................................- 57 -

Map 4-4: Public Use at Sudbury Division.........................................................................................- 58 -

List of Tables

Table 1-1: NAWMP Species Occurring at Great Meadows NWR....................................................- 8 -

Table 1-2: Bird Species of Concern Occurring on Great Meadows NWR.......................................- 9 -

Table 3-1: Revenue Sharing Payments for Towns Associated with Great Meadows NWR .......- 22 -

Table 4-1: Wildlife Surveys at Great Meadows NWR......................................................................- 46 -

Table 4-1: 2004 Massachusetts Hunting Seasons..............................................................................- 66 -

Table 5-1: Proposed staffing increases ...............................................................................................- 76 -

Table D-1: Birds of Great Meadows NWR........................................................................................- 179 -

Table D-2: Butterflies of Great Meadows NWR ..............................................................................- 185 -

Table D-3: Fish of Great Meadows NWR .........................................................................................- 187 -

Table D-4: Reptiles of Great Meadows NWR...................................................................................- 187 -

Table D-5: Amphibians of Great Meadows NWR ............................................................................- 188 -

Table D-6: Mammals of Great Meadows NWR................................................................................- 188 -

Table D-7: Plants of Great Meadows NWR......................................................................................- 190 -

Table E-1: Projects currently in the RONS database and proposed projects to be included for

Great Meadows NWR...................................................................................................................- 195 -

Table E-2: Projects currently backlogged in the MMS for Great Meadows NWR.....................- 197 -

Table E-3: Projects currently backlogged in the MMS for the Eastern Massachusetts Refuge 

Complex .......................................................................................................................................- 198 -

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 

This final Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) has been prepared for 

the Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), which is one of eight 

refuges of the Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

(Complex) (see Map 1-1). Concurrently, we are releasing the Final CCPs 

for Oxbow and Assabet River NWRs. 

We will prepare a separate CCP and Environmental Impact Statement 

(CCP/EIS) for Monomoy and Nomans Land Island NWRs beginning later 

in 2004. We propose to begin the CCP process for Massasoit NWR in 2005 

and Nantucket and Mashpee NWRs in 2006. 

This CCP is the culmination of a planning process that formally began in 

January 1999. Numerous meetings with the public, the state, and 

conservation partners were held to identify and evaluate management 

alternatives. A draft CCP and Environmental Assessment (CCP/EA) was

distributed for public review and comment in July 2003. This CCP presents

the management goals, objectives, and strategies that we believe will best

achieve our vision for the refuge, contribute to the National Wildlife Refuge 

System (Refuge System) Mission, achieve refuge purposes and legal 

mandates, support regional conservation priorities, and serve the American 

public. 

Refuge Overview 

Established in 1944, the Concord impoundments became the first tract of 

land at Great Meadows. The current extent of the refuge includes 3,863 

acres and extends into eight towns. The refuge was created under the

Migratory Bird Conservation Act “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for 

any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.”

Concord Impoundments of Great Meadows NWR. 

USFWS Photo

The refuge is divided into two divisions: the 

Concord Division (1,542 acres) and the Sudbury 

Division (2,321 acres). The Concord and Sudbury 

Divisions provide habitat for a variety of species. 

For example, the Concord impoundments are

utilized by many migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, 

wading and marsh birds. The upland areas 

support woodcock, songbirds, and many raptors.

The marsh habitats are utilized by amphibians and 

reptiles. This diversity of habitats contributes to a 

number of regional conservation priorities. 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 1 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Map 1-1: Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

- 2 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

The refuge’s interspersion of wetland, forested upland and old field 

habitats is ideally suited for this purpose. The refuge supports a diverse 

mix of migratory birds including waterfowl, wading birds, raptors, 

shorebirds, passerines, as well as resident mammals, reptiles, amphibians, 

fish and invertebrates. The extensive and regionally significant wetlands

occurring on and adjacent to the refuge, including their associated 

tributary drainages andheadwaters, have been listed as a priority for

protection under both the North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

(NAWMP) and the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986. 

The refuge’s geographic position, accessibility to the local 

and regional communities, and its diverse biological 

resources also makes it highly attractive for natural 

resource educational or interpretive programs, and 

compatible wildlife dependent recreational uses. An 

estimated 500,000 people visited the refuge in 2000. 

Purple flower: Photo by Marijke Holtrop

The eight Eastern Massachusetts NWRs are managed as 

a Complex, with centrally stationed staff taking on duties 

at multiple refuges. Great Meadows is one of two staffed 

offices within the Complex and houses the Refuge

Complex Headquarters and administrative personnel. 

Purpose and Need for a CCP 

The purpose of a CCP is to provide managers and other interested partners

guidance and direction for each refuge over the next 15 years. It is a 

framework that will assist in achieving refuge purposes and contributing to

the mission of the Refuge System. The plan identifies what role the refuges 

play, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife conservation, in 

the protection, enhancement and restoration of trust resources. This plan is

also needed to: 

• provide a clear statement of desired future conditions for habitat, 

wildlife, visitors and facilities; 

• provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and partners with a clear 

understanding of the reasons for management actions; 

• ensure management reflects the policies and goals of the refuge system

and legal mandates; 

• ensure the compatibility of current and future uses; 

• review current boundaries of the refuges, and evaluate the need to 

revise boundaries to better achieve refuge purposes; 

• provide long-term continuity and direction for Complex management; 

and, 

• provide a basis for staffing and operations, maintenance, and the 

development of budget requests. 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 3 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Currently, there is no general management plan in place for Great 

Meadows NWR that establishes priorities or provides consistent direction

for managing fish, wildlife, habitats, and public uses on the refuge. Some 

specific plans have been written but are more than 15 years old. This plan 

will help to resolve issues related to control of nuisance and invasive 

species, public uses in conflict with wildlife needs, lack of opportunities for 

wildlife dependent recreation, and the needs of our federal trust wildlife 

species. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Refuge

Improvement Act; Public Law 105-57) requires that all NWRs have a 

CCP in place by 2012 to help fulfill the mission of the Refuge System. 

The Refuge Improvement Act states that wildlife conservation is the 

priority of the Refuge System’s lands, and that the biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of refuge lands shall be maintained. 

Additionally, the Refuge Improvement Act identifies six wildlife

dependent recreational uses that will receive priority consideration over 

other recreational uses of the refuge: wildlife observation, photography, 

hunting, fishing, environmental education, and interpretation. 

Wood Duck: Photo by Bruce 

Flaig 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission 

The Refuge System is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) under the Department of Interior. The mission of the Service is: 

“...working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and 

plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American 

people.” 

The Service manages NWRs, waterfowl protection areas, and National

Fish Hatcheries. By law, Congress entrusts the following federal trust 

resources to the Service for conservation and protection: migratory birds 

and fish, endangered species, interjurisdictional fish, and certain marine 

mammals. The Service also enforces federal wildlife laws and international

treaties on importing and exporting wildlife, assists with state fish and 

wildlife programs, and helps other countries develop wildlife conservation 

programs. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

The Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands and waters set 

aside specifically for the conservation of wildlife and ecosystem protection. 

The Refuge System consists of 544 national wildlife refuges that provide 

important habitat for native plants and many species of mammals, birds, 

fish, invertebrates, and threatened and endangered species, encompassing 

over 95 million acres. Refuges offer a wide variety of recreational 

opportunities, and many have visitor centers, wildlife trails, and 

environmental education programs. Nationwide, over 34 million visitors 

- 4 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

annually hunt, fish, observe and photograph wildlife, or participate in 

interpretive activities on national wildlife refuges. 

“To administer a national

network of lands and waters 

for the conservation, 

management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of 

the fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats

within the United States for 

the benefit of present and 

future generations of 

Americans.” (Refuge 

Improvement Act; Public 

Law 105-57)–Mission of the 

Refuge System. 

In 1997, the Refuge Improvement Act established a unifying mission for 

the refuge system, a new process for determining compatible public uses, 

and the requirement to prepare a CCP for each refuge. The 

new law states that the refuge system must focus on wildlife 

conservation. It further states that the National mission, 

coupled with the purpose(s) for which each refuge was

established, will provide the principal management direction 

for each refuge. 

Laws 

While the Refuge System mission and each refuge’s purpose

provide the foundation for management, national wildlife 

refuges are also governed by other federal laws, executive 

orders, treaties, interstate compacts, and regulations 

pertaining to the conservation and protection of natural and 

cultural resources (see Appendix A for a more complete list of guiding 

laws). 

A primary law affecting refuge management is the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (Administration Act) which 

authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to permit any uses of a refuge 

“...whenever it is determined that such uses are compatible with the major 

purposes for which such areas were established.” The Administration Act 

was amended by the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. It is also the key 

legislation on managing public uses, and protecting the Refuge System 

from incompatible or harmful human activities to ensure that Americans 

can enjoy refuge system lands and waters. 

Additionally, it is Service policy to address how each refuge, with an 

approved CCP, can help achieve the goals of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System. Thus, concurrent with the CCP process, we have

incorporated a summary of a wilderness assessment into this document 

(see Wilderness Assessment section in Chapter 2). 

The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 requires that any recreational use of 

refuge lands be compatible with the primary purposes for which a refuge

was established and not inconsistent with other previously authorized 

operations. 

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 provides for the 

management of historic and archaeological resources that occur on any 

refuge. Other legislation, such as the Endangered Species Act, the North 

American Wetlands Conservation Act, the Wilderness Act of 1964 and

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 5 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

particularly the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) all provide

guidance for the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats. 

National and Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding 

this CCP 

Gulf of Maine - Ecosystem Priorities 

The Service has organized 52 ecosystem teams across the country. The 

Great Meadows NWR falls in the Gulf of Maine ecosystem (see Map 1-2). 

The ecosystem priorities are: 

• Recover populations and habitats of endangered and threatened

species. 

• Protect, enhance, and restore habitats for migratory birds, anadromous 

and catadromous fishes, and listed species of concern in the Penobscot, 

Kennebec and Androscoggin River basins. 

• Protect, enhance, and restore coastal habitats for trust resources of 

concern. 

• Protect, enhance, and restore populations of migratory bird species of 

special concern and their habitats. 

• Rebuild American shad and river herring populations in coastal rivers 

including the Merrimac River. 

• Restore and rehabilitate Atlantic salmon populations in the Merrimac 

River. 

• Manage Service lands to protect, enhance and restore habitats to 

maintain biodiversity. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan

The NAWMP documents the strategy between the United States, Canada 

and Mexico to restore waterfowl populations through habitat protection, 

restoration, and enhancement. Implementation of the plan is at the regional 

level. Ten regional habitat “joint ventures” are 

partnerships involving federal, state, provincial, tribal 

nations, local businesses, conservation organizations, and 

individual citizens. Units of the Complex are contained 

within the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture. 

The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture Program identifies 

seven focus areas in Massachusetts. One of these focus 

areas includes the inland rivers of the Blackstone, 

Nashua, and the Sudbury-Assabet-Concord Rivers. Great 

Meadows NWR is part of this focus area, with nationally 

significant wetlands that support migrating waterfowl. 

The Program is developing a focus area report that 

identifies important waterfowl resources, threats, and conservation 

recommendations. 

Wood Duck. Photo by Bruce Flaig

- 6 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 1: Chapter 1: Introduction and troduction and Background

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 7 -

Map 1-2: Gulf of Maine Ecosystem 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 7 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

A draft updated NAWMP document is at: 

http://birdhabitat.fws.gov/NAWMP/2003nawmpdraft.htm. In the 

Implementation Framework section of this document species priorities are 

listed for each region. Table 1-1 includes species identified in the NAWMP 

that occur at Great Meadows NWR.

Table 1-1: NAWMP Species Occurring at Great Meadows NWR 

Species Continent

al Priority 

Breeding 

Importance

Breeding 

Need 

Nonbreeding 

Importance

Nonbreeding 

Need 

American Black Duck High Mod. High High High Highest 

Lesser Scaup High Mod. High High 

Mallard High Mod. Low Moderate Mod. High High

Northern Pintail High Mod. Low Moderate 

American Wigeon Mod. High Mod. Low Mod. Low 

Blue-winged Teal Mod. High Mod. Low Mod. Low 

Canvasback Mod. High High High

Common Goldeneye Mod. High Mod. High Mod. High 

Bufflehead Moderate High High

Gadwall Moderate Mod. Low Mod. Low 

Greater Scaup Moderate High High 

Grean-winged Teal Moderate Mod. Low Mod. Low 

Wood Duck Moderate Mod. Low Mod. Low Mod. Low Mod. Low 

Hooded Merganser Mod. Low Mod. High Moderate

Red-breasted Merganser Mod. Low Mod. High Moderate 

Ruddy Duck Mod. Low Mod. High Moderate 

Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plans 

Partners in Flight (PIF) was initiated in 1990 as a voluntary, international

coalition of agencies, organizations, institutions, industries, and other 

citizens dedicated to landbird conservation. The foundation for PIF’s 

long-term strategy for bird conservation is a series of scientifically based 

bird conservation plans. The goal of each PIF bird conservation plan is to

ensure long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native landbirds. 

These plans use information on bird population trends, species’ 

distributions, and the vulnerability of the species and their habitats to

threats, to rank the conservation priority of birds occurring within a 

particular physiographic area. 

Least Sandpiper: USFWS Photo 

The PIF approach differs from many existing Federal and state-level 

listing processes in that it (1) is voluntary and non-regulatory, and (2) 

focuses proactively on relatively common species in areas where 

conservation actions can be most effective, rather than ocal emphasis 

on rare and peripheral populations. A Landbird Conservation Plan 

for the southern New England physiographic area was completed in 

2000, which includes all of eastern Massachusetts. This plan identifies 

72 priority breeding bird species, 9 priority winter species, and 7 

- 8 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

major habitat types as priorities for conservation in this area. Of the 

priority species for this physiographic area, at least 51 of the priority 

breeding species have been recorded as occurring on the refuge and 7 of 

the 9 wintering species have been recorded as wintering on the refuge. In 

the plan, focal species are selected for each habitat type and used in 

developing population and habitat objectives. 

Implementation strategies and management guidelines for achieving these 

objectives are also included for each habitat type. Priority habitats for

southern New England include maritime marshes, beaches/dunes, mature 

forest, early successional scrub/pine barrens, freshwater wetlands, and 

grasslands. The list of priority species, objectives, and conservation actions

recommended in the southern New England Bird Conservation Plan will 

help direct landbird management on the refuge. Partners in Flight Bird 

Conservation Plans 

The North Atlantic Regional Shorebird Plan (NARSP) identifies 38 

priority shorebird species based upon a national scoring system that 

assesses population trends, relative abundance, threats and distribution 

patterns. The Service has recorded 23 of these species as occurring on the 

refuge. The NARSP builds upon the information in the U.S. Shorebird 

Conservation Plan (USSCP). The USSCP is a partnership involving 

organizations throughout the United States committed to the conservation 

of shorebirds. At a regional scale, the goal of the USSCP is to ensure that 

adequate quantity and quality of habitat is identified and maintained to

support the different shorebirds that breed in, winter in, and migrate

through each region. In August 2004, the USSCP was revised based upon 

the latest population and habitat information available. The revised list 

included 7 highly imperiled shorebird taxa and 23 taxa of high concern. 

The refuge supports 8 species of shorebirds of high concern. 

Additionally, the Service has attempted to assess and integrate all the

information above and compile a list of Birds of Conservation Concern for 

Bird Conservation Region 30, which contains the refuge. There are a total 

of 32 species listed, 15 of these have been recorded as occurring on the 

refuge. 

Table 1-2: Bird Species of Concern Occurring on Great Meadows NWR 

PIF BCR 30 NARSP USSCP

Species Priority

Breeding 

Wintering Conservation

Concerns 

Priority 

Shorebird 

High 

Concern 

Blue-winged 

Warbler 

z z

Golden-winged 

Warbler 

z z

Wood Thrush z z

Prairie Warbler z z

Baltimore Oriole z z

Scarlet Tanager 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 9 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

PIF BCR 30 NARSP USSCP

Species Priority

Breeding 

Wintering Conservation

Concerns 

Priority 

Shorebird 

High 

Concern 

American 

Woodcock

z z z 

Rose-breasted 

Grosbeak 

z 

Black-throated

blue Warbler 

z 

Chimney Swift z 

Eastern Woodpewee 

z 

Black-and-white 

Warbler 

z 

Hairy 

Woodpecker 

z 

Red-headed

Woodpecker 

z z

Eastern Towhee z 

Purple Finch z 

American Black 

Duck 

z z 

Canada Warbler z z

Blackburnian 

Warbler 

z 

Bobolink z 

Whip-poor-will z z

Northern Parula z 

Yellow-breasted 

Chat 

z 

Glossy Ibis z 

American 

Bittern 

z 

King Rail z 

Northern 

Goshawk 

z 

Red-shouldered 

Hawk 

z 

Northern 

Harrier 

z 

Vesper Sparrow z 

Least Bittern z 

Saltmarsh 

Sharp-tailed 

Sparrow 

z z z 

Sharp-shinned 

Hawk 

z 

Pied-billed Grebe z 

Cooper’s Hawk z 

Short-eared Owl z z

Osprey z 

Purple Martin z 

- 10 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

PIF BCR 30 NARSP USSCP

Species Priority

Breeding 

Wintering Conservation

Concerns 

Priority 

Shorebird 

High 

Concern 

Great Egret z 

Savannah 

Sparrow 

z z 

Common 

Nighthawk 

z 

Snowy Egret z 

Little Blue 

Heron 

z 

Great Blue 

Heron 

z 

Common 

Moorhen 

z 

Horned Lark z 

Cattle Egret z 

Common Snipe z

Killdeer z

Peregrine Falcon z z

Hudsonian 

Godwit 

z z z 

Common Tern z z

Sedge Wren z z

Marsh Wren z

American 

Golden-Plover 

z z

Sanderling z z z 

Greater 

Yellowlegs 

z

Semipalmated 

Sandpiper 

z

Wilson’s 

Phalarope 

z z

Solitary 

Sandpiper 

z z

Spotted 

Sandpiper 

z

Least Sandpiper z

Dunlin z

Stilt Sandpiper z

Short-billed 

Dowithcher 

z z

Red-necked

Phalarope 

z

Red Phalarope z

White-rumped

Sandpiper 

z

Western 

Sandpiper 

z z

Lesser 

Yellowlegs 

z

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 11 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

PIF BCR 30 NARSP USSCP

Species Priority

Breeding 

Wintering Conservation

Concerns 

Priority 

Shorebird 

High 

Concern 

Baird’s 

Sandpiper 

z

Pectoral 

Sandpiper 

z

Long-billed 

Dowitcher 

z

Black-billed

Cuckoo 

z 

Greater Scaup z

Common Loon z

Horned Grebe z

Regional Wetlands Concept Plan- Emergency Wetlands Resources Act 

In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act to 

promote the conservation of our nation’s wetlands. This act requires 

identification of the location and types of wetlands, and which lands should

be targeted for state and federal land acquisition efforts. In 1990, the 

Northeast Regional Office of the Service completed a regional wetlands 

concept plan to identify wetlands in the region. The regional plan identifies 

a total of 850 wetland sites and complexes in the region. 1,800 acres of 

wetlands associated with the Sudbury, Assabet and Concord Rivers were 

identified as being regionally valuable for wildlife, fisheries, and recreation. 

Our Irreplaceable Heritage - Protecting Biodiversity in Massachusetts 

This report recommends that the state develop a biodiversity protection 

strategy that outlines how all native biodiversity will be conserved. It also

identifies and describes eight types of natural communities that 

may require immediate conservation attention because of their 

potential vulnerability and large number of rare species they 

contain. Seven of the eight communities listed in the report occur 

within the Complex boundary. 

American Goldfinch: Photo by Sandy 

Selesky 

Existing Partnerships 

Throughout this CCP, we use the term “partners”. In addition to 

our volunteers, we receive significant help from the following 

partners: 

Concord River Environmental Stream Team (CREST) 

Massachusetts Audubon Society 

Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game (DFG), Division of Fisheries 

and Wildlife (MassWildlife) 

Organization for the Assabet River (OAR) 

SuAsCo Watershed Community Council 

- 12 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Sudbury, Assabet and Concord Wild & Scenic River Stewardship Council 

Sudbury Valley Trustees (SVT) 

The Trust for Public Land

Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program 

(NHESP) 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 13 -
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

(This page intentionally left blank)

- 14 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process 

Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning 

Process 

Given the mandate in the Refuge Improvement Act to develop a CCP for 

each national wildlife refuge, we began the planning process in 1999. We 

started by forming a core planning team of refuge staff and Service 

planners from the regional office. We placed a Notice of Intent to prepare 

an EIS in the January 1999 Federal Register to officially kick-off our 

planning effort for all eight of the Complex refuges. 

First, we collected information on our 

biological and habitat resources. While in 

the process of collecting information, we 

initiated the public scoping and 

involvement part of the process. We held 

meetings with each town’s Board of 

Selectmen and State and Federal agencies. 

Many of these groups provided 

information on natural resources and 

public uses on refuges in the Complex. In 

February of 1999, we held open houses in 

central locations to provide an opportunity 

for public comment on different issues 

including current and future management 

strategies, land protection and public uses. 

We were pleased with the participation at 

many of our meetings, which ranged from 

30 people to over 100. 

We recognized that attending our open

houses would be difficult for many and 

designed an Issues Workbook to 

encourage additional comment. Over 8,000 people representing a variety of 

interests received workbooks. Workbooks were also available at open

houses and at the refuge headquarters. We received over 660 responses. 

Using the information collected from our partners and through public 

comment we identified significant issues to be addressed in the plan. In 

August of 1999, we distributed a Planning Update to everyone on our 

mailing list describing the key issues identified for each refuge. 

Once key issues were determined and refined, we developed alternative 

strategies to address each one. We derived the strategies from public 

comment, follow-up contacts with partners and refuge staff. After a 

reasonable range of alternatives was identified, we evaluated the 

environmental consequences of each alternative. 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 15 -
Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process

In February of 2001 we recognized that producing a CCP/EIS for the 

entire Complex would be far too cumbersome to be efficient. At that time, 

we published a Notice of Intent to prepare a CCP/EA for five of the refuges 

in the Complex; Assabet River, Great Meadows, Oxbow, Mashpee and 

Massasoit NWRs. Additional issues and a need for more information 

prompted us to later split Mashpee and Massasoit NWRs from this draft as

well. 

The Service solicited comments on the draft CCP/EA for Great Meadows, 

Assabet River, and Oxbow NWRs from July 20 to September 3, 2003. We 

contracted with the U.S. Forest Service’s Content Analysis Team (CAT) to 

compile the nearly 2,000 comments that we received. The CAT developed a 

summary report of comments (Appendix B) as well as a database of 

individual comments. We utilized the CAT report and comment database 

to develop a list of substantive comments that required responses. 

Editorial suggestions, along with general notes of concurrence with or 

opposition to certain proposals that did not contain factual arguments were 

noted and included in the decision making process, but do not receive 

formal responses. We have included our responses to requests for 

additional information or clarification, provisions of additional information, 

and specific concerns as Appendix C. We have made changes to the CCP

where appropriate. 

The final product of the process is three stand-alone CCPs, one for each 

refuge. Implementation of the CCP can occur once the Finding of (No) 

Significant Impact (FONSI) is signed. 

We will evaluate our accomplishments under the CCP, each year. 

Monitoring or new information may indicate the need to change our 

strategies. The collection of additional data at Great Meadows NWR will 

likely require modification and specification of the wildlife and habitat 

management strategies. We will modify the CCP documents and associated

management activities as needed; following the procedures outlined in 

Service policy and NEPA requirements. The CCPs will be fully revised 

every 15 years or sooner if necessary. 

Wilderness Assessment

The planning team conducted a Wilderness Assessment, as required by

Refuge Planning Policy, to determine if any lands and waters in fee title 

ownership were suitable to be proposed for designation as a Wilderness 

Area. During the inventory stage, we determined that Great Meadows 

NWR does not fulfill the eligibility requirements for a Wilderness Study 

Area as defined by the Wilderness Act. The refuge and its surrounding 

area have been altered in some way by man, with the imprint of man’s work

generally noticeable. The refuge does not have 5,000 contiguous acres or is 

not of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an 

unimpaired condition. Furthermore, permanent roads are contained within 

- 16 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process 

the refuge. Therefore, suitability of the lands for Wilderness Designation is 

not analyzed further in this document. 

Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities 

Issues, concerns, and opportunities were brought to the attention of the 

refuge planning team through early planning discussions with local 

governments, State, and Federal representatives, and through the public 

scoping process. We received comments from the public both verbally at 

open houses and in writing, through Issues Workbooks and individual 

letters. Some issues were identified by the Service and others were raised

during the public review of the Draft CCP/EA. Many issues that are very 

important to the public often fall outside the scope of the decision to be 

made within this planning process. In some instances, the Service cannot 

resolve issues some people have communicated to us. We have considered 

all issues throughout our planning process, and have developed plans that 

attempt to balance the competing opinions regarding important issues. 

Habitat and wildlife management 

Many people were interested in our management programs. The Complex 

has begun additional surveys and inventories to collect baseline information 

on all of the refuges in the Complex. The public is interested in how we 

manage the freshwater impoundments at the Concord Division, and 

migratory birds and upland habitats on Great Meadows NWR as a whole. 

A Habitat Management Plan (HMP) is being developed which will provide 

a detailed description of our goals and objectives for habitat management 

at the Great Meadows NWR. 

Control of invasive, injurious, and overabundant plant and animal 

species 

Purple Loosestrife: USFWS Photo 

Invasive species, including water chestnut, common reed, and 

purple loosestrife are a concern on the refuge. These species limit 

the productivity of wildlife habitat. Management to control invasive 

species was mentioned as a watershed-wide priority to some 

conservation associations. We will continue efforts to control known 

invasives on the refuge and are experimenting with different control 

techniques for various species. 

Hunting 

Requests were made at public meetings and through written comments 

both to allow and not to allow deer hunting on the refuges. Poaching is a 

problem on the Sudbury Division of Great Meadows NWR. There have 

been suggestions to provide lawful hunting opportunities on the refuge to 

control deer populations. Some would like to see waterfowl hunting on the 

Concord Division of the Great Meadows NWR. Cooperation with local

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 17 -
Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process

towns and hunting groups was a suggestion. Others oppose hunting of any 

kind on the refuge. 

Management of public use and access 

The Complex Headquarters and visitor contact station is located in 

Sudbury, MA. The need for environmental educational programs in local

schools as well as additional interpretive opportunities where the public can 

learn about the refuge was raised. 

Blue Iris: Photo by Marijke Holtrop

Great Meadows NWR supports high visitation annually. 

We estimate use at Great Meadows NWR to be around 

500,000 visitors per year, with the majority of visitors at 

the Concord impoundments. We do not have a consistent 

process for collecting and documenting visitation at all 

sites nor do we have the funds to initiate such a process at 

this time. Several non-wildlife dependent recreational 

activities occur on the refuge. Many visitors use trails for 

dog walking and jogging. 

Resource protection and visitor safety 

Many people voiced concerns regarding the need to control poaching, 

trespassing and other refuge regulations violations. 

Infrastructure and Operations and Maintenance 

We heard from some people that the refuge doesn’t have the resources and 

staff needed to support programs and maintenance of the refuge. 

 Issues and Concerns Considered Outside the Scope of This Plan 

External threats to the refuge such as water quality and contamination 

Poor water quality in the Concord and Sudbury Rivers prompted concern 

among citizens. The Concord and Sudbury Rivers both are reported to have 

high levels of contamination. In these watersheds, the Service is currently 

involved in watershed-wide efforts and partnerships to review and reduce

impacts to the communities and to refuge resources. Service contaminants

specialists represent wildlife interests in contaminants cleanup efforts that 

directly affect refuge lands, such as lands transferred to the Service or 

rivers that flow into the refuge. Some cleanup efforts are the responsibility 

of other agencies. Refuge staff or Service specialists are not often involved 

in such regional efforts. 

- 18 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process 

Some towns wish to develop water supply wells on refuge property 

Some towns requested access for the purpose of drilling water supply wells. 

Wells have been shown to draw down the surrounding water table. A 1994 

study by the Massachusetts Office of Water Resources identified that 

“wells can have a significant impact on nearby (surface) water bodies and 

may affect specific biological resources.” Concerns were raised by the 

public during CCP scoping that disturbance to wildlife, and other impacts 

due to the wells, or access to the wells, could occur. The Town of Carlisle 

does have reserved water rights on the refuge. 

Expanded use of Hanscom Air Field 

MassPort operates Hanscom Air Field, sited in Bedford, Concord, Lincoln,

and Lexington. The proposal is to use the airstrip as an auxiliary airport for 

the Boston Airport, as well as increasing the number of flights per day. The 

Concord impoundments of Great Meadows NWR lie directly west of 

Hanscom’s east-west runway. The MassPort plans for expansion of 

Hanscom may affect wildlife conditions and visitor experience on Great 

Meadows NWR. At issue are noise, overflights above a national wildlife 

refuge, fuel dumping that occurs on landing, water quality, and the 

concentration of storm water runoff from runways and impervious surfaces. 

Although the refuge has no jurisdiction in resolving these issues with 

Hanscom Field, we support a restriction on volume of air 

travel to and from Hanscom and will work to ensure that noise

impacts on waterfowl, wildlife, and visitors is given more 

consideration by MassPort. 

Chemical control of mosquitoes on national wildlife refuges 

nationwide is being evaluated by the Service 

The Service has developed a draft national mosquito policy for

refuge managers to apply when determining how and when 

mosquito populations may be managed on lands administered 

within the Refuge System. The science-based draft policy 

indicates that mosquito populations will essentially be allowed 

to function unimpeded as part of the wetland ecosystem. 

Mosquito populations may be reduced in certain circumstances

and we work with State and local public health departments

and mosquito abatement agencies to monitor and if necessary contain 

mosquito-borne diseases. Mosquito spraying to control larval mosquitoes 

on Great Meadows NWR has not occurred since 1999. The decision to 

restrict mosquito control on the refuge is consistent with the current draft

policy. Any future Service policy will be applied to Great Meadows NWR. 

Forested Wetland: Photo B

Emily Holick 

y

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 19 -
Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process

Jet Skis on the Concord River 

Many residents and the National Park Service oppose the use of jet skis on 

the Concord River, particularly with its Wild and Scenic River status. The 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts prohibits the operation of watercraft “in 

excess of five miles per hour” when the craft is within 150 feet of any 

channel, tunnel, pier, mooring, wharf, or other floating structure or 

swimming beach” (MA State Forests and Parks regulation 304 CMR 

12.34). This regulation is not applicable to waters adjacent to the refuge, 

since none of the identified structures are found on the refuge and 

swimming is not allowed. Our ability to regulate motorized vessels, 

including jet skis, is limited to acts within our refuge boundary that 

influence refuge flora and fauna. For example, if a boat travels at excessive 

speed and throws a wake onto the refuge which causes waterfowl to fly, the

operator of that boat could be cited. Careless and unreasonable operation 

of a vessel, such as the jumping that occurs with many jet skis, can also be 

regulated. Jet skis can interfere with wildlife-dependent recreation such as 

fishing, hunting, and wildlife observation from canoes. Fishing 

recreationists have frequently complained of jet ski disturbance during 

their use of the refuge. Some have suggested that this problem could be

countered with better patrolling by the refuge. River patrols have 

increased in 2004 and a number of notices of violation have been issued. 

Refuge staff will continue to work with all the governmental entities having 

some degree of jurisdiction over the rivers and their use, and changes to 

address problems could occur in the future.

- 20 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Geographic/Ecosystem Setting 

Great Meadows NWR is located in east-central Massachusetts, 

approximately 20 miles west of Boston, in the historic towns of Concord, 

Sudbury, Bedford, Billerica, Lincoln, Carlisle, Wayland and Framingham. 

The refuge comprises two divisions: lands south of State Route 117 

compose the Sudbury Division; lands north of State Route 117 compose the

Concord Division. The refuge contains 3,863 acres,

and stretches 12 miles from State Route 4 in 

Billerica to the Framingham/Wayland town line. 

The refuge was established in 1944 as “an inviolate 

sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, 

for migratory birds” (Migratory Bird

Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. §715d). The Refuge

Recreation Act identified refuges as “suitable for

(1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented 

recreational development, (2) the protection of 

natural resources, and (3) the conservation of 

endangered species or threatened species...” (16 

U.S.C. §460k-1). The biological resources of the 

refuge are valuable to both resident and migrant 

wildlife. The refuge lies in the Atlantic flyway and, 

as a stopover site for migrating birds, provides vital habitat and food. 

Species seen there during migration include green-winged teal (Anas 

crecca), least sandpiper (Calidris minutilla), marsh wren (Cistothorus 

palustris), swamp sparrow (Melospiza georgiana), and the willow 

flycatcher (Empidonax traillii). Several upland locations provide habitat 

for the American woodcock (Scolopax minor) and the eastern bluebird 

(Sialia sialis). 

Entrance Sign: USFWS Photo

The area surrounding the refuge has a long history of conservation that 

continues throughout the thousands of acres of conservation land 

administered by a variety of state, federal, local, and private landowners. 

Additionally, there is a vast amount of information available with regard to 

the refuge area that cannot be included here. Information relevant to

refuge management is presented here. Additional sources of information 

can be found in A Bibliography of the Biodiversity and Natural History of

the Sudbury River-Concord River Valley, including Great Meadows, the 

Estabrook Woods and Walden Woods (Ells 2002). 

The refuge also serves as an outdoor classroom for thousands of local 

schoolchildren, and at times offers programs for visitors. In the past, the 

refuge has hosted an annual bluebird day, American woodcock walks, 

orienteering programs, and owl prowls. 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 21 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions

Socio-Economic Setting 

The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of June 15, 1935, as amended, provides 

annual payments to taxing authorities, based on acreage and value of 

refuge lands located within their jurisdiction. Money for these payments

comes from the sale of oil and gas leases, timber sales, grazing fees, the 

sale of other Refuge System resources, and from Congressional 

appropriations. The Congressional appropriations are intended to make up 

the difference between the net receipts from the Refuge Revenue Sharing 

Fund and the total amount due to local taxing authorities. The actual

Refuge Revenue Sharing Payment does vary from year to year, because 

Congress may or may not appropriate sufficient funds to make full 

payment. 

The Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments are based on one of three different 

formulas, whichever results in the highest payment to the local taxing 

authority. In Massachusetts, the payments are based on three-quarters of

one percent of the appraised market value. The purchase price of a 

property is considered its market value until the property is reappraised. 

The Service reappraises the value of refuge lands every five years, and the 

appraisals are based on the land’s “highest and best use”. On wetlands and 

formerly farmland-assessed properties, the full entitlement Refuge 

Revenue Sharing payments sometimes exceed the real estate tax. In other 

cases, Refuge Revenue Sharing payments may be less than the local real 

estate tax. 

Table 3-1: Revenue Sharing Payments for Towns Associated with Great Meadows NWR 

Bedford Billerica Carlisle Concord Lincoln Sudbury* Wayland 

2003 $9,141 $11,769 $9,732 $5,255 $157 $35,474 $25,389

2002 $9,511 $2,791 $10,125 $5,468 $163 $36,909 $25,160

2001 $10,181 $2,988 $10,839 $5,853 $174 $29,331 $26,806 

2000 $7,796 $1,743 $1,804 $11,283 $134 $23,421 $18,196 

1999 $8,887 $622 $2,056 $12,862 $153 $26,699 $20,641 

*Refuge revenue sharing payments for Sudbury include payments for lands in Assabet River 

NWR. 

The fact that refuges put little demand on the infrastructure of a 

municipality must be considered in assessing the financial impact on the 

municipality. For example, there is no extra demand placed on the school 

system and a minimal demand on roads, utilities, police and fire protection, 

etc. These demands are much less than would occur if the land were

developed. The owner of land adjacent to refuge land, or within the refuge

acquisition boundary, retains any and all the rights, privileges, and 

- 22 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

responsibilities of private land ownership. The refuge controls uses 

only on the properties it owns. 

Trailmarker: Photo by Karla

Thompson 

All open space near metropolitan Boston’s population of 6.2 million is 

under great pressure for recreational use. The Concord Rivers

watershed is home to 365,000 people; a number that continues to 

grow. 

Great Meadows NWR receives more than 500,000 visitors each year. 

The Concord impoundments, which are a popular destination for 

birders and school groups, draw the largest number of refuge

visitors. 

The boom in the local technology industry has spurred rapid 

construction of housing units and support infrastructure (e.g., roads, 

malls, plazas, utility towers, and corridors). The increase in human 

density and associated uses has caused considerable strains on the 

ecosystem from the following factors:

 Habitat loss through direct conversion of natural habitat types to 

developed types; 

 Habitat fragmentation either through conversion of contiguous tracts of 

natural habitat types to a mosaic of discontinuous, smaller habitat type 

relicts or erection of barriers that cause direct lethal impacts to fish, 

wildlife, and plants (e.g., roads and communications towers); 

 Habitat degradation through partial deterioration of habitat due to

pollution (siltation, nutrients, pesticides, metals), exotic and pest 

species (phragmites, house cats), incompatible uses (all-terrain vehicles, 

personal watercraft); 

 Water consumption that reduces subsurface and surface water due to 

home and business consumption and industrial applications. 

Refuge Resources 

Climate 

The average annual temperature is 51°F. The average monthly 

temperature in January is 29°F; in July, 74°F. During the growing season,

which spans about 225 days, the average temperature is 43°F or higher. 

Average annual precipitation is 41.76 inches, fairly evenly distributed 

throughout the year, with slightly more in November and December and

less in July (http://www.nws.gov/er/box/climate/pcpnbos.html). 

Geology and Topography 

Evidence of glaciation in this area is readily observable. The Wisconsin 

glacier (12,000 Before Present (B.P.)) deposited sediment and other 

materials that shaped the local landscape and, in many ways, have directed

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 23 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions

this area’s development. Eighty percent of the refuge terrain is floodplain 

along the Concord and Sudbury rivers (McAdow 1990). 

The topography of the Refuge is generally flat with some gently sloping 

hills, shallow streams, and depressional ponds and wetlands. While 

elevations on the refuge range up to 60 feet above mean sea level, the 

overall elevation change is barely perceptible across this area. For 

example, the Sudbury River drops an average of only one inch per mile (1

foot in 12 miles) in passing through the Refuge (McAdow 1990). 

Soils 

Refuge soils along the rivers are primarily loams: Rippowam fine sandy 

loam and Saco mucky silt loam. Other soils found along the rivers include 

Limerick silt loam with a 0%–3% slope, and Hinckley loamy sand with 

slopes of 0%–3% and 3%–8%. The soil of ponds 1 and 2 on the refuge (the 

Concord impoundments) is Freetown muck. Saco mucky silt loam 

composes the soils along Water Row in Sudbury. 

Several refuge parcels have upland soils: the O’Rourke parcel in Carlisle; 

the Cook, Strand, and Wolbach properties in Sudbury; and the Lombard 

parcel in Wayland. 

• The soils on the O’Rourke parcel include Hinckley loamy sand with 

slopes of 3%–8% and 15%–25%, Windsor loamy sand with slopes of 

0%–3% and 3%–8%, Deerfield loamy sand with a 3%–8% slope, 

Wareham loamy sand with a slope of 0%–5%, and Freetown muck. 

• At the Cook parcel in Sudbury, the primary soil is Wareham loamy 

sand with a slope of 0%–5%. 

• The Strand property is comprised primarily of Freetown muck, 

ponded, Hinckley loamy sand with a slope of 15%–25%, Tisbury silt

loam with a slope of 3%–8%, and Scio very fine sandy loam with a 

slope of 0%–3%. 

• The Wolbach property soils are rock outcrop-Hollis complex and 

Hollis rock outcrop-Charlton complex with a 3%–5% slope. 

• The Lombard property in Wayland consists of Merrimac-urban 

land complex with slopes of 0%–8% (USDA 1995 a). 

Hydrology 

The Sudbury-Assabet-Concord (SuAsCo) river basin encompasses 371 

square miles of land and 88.1 river miles, from Billerica in the north to 

Westborough and Hopkinton in the south. These three rivers and their 

associated tributaries drain the basin into the Merrimack River in Lowell. 

- 24 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

The Sudbury River is 41 miles long, and drains 169 square miles. It begins

in Cedar Swamp Pond in Westborough, flows eastward to Framingham, 

then flows north through the towns of Sudbury, Wayland, Lincoln, and into 

Concord. The Sudbury River has three distinct sections. Its first section, 

upstream of Framingham, is a narrow, rapidly flowing stream. The second 

section consists of two large impoundments. One of those impoundments is

part of the Metropolitan District Commission water supply. The Colonna 

Dam in Saxonville (Framingham) creates the other impoundment. The 

third section of the river is, perhaps, the most unique. As it flows through 

the Great Meadows NWR, this 12-mile section of the Sudbury River 

changes elevation by only 1 foot, and has been compared to an elongated 

lake. 

The Assabet River is 31 miles long, and drains 175 square miles. It starts in

Westborough, and flows northeast through the urban centers of 

Northborough, Hudson, Maynard, and Concord. Between these 

suburbanized centers lie rural and undeveloped watersheds. The repeating 

discharge of a sewage treatment plant characterizes the Assabet River. Its

impoundments are highly eutrophic in 

summer, containing large amounts of 

aquatic growth, particularly algal blooms. 

Concord River and Impoundments: USFWS Photo 

The Concord River is 15.8 miles long, and

drains 27 square miles. It forms at the 

confluence of the Assabet and Sudbury 

rivers in Concord, flows north through 

the towns of Carlisle, Bedford, Billerica, 

and then enters the Merrimack River in 

the city of Lowell. The Concord River 

retains the slow-moving characteristics of 

the third section (above) of the Sudbury 

River. 

Surface waters on the refuge are either 

riverine or ponded. The three rivers primarily affect refuge habitats. The

Concord River drains the Concord Division. The Sudbury River, Hop 

Brook, and a few unnamed tributaries drain the Sudbury Division. 

Ponded waters include the Concord impoundments (Ponds 1 and 2), and the 

Strand and Headquarters ponds in Sudbury. We had managed the Concord 

impoundments primarily as stable water bodies since the mid-1970’s. 

However, beginning in 2000, water levels in the Concord impoundments 

have been actively managed with the use of drawdowns to benefit 

shorebirds and waterfowl during different times of the year. We 

continuously expose an appropriate amount of new mudflat habitat during 

the entire shorebird migration period, draining and exposing mudflats, 

which support germination of wetland plants. Weekly water gauge readings 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 25 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions

are recorded from existing measurement structures in the pools. Surveys 

are conducted weekly year round. Water control structures at the Strand 

property (Sudbury) and Concord impoundments (Concord) will be 

maintained to allow refuge staff to manage water levels in the pools. 

Flooding areas dominated by seed-producing annuals provide 

carbohydrates and fat for the higher maintenance requirements of dabbling 

ducks during fall migration and winter. To obtain the desired feeding 

habitat, water levels are drawn-down in alternating pools in Concord 

during the summer to promote germination of wetland plants. These pools

are then slowly flooded during the fall and early winter, ensuring that 

water depths in areas with annual plants do not exceed eight inches. Slow 

staging of water levels provides a continual supply of new habitat at optimal 

levels. 

Air Quality 

The State air quality report from 2002 contains the most recent data 

available from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 

(MADEP), Air Assessment Branch. The report contains data for several 

different pollutants: ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 

Carbon Monomoxide (CO), and particulate matter (10 microns (PM10) and 

2.5 microns (PM2.5)). Data for O3 and PM2.5 is 

available from the monitoring site in Stow; SO2, NO2,

CO and PM10 data are from Worcester. 

Massachusetts levels for CO, SO2, PM2.5, and PM10

are below the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA) standards for these pollutants. 

There are two ozone standards based on two 

different averaging times, 1-hour and 8-hour. For 

almost two decades prior to 1997, the standard for

ozone had been 0.12 parts per million (ppm) 

averaged over one hour. In 1997, USEPA set a new 

stricter ozone standard of 0.08 ppm averaged over

an eight-hour period. Industry groups filed suit against USEPA following 

promulgation of the standard. In February 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court 

upheld the USEPA’s authority for setting the new health-based ozone and 

particulate matter standards. In March 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia upheld the standards themselves. However, the 

USEPA has not yet designated ozone nonattainment areas for the new 8-

hour standard due to the delay in implementation of the new standard 

caused by the industry litigation. MADEP monitors for both 1-hour and 8-

hour ozone levels throughout the state. Massachusetts has violated the 1-

hour ozone standard for many years. However, with the adoption of 

numerous control programs, progress has been made. The number and 

severity of the 1-hour ozone exceedances has declined significantly in 

recent years. As of 2002, the entire state was in violation of the 1-hour and 

8-hour standards based on ozone readings for the 1999-2002 period. 

Winterberries frozen in winter: Photo by Marijke

Holtrop 

- 26 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

USEPA is expected to designate the attainment status of the state for the 

new 8-hour ozone standard in 2004. Massachusetts is expected to be 

nonattainment for the 8-hour standard. 

In 2002, there were 122 exceedances of the 8-hour standard occurring on 30 

days, and 22 exceedances of the 1-hour standard occurring on 5 days on a 

state-wide basis. A total of six 8-hour exceedances were recorded in 2002 in

Stow. The trends for ozone readings in the state have been generally 

decreasing toward better quality since 1988. 

Massachusetts has made significant progress in attaining the CO standard

by implementing air pollution control programs. The last violation of the 

CO National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) occurred in Boston

in 1986. The Boston Metropolitan area was redesignated to attainment of 

the CO Federal air quality standard by the USEPA in 1996. Lowell,

Springfield, Waltham, and Worcester were redesignated to attainment of 

the CO standard by the USEPA in 2002. 

In recent years there has been concern regarding the aerial deposition of 

mercury from atmospheric sources outside the northeast region (see for 

example Sweet and Prestbo 1999). Researchers have speculated that this 

may be the source of mercury levels found in some species and age-classes 

of fish in New England above the 1 part per million standard established by 

the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 

The annual average concentration of lead in the air decreased substantially

since 1985 from more than 300 ug/m3 to less than 0.05 ug/m3

 (the annual 

average NAAQS for lead is 1.5 ug/m3

). Massachusetts is well below the 

standard. This result is attributed to the use of unleaded gasoline in motor 

vehicles, which are the primary source of airborne lead emissions (MADEP

2000). While air quality concentrations of lead have 

dramatically decreased, there may still be concern regarding 

residual lead levels in soils along heavily traveled roadways 

deposited prior to the change to unleaded gasoline usage. 

Water Quality and Quantity

The SuAsCo River basin is one of the fastest-growing areas 

of the state; consequently, water quality has suffered. The 

primary water quality classification for both the Sudbury 

and Assabet rivers is Class B, warm water fishery. The 

primary water quality classification for the portion of the 

Concord River in the refuge is Class B, warm water fishery, treated water 

supply (MEOEA 1996). The Commonwealth of Massachusetts defines 

Class B waters as being suitable for “protection and propagation of fish, 

other aquatic life, for wildlife, and for primary and secondary contact 

recreation.” (MADEP 1998a) 

Redwing Blackbird chicks: Staff photo 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 27 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions

Multiple point sources of pollution heavily impact water quality in the 

Sudbury River: one wastewater treatment plant; the contamination from 

both the Nyanza Superfund site and the Raytheon Brook 

site; and, the Marlborough Easterly Wastewater 

Treatment Plant, which discharges into the Sudbury 

River via Hop Brook (MEOEA 1996). The town of

Hopkinton proposes to build a wastewater treatment 

plant as well (Nancy Bryant, SuAsCo Watershed 

Community Council, pers. comm). We have provided 

specific information about the contamination from the 

Nyanza Superfund site and the Raytheon Brook site in 

“Contaminants” below. Non-point sources also pollute 

the Sudbury River. Those include pesticides, fertilizers, 

and storm water and parking lot runoff. 

The Assabet River is the one most heavily impacted by 

point source pollution. Six wastewater treatment plants 

in Westborough, Marlborough (Marlborough Westerly), 

Hudson, Maynard, Acton, and Concord are now 

operating, and another one is proposed in Acton. As with 

the Sudbury River, many non-point sources of pollution 

also degrade water quality in the Assabet River. 

The Concord River has three wastewater treatment 

plants operating on its banks: one in Concord and two in 

Billerica. Although the two plants in Billerica lie downstream of the refuge, 

their impact on the river cannot be overlooked. The treatment plant in 

Concord lies just upstream of the Concord impoundments on the refuge. As

with the Sudbury and Assabet rivers, non-point source pollution also 

impacts the Concord River (MEOEA 1996). 

Wetland habitat: Photo by John Grabill 

The public is very interested in protecting the resources in this watershed, 

as indicated by the establishment of the SuAsCo Watershed Community 

Council. The nonprofit group is composed of representatives from business 

and industry, municipal governments, environmental organizations, and 

state, federal, and regional agencies. 

Aircraft Noise 

Noise is a constant disturbance at the Concord impoundments; planes from 

Hanscom Field in Bedford fly directly over the refuge. Hanscom Field is 

the busiest general aviation airport in New England, with more than 

200,000 operations per year. Corporate jet traffic amounts to 12 percent of 

the air traffic leaving Hanscom Field, and that percentage is growing by 22

percent per year. Corporate jets create as much noise as regular 

jet-airliners (Save Our Heritage 1999). 

- 28 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Contaminants 

Elevated levels of heavy metals (mercury, lead, and arsenic) are present at 

many locations in the Sudbury River. The effects of those metals on wildlife

are unclear. Other heavy metals are present as well, including cadmium and 

chromium. Their effects also are unknown. There are some indications that 

levels of mercury, while below levels that would affect fish or piscivorous 

fish, possibly may be high enough to affect piscivorous birds. The Nyanza 

Superfund site in Ashland and the Raytheon brook wetlands in Sudbury 

are two major sources of pollution near the refuge. Both sites have 

introduced mercury into the Sudbury River (Eaton and Carr 1991). 

Concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polynuclear 

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in sediments in the vicinity of the Raytheon 

site are high. The PCB and PAH concentrations for the Sudbury River 

overall do not appear to represent a significant hazard to piscivorous birds, 

but could adversely affect highly susceptible mammals, such as mink 

(Mustela vison). No other organochlorine pesticides surveyed appear to

represent significant hazards to the Sudbury River (MEOEA 1996 and 

Eaton and Carr 1991). 

In September 1994, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health issued 

a state-wide interim freshwater fish advisory because of elevated mercury 

levels in certain species of freshwater fish. The interim advisory

recommends, “pregnant women should be advised of the possible risk from

eating fish in Massachusetts freshwater bodies in order to prevent 

exposure of developing fetuses to mercury.” This advisory does not include

stocked trout or farmraised fish sold commercially (MEOEA 1996). 

Special Designations 

Wild and Scenic River Designation 

In April 1999, Congress included 29 miles of the Sudbury, Assabet, and 

Concord rivers within the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System

(NWSR), in recognition of their outstanding ecology, scenery, recreation 

value, and their place in American history and literature. Those 29 miles 

are further sub classified as 14.9 miles scenic and 14.1 miles recreational. 

The refuge is located along some of the 14.1 miles classified as scenic on the 

Sudbury River and along some of the 8-mile segment of the Concord River 

designated as recreational. Descriptions of where the designated Concord 

and Sudbury Rivers flow through the refuge are provided below. 

• The NWSR designation of the Sudbury River begins at the Danforth 

Street Bridge in Framingham, 13.2 miles downstream to the Route 2 

Bridge in Concord, thence 1.7 miles to its confluence with the Assabet 

River at Egg Rock. 

• The NWSR designation of the Assabet River begins 1,000 feet

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 29 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions

downstream from the Damon Mill Dam in Concord, 4.4 miles to its 

confluence with the Sudbury River at Egg Rock. 

• The NWSR designation of the Concord River begins at the confluence 

of the Sudbury and Assabet rivers, 8 miles downstream to the Route 3 

Bridge in Billerica. 

The goal of any National Wild and Scenic River designation is to preserve 

the character of a river, not to curtail its use or halt 

further development. Uses that are compatible with the 

management goals for a designated river are allowed. 

Usually, development that does not damage the 

resources of a designated river or curtail its free flow is 

allowed (www.nps.gov/rivers/wsract.html). 

Portions of Great Meadows NWR are included in the 

designated Sudbury Valley Important Bird Area (IBA).

IBAs provide essential habitat for at least one or more 

species of breeding, wintering or migrating birds. The 

program highlights these important areas, but is not regulatory in nature. 

The primary goals of the program are listed below. 

The Sudbury River at Weir Hill: Staff 

Photo

• “To identify, nominate and designate key sites that contribute to the 

preservation of significant bird populations or communities. 

• To provide information that will help land managers evaluate areas for 

habitat management or land acquisition. 

• To activate public and private participation in bird conservation efforts. 

• To provide education and community outreach opportunities.”

(http://www.massaudubon.org/birds-&-beyond/iba/iba-intro.html) 

Biological Resources 

Vegetation and Habitat Types 

Wetlands

Along the Sudbury and Concord rivers, scrub–shrub wetlands 

predominate. Extensive buttonbush-dominated (Cephalanthus 

occidentalis) wetlands reflect long-term vegetational changes along both 

rivers. In many areas, invasive species, such as water chestnut (Trapa 

natans) or purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), have displaced plant 

species of high waterfowl value, such as bur-reed (Sparganium sp.) and 

bulrush (Scirpus palustris). Despite having low food source value for 

waterfowl, these wetlands still provide excellent brood cover. Less

prevalent along the rivers are valuable “sedge meadows,” which are 

dominated by non-woody vegetation, including extensive areas of bulrush 

and cord grass (Spartina pectinata), with beds of water pepper

(Polygonum hydropiper), wild rice (Sizania aquatica), arrow arum 

(Peltandra virginica), pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), and smartweed 

(Polygonum amphibium). These meadows are especially attractive to 

- 30 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

waterfowl. All wetland areas are typically flooded in spring; their water 

levels gradually decline throughout the summer. 

Forested wetlands make up about 8 percent of the refuge. The dominant 

trees and shrubs in their overstory are red maple (Acer rubrum), swamp 

white oak (Quercus bicolor), hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), sweet 

pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), white swamp azalea (Rhododendron

viscosum), and rosebay rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum). 

Herbaceous plants found in these areas include skunk cabbage

(Symplocarpus foetidus) and jack-in-the pulpit 

(Arisaema spp.). 

Dense stands of cattail (Typha latifolia) and purple 

loosestrife dominate the edges of the Concord 

impoundments. Vegetation within the 

impoundments varies depending on the water level 

management. In years when the impoundments are 

kept flooded as pond habitat, common littoral 

emergents include arrow arum, arrowhead 

(Sagittaria sp.), bur-reed, wild rice, pickerel weed, 

sweet flag (Acorus calamus), and smartweed. In

years when the impoundments are drained in the 

spring, common vegetation includes Walter’s millet 

(Echinochloa walteri), Cyperus spp. and Wild Rice. 

Uplands

Uplands compose about 20 percent of the refuge. 

They form critical edges between refuge wetlands 

and the suburban development adjacent to them. 

Most of the uplands were once farmed. Many areas 

have grown into solid stands of white pine. Other 

areas now support species typical of a mixed 

eastern deciduous forest. Dominant species in the 

forested upland include red maple, red and white

oak (Quercus rubra; q. alba), white pine (Pinus 

strobus), blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), sweet 

pepperbush, rosebay rhododendron, and sweet fern 

(Comptonia peregrina). Common species found in the open fields include 

common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) and goldenrod (Solidago spp.).

Foxtail: Photo by Emily Ann Hollick

The refuge now manages approximately 200 acres of discontinuous field 

habitat (~12 different fields). Dense stands of hardwood are gradually 

replacing other fields in the uplands. All the fields are bordered by brush

edges that, in most places, change into mature deciduous woodlands.

Songbirds and small mammals use these edges extensively. The fields 

provide dense nesting cover for some grassland bird species, such as 

Eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), savannah sparrows (Passerculus 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 31 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions

sandwichensis) and Bobolinks (Dolichonyx oryzivorus). Male American 

woodcocks also use the fields as “singing grounds” for their courtship 

displays in the spring. 

One six-acre field had been cooperatively farmed for several years, but has

not been farmed since 2002. The field is generally wet and is not high 

producing farmland. 

Invasive Plants 

Japanese Knotweed: Photo by

Marijke Holtrop 

Several species of non-native invasive plants have invaded wetlands an 

upland habitat on the refuge: water chestnut, purple loosestrife, 

Asiatic bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), common reed (Phragmites

australis), Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), glossy 

buckthorn (Rhamnus alnifolia), tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), 

autumn olive (Eleagus umbelleta), and black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia). Water chestnut and purple loosestrife are found in the 

Concord impoundments and along both the Sudbury and Concord 

rivers. 

Wildlife Resources 

Migratory Birds 

The refuge provides a mix of wetland, upland field, scrub-shrub, and

forested habitats. This combination provides excellent habitat for a variety 

of bird species year-round. A number of state-listed species are found on 

the refuge during various seasons. For a complete list of avian species that 

are known to use the refuge, see Appendix D. 

Many species of birds stopover at the refuge during spring and fall 

migration. Peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) and bald eagles 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are occasionally seen flying over the refuge 

during fall migrations. The northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), often seen 

hunting at the Concord impoundments, is listed as threatened by the

NHESP. 

Many songbird species nest, feed, and rest on the refuge. They include 

marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris), gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), 

yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), redwinged blackbird (Agelaius 

phoeniceus), swamp sparrow (Melospiza georgiana), common yellowthroat 

(Geothlypis trichas), yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata), and 

northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos). A number of bird species 

nesting on or migrating through the refuge are neotropical migrants (these

species winter in Central and South America). As a group, neotropical 

migrants have shown recent population declines due to habitat

deterioration and loss in wintering areas and along migration corridors. 

- 32 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Thousands of waterfowl, over 20 different species, use the refuge 

throughout the year. Common species include green-winged teal (Anas 

crecca), American black duck (Anas 

rubripes), wood duck, and mallard 

(Anas platyrhynchos). Species less 

commonly observed include northern 

shoveler (Anas clypeata), 

blue-winged teal (Anas discors), 

hooded merganser (Lophodytes

cucullatus), and gadwall (Anas 

strepera). 

Many marsh and water birds use the 

refuge, particularly the Concord 

impoundments. The most common are 

great blue heron (Ardea herodias),

great egret (Ardea alba), Virginia rail 

(Rallus limicola), and green heron 

(Butorides virescens). The pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps), a 

state-listed endangered species, is a common sight on the Concord River or

in the impoundments in the summer and early fall. Less common species 

found at the impoundments and other wetlands on the refuge include sora

rail (Porzana carolina), and American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus).

The least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis), also a state-listed endangered species, 

historically has nested on the refuge. 

Canada Geese: Photo by Paul Buckley 

Shorebirds are generally seen at the Concord impoundments during fall

migration. Species frequently seen include killdeer (Charadrius vociferus),

least sandpiper, greater and lesser yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca, T.

flavipes), pectoral sandpiper (Calidris melanotos), and semi-palmated 

plover (Charadrius semipalmatus). Less common species include 

white-rumped sandpiper (Calidris fuscicollis), and black-bellied plover 

(Pluvialis squatarola). 

Mammals 

No formal surveys or inventories have been conducted on the refuge for 

mammals. However, many mammal species are found on the refuge: 

Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), several shrew species (Sorex spp. 

and Blarina spp.), chipmunks (Tamias striatus), eastern gray squirrel 

(Sciurus carolinensis), flying squirrel species (Glaucomys spp.), 

white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), muskrat (Ondatra zibethica), 

mink (Mustela vison), coyote (Canis latrans), red fox (Vulpes fulva), fisher

(Martes pennanti) and American beaver (Castor canadensis). For a 

complete list of mammals likely to be present, see Appendix D. 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 33 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions

Reptiles and Amphibians

Comprehensive inventories of amphibians and reptiles have not been 

conducted. We have conducted the Service Northeast Region Anuran Call 

Count Survey for the refuge. The survey is designed to identify frog and 

toad species of the refuge and monitor

their populations. Frog and toad species 

on the refuge include green frog (Rana 

clamitans cl.), bullfrog (Rana 

catesbiana), northern spring peeper 

(Pseudacris crucifer), pickerel frog 

(Rana palustris), gray tree frog (Hyla

versicolor), northern leopard frog (Rana 

pipiens), wood frog (Rana sylvatica) and 

American toad (Bufo americanus). 

Reptile species found on the refuge 

include snapping turtle (Chelydra 

serpentina), state-listed Blanding’s turtle 

(Emys blandingii), eastern box turtle 

(Terrapene carolina carolina), common 

garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis),

eastern ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus), and northern water snake 

(Nerodia sipedon). For a complete list of amphibians and reptiles, see 

Appendix D. 

Bullfrog: Photo by Ken Andrews 

Fish 

Similar fish species appear in the Concord and Sudbury rivers. Common 

species include northern pike (Esox lucius), yellow perch (Perca 

flavescens), brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus), rainbow trout (Salmo

gairdneri), and pumpkinseed (Lepomis macrochirus). A cooperative 

recovery program, now underway for the alewife (Pomolobus 

pseudoharengus), will continue for the next several years. Service 

personnel from the Central New England Fishery Resources Office and 

volunteers have released alewife into the Concord River. The alewife 

recovery program has met with success in efforts at restoration. In June

2004, juvenile alewife were successfully collected from Heard Pond. For a 

complete list of species, see Appendix D. 

Invertebrates 

No formal surveys have been conducted on the refuge for invertebrates. 

Invertebrates are not well documented. A number of varied invertebrates, 

both terrestrial and aquatic, are of biological importance. Lepidopterans 

are frequently observed (see Appendix D). 

- 34 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Threatened and Endangered Species

No federal-listed endangered or threatened species reside on the refuge. 

Bald eagles are occasionally seen over the Concord impoundments. 

Cultural Resources 

Prehistoric Period 

Recorded prehistoric archeological sites and artifact “find spots” show that 

prehistoric occupation in the SuAsC drainage system spans 11,000 years.

The first Native American occupation in this area occurred during the 

Paleoindian period (11000–8000 Before Present (B.P.)). While no definite 

Paleoindian sites have been reported within the boundaries of the refuge, a 

diagnostic Paleoindian fluted point of unknown type was reported as an 

isolated find spot in the Sudbury drainage (Dincauze and Mulholland 

1977:440). 

The early Archaic period (9000–7000 B.P.) follows the Paleoindian. Small,

widespread populations that practiced diversified hunting and gathering 

characterize the Early Archaic culture. The diverse flora and fauna 

associated with the wetlands in the refuge would have supported this type 

of subsistence strategy. Several Early Archaic sites containing 

bifurcate-base projectile points lie within the Refuge boundary. They

include areas around Heard Pond (SUD-028P, MA State #19-MD-207, 208, 

209) south of the Headquarters Tract in Wayland, and the Davis Farm Site,

located along Pantry Brook north of the Headquarters Tract. Ritchie’s 

reports discuss in detail the Early Archaic materials found not far from

those areas (Ritchie 1980, 1985; Ritchie and Davin 1984). 

During the Middle Archaic period, (8000–4500 B.P.), hunters and gatherers 

focused their subsistence strategies on drainage systems. Fishing gear 

appeared during that time, and people heavily used local sources of stone. 

The refuge environment was ideal for the people of the Middle Archaic. 

Several Middle Archaic sites near the refuge are known. Ritchie argues 

that the Sudbury and Concord rivers drainage in eastern Massachusetts 

was a major focus of Middle Archaic activity (Begley and Ritchie 1998;

Ritchie 1985). The settlement patterns of the Middle Archaic people 

suggest an intricate population distribution that ranges in site size and 

internal complexity. Several small sites in upland settings contrast sharply 

with known larger riverine zone sites, like the Heard Pond Middle Archaic 

complexes, which suggest functional diversity of site settlement patterns. 

Also, the tool kits associated with the various sites are functionally diverse.

These include chipped and ground stone tools (usually associated with the 

production of plant foods), gouges, choppers, and net sinkers. That 

diversity may indicate that the Middle Archaic people traveled within river 

drainage territories and upland areas to exploit seasonal resources (Ritchie 

1985; Dincauze 1976:136). 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 35 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions

The lithic materials during the Middle Archaic period were primarily from

local sources. Local Westboro formation quartzite or mylonite and rhyolite 

or felsite from sources in the blue hills and Charles-Neponset river 

drainage area dominate Neville phase sites. Other Middle Archaic 

materials that dominate the stone assemblages of the sites in the refuge 

area include both local and non-local sources. The non-local sources include 

quartzite, crystal tuff, and amphibolite schist or argillite from source areas

in the Charles River drainage and, occasionally, chert from New York 

State. Middle Archaic people quarried the local quartzite, mylonite, crystal 

tuff, and amphibole schist from bedrock outcrops in upland sections of the 

Sudbury-Assabet drainage (Ritchie 1985). 

Following the Middle Archaic is the Late Archaic period (4500–3000 B.P.),

at the onset of the Terminal Archaic period. Intensive hunting and 

gathering over a large region characterized the Late Archaic. People also

began to exploit freshwater and saltwater shellfish. The Late Archaic 

population may have been the largest for the Archaic period (Ritchie 1985). 

Late Archaic cultural complexes show the greatest frequency and widest 

distribution in different environmental zones. Surface collections from the 

larger, multicomponent sites along the Sudbury River drainage contain 

projectile points diagnostic of the three major cultural traditions which are

Laurentian/Brewerton-Vosburg, small stem point, and Susquehanna 

(Ritchie 1985). Several Late Archaic projectile points have been recovered 

at the Headquarters Tract. These include Brewerton eared notched 

projectile points, small-stemmed and triangular projectile points. Artifacts 

recovered from the Late Archaic sites include hunting tools (projectile 

points, bifacial knives), woodworking tools (full-grooved axes, adzes, 

gouges, whetstones) and processing tools (pestles, scrapers, hammerstones, 

soapstone cooking vessels). 

To summarize, people during the Late Archaic intensely 

exploited the habitats within the refuge. Diverse tool 

assemblages and relatively large population densities 

characterized this period. As in the Early and Middle 

Archaic, there was much activity on the refuge during 

the Late Archaic. The intense use of resources in the 

immediate area does not appear to decrease during the 

Transitional Archaic period and the Woodland periods. 

The Transitional Archaic (3600–2500 B.P.) was

characterized as economically similar to the Late and 

Middle Archaic, but more groups may have been 

migrating into New England, or more local groups may 

have been developing technologies strikingly different 

from those previously used (Ritchie 1985). Trade in materials such as 

soapstone became important, and burial rituals became more complex, 

Sunset at Great Meadows: Photo by David Margaretos

- 36 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

perhaps due to an increase in population size. Very often, Transitional 

Archaic sites are placed in the same category as Early Woodland, because 

there is much overlap among projectile point styles, and no other attributes

clearly distinguish the two cultural periods. The 

dates given for the Early Woodland are 2600 to 1,500 

B.P. during the Early Woodland, clay pottery began 

to appear. This may correlate with early horticultural 

efforts by New England populations. 

In the refuge area, diagnostic Orient Fishtail and 

Meadowood projectile points were in collections from 

most of the large riverine multi-component sites. 

Meadowood points made of non-local chert from the 

Headquarters Tract show that the use of the Weir 

Hill area continued through the Archaic into the 

Woodland period (Ritchie 1985). Most of the site 

locations used during the Terminal Archaic/Early Woodland period 

continued to be staging points for Middle Woodland resource exploitation. 

Significant reuse of other sites that people used during the Middle and 

Late Archaic also occurred (Ritchie 1985). 

Wood Frog eggs: Photo by Marijke Holtrop

Coastal resources were important for people of the Middle Woodland

period (1650 B.P.–1000 B.P.). Horticulture of local northern plants, such as

Chenopodium, became increasingly important; however, gathering and

hunting were still the main subsistence means. 

The Late Woodland is an extension of the Middle Woodland. The Late

Woodland begins at 1000 B.P. and ends with the arrival of Europeans in 

New England. During the Late Woodland, horticulture of local

domesticates intensified and neighbors to the south and west introduced 

maize horticulture. People lived in larger groups, and sometimes in fortified 

villages. During this period, complex political alliances emerged, perhaps 

reflecting an increase in sedentary lifestyle and population growth. This 

was most evident in coastal areas. Some inland groups may have continued 

a more mobile hunting and gathering subsistence strategy. 

Middle and Late Woodland settlement patterns near the refuge were 

similar, with a possible reduction in resource exploitation territories during 

the Late Woodland period. Many site locations at Weir Hill, Heard Pond, 

and around the Rice Tract were fishing stations during these periods 

(Ritchie 1985:40). 

The complex political structures that emerged during the Late Woodland 

collapsed due to European expansion and disease. During this time, 

projectile points made from metals traded to the Native Americans by the 

Europeans emerge. Other European materials were also adapted to suit 

Native American needs and ideologies. No contact period sites have been 

identified on the refuge or in the immediate vicinity. However, people may 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 37 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions

have used the fishing weir that gave Weir Hill its name. 

The refuge has significant potential to contribute to our understanding of 

prehistoric settlement patterns in Eastern Massachusetts. The ecology of 

the area certainly played a significant role in the development of the 

cultures in this area, as did human impact on the environment. The refuge 

area was a “highway” for people during the Middle Archaic through the 

Woodland periods, and continued to be important for people during the 

Historic Period. 

The Historic Period

People used the Headquarters Tract for agricultural and pastoral purposes

over the last 350 years. Extant remains of this type of lifestyle are still 

visible, including remains of agricultural land use patterns, farm dump

areas, abandoned fields, former roadways, stone walls, fence lines, and 

drainage or boundary ditch systems. The refuge area was settled in the 

early part of the 17th century, soon after Plimouth Colony. 

By 1640, Sudbury was settled, and had a unique political and economic 

structure. The town practiced an open field system. These commons 

surrounded the town center, with about 2,750 acres on the east side of the

river, and 5,000 acres to the west, extending to Pantry Brook. These 

commons were used mostly for cattle, except for 50 acres of upland near 

Hop Brook that were used for a mill in 1659. The primary crops grown by

the early settlers were corn, rye, barley, wheat, peas, oats, hemp, and flax.

Hay was also grown along river meadows. 

Several Historic Period Christian Indian towns were 

located outside the perimeter of English frontier towns 

like Sudbury and Concord. The Indian town of 

Ockookamkomesit eventually became the English 

plantation of Marlborough between 1650 and 1660. Most

of these Indian towns were diminished by

European-introduced diseases and, later on, by warfare. 

Water and pond lilies: Photo by Marijke Holtrop

During the 18th century, the primary changes in the 

town were a population increase, the establishment of a 

militia, and the Revolutionary War. Also, several roads

and bridges were constructed, which allowed for more 

commerce between the surrounding towns and Boston. 

In 1780, the East and West Precincts of Sudbury were divided into two 

towns. The Sudbury River formed the town line between East Sudbury and 

Sudbury. By 1794, a report on the town of Sudbury described three grist 

mills, two saw mills, and a fulling mill as local industries; all were located

along the Wash Brook and Hop Brook drainage (Ritchie 1985). 

- 38 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

During the 19th century, the village of South Sudbury developed into a 

commercial district known as Mill Village, with a church, town library, post 

office, general store, and malt house. Several small industries, including a 

grist mill, blacksmith, machine shop, wheelwright’s shop, tannery, and a 

shoe factory were located near a mill pond on Hop Brook. The Framingham 

and Lowell railroad was extended through South Sudbury in 1870. Ten 

years later, the Massachusetts Central Railroad formed a junction with the 

Framingham and Lowell at South Sudbury, and a railroad station was built 

for regular use (Ritchie 1985). 

Sudbury Center continued as a focus of community activity in the 19th 

century with a town hall, three churches, school houses, stores, railroad 

depot, and close to fifty houses. The district on North Sudbury remained 

open farmland throughout the nineteenth century with a small station on 

the Old Colony Railroad (Ritchie 1985). 

Mining of bog iron from the swamps in the north part of Sudbury was also

an important small-scale rural industry during the 19th Century. The bog 

iron ore was carted to the Sudbury River where it was loaded onto barges 

and transported to forges in Chelmsford (Ritchie 1985). 

Around the refuge area, the primary activity for all Historic periods until 

the late 20th century has been farming. Several farm archeological sites 

located on the refuge date back to the early settlement of the area. More 

recently, a summer camp called the Elbanobscot Environmental Education 

Center built in the 1950’s stood on what is now refuge land. The summer 

camp altered the Weir Hill area by constructing a swimming pond on the 

edge of the Sudbury River floodplain, near the present-day headquarters 

building and a leaching field on top of Weir Hill (Ritchie 1985).

The refuge offers an excellent opportunity to study early American history. 

Several important cultural resources located on the refuge potentially can 

contribute significant information about human activity there over the last

10,000 years. The archeological studies now completed have yielded 

important information. Other archeological resources still undiscovered 

also may exist on the refuge. 

Socio-economics

Bedford 

Bedford is located 15 miles northwest of Boston, between Billerica to the

north and Concord and Carlisle to the west. Its total land area is 13.87 

square miles. Its population increased by 1 percent from 13,067 in 1990 to

13,947 in 1998. Middlesex Community College, the Edith Nourse Rogers 

Memorial Veterans Hospital, Hanscom Air Force Base, and other 

businesses in Bedford employ about 23,000 persons. 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 39 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions

Founded in 1729, Bedford has retained both its natural and architectural 

beauty. Visitors find an attractive historic district and town common in the 

center, the famous Bedford Flag on display in the library, the 1790 Job

Lane house, and several national historic landmarks. Annual town 

celebrations include “Pole Capping” in April, when the Bedford Minuteman 

Company reenacts a Revolutionary-era tradition, and “Bedford Day” in 

September, celebrated with a parade, street fair, and dancing. 

Bedford residents enjoy many town services. Education is a top priority, 

with schools well known for scoring competitively by all standards. The 

library serves everyone, and has active children’s programs. All age groups 

enjoy recreation programs, including after-school daycare, a summer day camp, and a senior center offering 

daily health and leisure services. An in-town minibus 

runs weekdays. Outdoor facilities include a swimming 

pond, a lake for boating, a bike path to Cambridge, and 

walking trails through conservation lands. 

Billerica 

Billerica is located 20 miles northwest of Boston, and has 

a population of 40,000 residents (1998). That population 

has grown only 1.1 percent over the 1990 Census figures. 

Its total land area is 26.39 square miles; and although 

much of Billerica has been developed, significant parcels 

of vacant land still lend a certain rural character to many areas of town.

Remnants of the historic Middlesex Canal, which once connected the 

Merrimack River to Boston, traverse the town north to south. Two rivers 

pass through town: the Concord River is a major regional water feature; 

the Shawsheen River meanders through the southern part of town. 

Trail: Photo by Stanley Klein 

Incorporated in 1655, Billerica remained predominately agricultural until 

the mid-nineteenth century, when a major mill complex was sited on the

Concord River in North Billerica. Although a number of smaller industries

grew up over the next 100 years, it was not until the 1950’s that the 

present-day industrial base was established. Today, Billerica is a major 

regional employer, and home to several high technology firms, some of 

which are offshoots of companies along Route 128 to the south. Billerica is

also the site of the Middlesex House of Correction, a significant town 

employer. 

Carlisle 

The Town of Carlisle offers peaceful residential living within 20 miles of 

Boston. The 1998 population of 4,760 has increased only 1.1 percent since 

1990. Although the town is primarily residential, a few businesses are 

located there. Carlisle maintains a rich tradition in preserving open space 

and scenic ways; almost 20 percent of the town’s 15 square miles is 

- 40 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

dedicated conservation land. The only working cranberry bog in Middlesex 

County is located in Carlisle. The state owned and managed Great Brook 

Farm State Park offers numerous hiking trails, and vistas of open fields. 

Concord 

The junction of the Concord, Sudbury, and Assabet Rivers historically was 

the site of seasonal Native American camps, because of plentiful runs of 

shad, salmon, and herring. The English settled Concord as an early frontier 

outpost of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Named in 1635, the historic town 

of Concord lies west of present-day suburban Boston. It was the first nontidal-water town in interior Massachusetts. Concord retains many wellpreserved colonial houses: nine of them stood near Concord green during 

the battle that opened the Revolutionary War. 

Concord also has a significant literary history, having been the home of the 

leaders of the intellectual movements of 19th century America. Louisa May 

Alcott, Bronson Alcott, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Nathaniel Hawthorne 

lived in Concord at one time, and Henry David Thoreau wrote his 

internationally known philosophical treatise at Walden Pond in Concord. 

Concord is located 18 miles west of Boston, and comprises 26 square miles.

Several major roadways, Routes 2, 128, and I-95, are easily accessible from 

Concord. Since 1990, the town’s population has grown one percent, from 

17,076 to 17,867. The town is a mix of residential neighborhoods, retail 

centers, and high-tech industry. Skyrocketing land prices in the real estate 

boom of the 1980’s resulted from Concord’s proximity to Boston and the 

Route 128 technical and industrial corridor, coupled with a vigorous 

regional economy. Concord residents feel that its tourism and rapid 

suburban development are placing considerable pressure on the town. 

Framingham 

The Town of Framingham, located 19 miles from Boston and midway 

between Boston and Worcester, is the hub of the Metro-West region. The

town’s total land area is 26.44 square miles, and its population in 1998 was 

64,646. That estimate is down 1 percent from 1990. 

Framingham offers a unique blend of urban and rural qualities. The vibrant 

retail area along Route 9 lies close to quiet residential areas and the town 

common. The historic strengths of the town have been its location and its 

people. From its founding in 1700, Framingham has supported a variety of 

industries. The mills and factories that flourished in Framingham 

encouraged the growth of the Saxonville area of the town and the 

downtown. 

The major employers now are primarily non-manufacturing, including 

medical, retail, educational, office, and biotechnical. Framingham offers a

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 41 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions

variety of recreational activities for its residents, from its many organized 

team sports leagues to the nationally renowned Garden in the Woods. 

Residents unite for numerous municipal celebrations throughout the year, 

with a major focus on Flag Day in June. 

Lincoln 

The Town of Lincoln is a small suburb 13 miles northwest of Boston. It

began as a rural farming community made up of pieces of land “nipped” 

from adjacent towns; hence, its nickname was once Niptown. The town also

became a popular site for country estates, some of which have become 

schools, museums, town buildings, or parks. Lincoln’s total land area is

15.01 square miles. Its population is 7,921, up 1 percent since 1990. 

Retaining open space and protecting its rural character against 

encroaching urban development are extremely important to the 

community. To that end, Lincoln was one of the first towns to create a 

Conservation Commission that has, with the Lincoln Land Conservation 

Trust, acquired key parcels of land throughout the town. Significant areas 

of the town are now preserved against development, providing protection 

for wildlife and local water supplies, and creating conservation trails for 

public use. 

Sudbury 

We have excerpted here information provided by John Powers, former 

Sudbury town selectman. Sudbury has roots deep in American history. 

Like other local towns, Sudbury was home to the Nipmucks of the 

Algonquin nation before European settlement. The colonial history of 

Sudbury is actually the history of Sudbury Plantation, which 

was first settled by Europeans in 1638 in what is pleasant

day Wayland. The town center remained in present-day 

Wayland until 1780, when the town split into Sudbury and 

East Sudbury (now Wayland) 

Wild Mushroom: Photo by Marijke

Holtrop 

Townsmen developed not merely a new community but a 

new concept: government with the consent of the governed. 

Sudbury’s role in the development of the town meeting form 

of government, and its insistence upon the direct right of a 

citizen to choose his governors and to make himself heard 

upon any issue in open forum, did much to lay the foundation 

of American democracy. 

As the first highways, such as Boston Post Road, were 

constructed, Sudbury developed the small local businesses of 

a self-sufficient community. There were shoe shops and 

blacksmiths, tanners and wheelwrights, nail factories, and 

saw mills. Quiet agricultural growth continued into the 

- 42 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

1940’s, but as Boston grew, so too did Sudbury, only 20 miles from the 

burgeoning Boston. 

Today, at 24.7 square miles, Sudbury is a bustling mix of residential and 

retail areas and light industry. The residential areas lie beyond the retail 

and light industry centered along Boston Post Road. The 1998 population of

Sudbury was 15,550. Many commute to Boston or to the Route 128 hightech corridor. 

Wayland 

The Town of Wayland, 18 miles west of Boston, was the original 1638 

settlement of Sudbury Plantation, which also encompassed most of presentday Sudbury and parts of present-day Framingham. The town was founded 

to take advantage of the lush grazing resources available along the 

floodplain of the Sudbury River. Today, this historic land is virtually all 

either refuge land or Wayland conservation land. The Saxonville area

became part of the new town of Framingham in 1700. Present-day

Sudbury and present-day Wayland separated in 1780, with the newly 

formed town retaining the Sudbury name. The 15 square miles of presentday Wayland took the name of East Sudbury and became Wayland in 1835. 

The Wayland name is thought to be in honor of Reverend Francis Wayland, 

former president of Brown University, who donated funds to establish the

town’s first free public library in 1848. The town remained primarily 

agricultural from its founding through World War II, except for a thriving

shoe industry, which developed around Cochituate Village in the late 19th

century and faded in the early 20th century. After World War II the town 

developed into an affluent bedroom community within easy commuting 

distance of Boston and the high-tech corridors of Routes 128 and 495 and 

contains very little industry or commercial activity. Between 1990 and 

1998, its population grew by 1 percent, from 11,874 to 12,343. 

Wayland’s quiet, handsome neighborhoods of spacious homes have been 

enhanced by its townspeople having funded the purchase of land to 

maintain open space. The town maintains a municipal beach on the shore of 

scenic Lake Cochituate. The preservation of open space by the refuge also 

has aided the town in retaining its rural character. 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 43 -
Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions

(This page intentionally left blank)

- 44 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 4: Management Direction 

Chapter 4: Management Direction 

The Service manages fish and wildlife habitats considering the needs of all 

resources in decision-making. A requirement of the Refuge Improvement 

Act is to maintain the ecological health, diversity, and integrity of refuges. 

The refuge is a vital link in the overall function of the ecosystem. To offset 

the historic and continuing loss of riparian and forested floodplain habitats

within the ecosystem, the refuge helps to provide a biological "safety net" 

for migratory non-game birds and waterfowl, threatened and endangered

species, and other species of concern. 

The vision and goals of Great Meadows NWR translate the Refuge System, 

Mission and Refuge Purposes into management direction. To the extent 

practicable, each goal is supported by objectives with strategies needed to 

accomplish them. Objectives are intended to be accomplished within 15 

years, although actual implementation may vary as a result of available 

funding and staff. As one of the eight refuges in the Complex, Great 

Meadows NWR is a vital part of the following vision and goals.

Complex Vision

The Complex will contribute to the mission of the Refuge System and 

support ecosystem–wide priority wildlife and natural communities. 

Management will maximize the diversity and abundance of fish and wildlife 

with emphasis on threatened and endangered species, migratory birds, and 

aquatic resources. The Complex will have a well-funded and communitysupported acquisition program which contributes to wildlife conservation. 

The refuges will be well known nationally and appreciated in their 

communities. They will be seen as active partners in their communities, 

school systems, and environmental organizations which will result in high 

levels of support for the refuges. The refuges will be a showcase for sound 

wildlife management techniques and will offer top-quality, compatible, 

wildlife dependent recreational activities. Refuges open to the public will 

provide staffed visitor contact facilities that are clean, attractive, and 

accessible, with effective environmental education and interpretation. 

Complex Goals 

The following goals were developed for the Complex to support the mission

of the Refuge System and the Gulf of Maine Ecosystem Priorities. These

goals provide a general management direction for the refuge. Each of the 

goals is followed by management objectives and strategies that will help

refuge staff to meet the appropriate goals. The objectives and strategies

that were developed as a part of this CCP do not adhere to the Service’s 

guidelines for refuge goals and objectives. They are intended to provide a 

framework for management of the refuge. We look forward to refining 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 45 -
Chapter 4: Management Direction

many of the goals, objectives, and strategies in our various step-down 

management plans. 

Goal 1: Recover threatened and endangered species of the 

Complex. 

Great Meadows NWR is not currently home to any federally listed 

threatened or endangered species. There are a number of state-listed 

species that occur on the refuge. Specific objectives and strategies that 

apply to Goal 2 will benefit these species. In the event that any federally 

listed threatened or endangered species are found on the refuge, we will

take any necessary steps to ensure their protection. 

Goal 2: Protect and enhance habitats that support selfsustaining populations of Federal trust species and 

wildlife diversity. 

Objective 1: Collect and evaluate relevant baseline wildlife habitat data

to ensure future decisions are based on sound science. 

Strategy 1: Continue to participate in several region-wide and Service-wide 

surveys and studies, inventories of frogs, landbirds, shorebirds, marsh 

birds, and American woodcock. Breeding bird surveys are a top priority of

the refuge. Participation in bird surveys and the national frog deformity 

project will continue as staff and funding allow. Current wildlife surveys 

are listed in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1: Wildlife Surveys at Great Meadows NWR

Survey Purpose Points Observation Other Information

Landbird Breeding 

Survey 

• occurrence of 

species 

• occurrence 

within habitats 

• relative 

abundance 

• changes in 

population

Sudbury 21

Concord 22

late May to midJune for 10 days 1 

time/season

observations made at

10 minute intervals 

Survey points visited

once during survey 

period, habitat is 

classified at each 

point

began in 2000

birds are identified

by sight and sound 

Marshbird

Callback Survey 

• identify species 

presence 

• monitor change 

in abundance 

• evaluate species

response to

habitat 

modifications 

20 points/unit in

ponds, marshes, and 

emergent vegetation 

Early May – mid

July 

3 - 5 times/season 

began in 2000

birds are identified

by sight and sound 

callback tapes are 

used

American 

Woodcock Survey 

• presence and 

abundance 

10 points in fields, 

clear cuts, meadows, 

etc. 

mid-April – midJuly 

re-established in

2000

- 46 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 4: Management Direction 

Survey Purpose Points Observation Other Information

observations

conducted in 2 

minute intervals 

1 time/season 

Anuran Call 

Counts 

• presence and 

abundance 

11 points at Great 

Meadows 

mid-March – midJuly 

5 minute observation

period 

4 times/season

began in 2000 

State-wide Annual 

Midwinter Bald 

Eagle Survey

• presence and 

abundance 

1 survey route 

through refuge

January 1-15 Refuge participation 

since 1980 

Waterbird Counts

at Concord

Impoundments 

• Determine 

efficiency/succe

ss of water level 

manipulation 

Concord 

Impoundments 

weekly, year round began 2000

4 year study in 

Concord 

impoundments 

Rare Plant Surveys • presence and 

abundance of 

rare plants 

--- --- surveys conducted

by New England

Wildflower Society, 

MassWildlife, and 

MANHESP 

Strategy 2: Update and expand current wildlife inventories to close data

gaps related, in part, to: seasonality of use; habitat-type preferences; and, 

where practicable, estimates of population numbers. We will survey and

inventory both the Service’s Trust Resources (migratory 

birds and federally listed threatened and endangered 

species) and resident wildlife, including State listed 

threatened and endangered species. We expect to 

accomplish these concurrently; however, if necessary, 

surveys and inventories related to the Service’s trust 

resources may receive priority. 

Forest habitat: Photo by Karla Thompson

Strategy 3: Continue to monitor and seek to protect water 

quality. We will continue to rely on partners such as 

Concord River Environmental Stream Team (CREST), OAR 

and SVT to conduct this monitoring. However, we will 

actively participate in meetings with organizations such as 

the SuAsCo Watershed Community Council to ensure water 

quality protection throughout the watershed. 

Strategy 4: Within 3 years, conduct a thorough survey on

plants of the refuge. We will obtain aerial photography to 

develop a cover type map and ground truth the information 

in the field. The cover type map will show locations and acres

for each habitat type. In addition, we will record locations of 

other priority species, and invasive species using a global

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 47 -
Chapter 4: Management Direction

positioning system, and identified on the cover type map. We will update

the map every ten years. This work will be done with assistance from 

partners and local naturalists. 

Strategy 5: Within 5 years, conduct a comprehensive survey of

invertebrates in the spring and summer, noting Federal and State 

endangered and threatened species. We will use “sticky” sticks (paint 

stirrers dipped in Tanglefoot Insect Trap Coating and placed horizontally

on and vertically in the substrate) to sample ground-based invertebrates 

throughout the refuge. We will utilize collecting nets to sample winged 

invertebrates. 

Strategy 6: Within 5 years, survey amphibians and reptiles using a 

combination of pitfall traps, fyke nets, and audio cues. We will survey 

aquatic turtles using fyke nets during the summer and fall. We will sample

terrestrial turtles, snakes, and amphibians using pitfall traps. 

Strategy 7: Within 5 years, census migrating raptors, and neotropical 

migrants for two seasons. We will conduct raptor surveys throughout the 

fall, using methods developed by the Hawk Migration Association of North 

America. We will work with local birders and organizations to determine 

the best method for censussing neotropical migrants. 

Strategy 8: Within 10 years, sample freshwater fish throughout the river 

and ponds on the refuge using passive and active capture gear and 

electrofishing. Passive gear includes, but is not limited to, gill nets, trammel 

nets, and fyke nets. Active gear includes, but is not limited to, seines, nets, 

and hooks. Depending on the diversity and abundance of fish that are found 

in the ponds, we may initiate mark/recapture studies. 

Strategy 9: Within 10 years, survey small mammals using small live box 

traps, snap traps, and pitfall traps. We will arrange traps in a grid 

throughout the refuge and trapping will be done during the spring, 

summer, or fall. If any threatened or endangered species are found, we 

may initiate mark/recapture studies to develop a population estimate. 

Objective 2: Manage aquatic and upland habitat to maintain habitat and 

species diversity. 

We will determine resources of concern, including focus species or speciesgroups and their habitat needs. Focus species and habitats are most likely 

to be selected based on a combination of factors such as: endangerment 

(Federal and State-listed species); priority, national and regional Service 

plans (such as the NAWMP, the PIF, etc); developing Service 

policies/regulations such as those related to HMPs and maintenance of 

ecological integrity; the purpose for which the refuge was established (its

value for the conservation of migratory bird species); current/historical 

species and habitat presence; and recommendations from MassWildlife or 

- 48 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 4: Management Direction 

other partners. We will more actively involve adjacent conservation land

owners in the preparation and review of conservation plans and 

management strategies. 

Strategy 1: Continue with the status quo of our old field, grassland, upland

and wetland habitat management, until our management plans are

completed. Some areas that are currently being mowed may eventually be

allowed to revert to forest or may be managed as early successional habitat. 

Until final decisions are made about each parcel, based on the HMP, 

current management techniques will be allowed to continue. 

Strategy 2: Within 2 years, develop a long-range HMP. We will include 

information for all habitats and species on the refuge, with a focus on 

resources of regional and national concern (based on regional and Service 

plans). We will provide quantitative and measurable objectives and 

strategies for habitat management to enhance resources of concern. 

Strategy 3: Within 5 years, complete a Habitat and Wildlife Inventory and 

Monitoring Plan (HWIMP). We will include an on-going monitoring 

component designed to measure progress toward those objectives outlined 

in the HMP, and to allow mid-course corrections or alterations as they may 

be needed. We will develop any additional step-down plans that may be 

required, depending on specific habitat management 

techniques or practices that may be recommended in the plans 

including chemical, mechanical or fire. We will develop 

protocols in this plan to be statistically sound and peer 

reviewed. 

Strategy 4: Continue to actively manage water levels in the 

Concord impoundments to mimic the hydrology of a natural 

wetland. We will continue to record weekly water gauge 

readings from existing measurement structures in the pools. 

To effectively utilize the impoundments to mimic the hydrology 

of a natural wetland, we employ a complex regime. During the 

spring months, both impoundments are generally full and a 

variety of species use the impoundments as a nesting area. 

Marshbirds such as Virginia Rails and Soras nest in the cattails 

or the impoundments. Waterfowl such as Wood Ducks and 

Hooded Mergansers nest in the artificial nest boxes or tree 

cavities. 

As the summer months approach and nesting activity has 

begun to wane in the impoundments, the Refuge staff draw 

down one of the impoundments. Sometimes water levels are 

also lowered in the second impoundment later in the summer. 

Drawdown of an impoundment during the summer benefits a number of 

species. While an impoundment is being drained, mudflats are gradually 

exposed. These mudflats interspersed with small puddles of water provide

Great Blue Heron: Photo by David 

Margaretos 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 49 -
Chapter 4: Management Direction

important feeding and resting habitat for wading birds and migratory 

shorebirds. As water is drained out of the impoundments, the temperature 

of the remaining water increases and stimulates invertebrate reproduction, 

which is a valuable food source for shorebirds and wading birds. The 

Concord impoundments are an important inland stopover site for 

migratory shorebirds that are returning from the breeding grounds. 

Without lowered water levels in at least one of the impoundments, the 

water levels would be too deep for most shorebirds. During shorebird 

migration, in a drained impoundment, species present may include Least 

Sandpipers, Semipalmated Sandpipers, Pectoral Sandpipers, Greater and 

Lesser Yellowlegs, and Short-billed Dowitchers. In addition, wading birds, 

such as Great Blue Heron, Green Heron, and Snowy Egrets utilize some of 

the larger puddles while an impoundment is being drained. 

As water flows out of the impoundment, smaller fish 

become concentrated in large disjunct puddles. This 

provides an ideal feeding situation for wading bird species. 

When the impoundment is drained, there is sufficient water 

left in the drainage ditches, and often dozens of wading 

birds line up along their edges. 

During the fall, staff members gradually fill both of the 

impoundments to capacity. As the water enters the 

impoundment it creates pockets of flooded areas which 

gradually knock the seeds off the plants onto the surface of the water 

where it is readily accessible to migrating waterfowl. The vegetation that 

germinates in the impoundment provides an excellent food source and also

provides excellent cover. Refuge staff conducts weekly counts at the 

impoundments to ensure the management strategies are effective. 

Concord Impoundments: USFWS 

photo 

While management of the Concord impoundments is largely based on 

migratory birds, there are a number of other factors that the refuge staff 

must consider when planning the drawdown schedule. In years of heavy 

rains and high water, it is physically impossible to drain the impoundments 

until the river level subsides. In years of high water, the impoundments 

may stay flooded well into July. 

Strategy 5: Participate in an alewife stocking program begun in 2000, when

funds are available. The goal of the project is to restore historical runs of 

fish in the herring family to the Concord River. The Central New England 

Fishery Resources Office in Nashua, New Hampshire applied for a threeyear permit to transfer a total of 7,500 alewife to the Concord River from 

the Nemasket River. Each year 1,000 fish are stocked into four separate 

locations on the Main stem of the river, and the remaining 1,000 fish are

stocked in the Assabet and Sudbury rivers. We will continue to help locate 

release sites, release stocked fish, and monitor local rivers for fish passage

as time and funds allow. 

- 50 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 4: Management Direction 

Strategy 6: Continue to actively maintain and restore early successional 

grasslands and shrublands on approximately 100 acres of the refuge 

through hydro-axing and mowing, for birds that depend on this habitat. We

will continue to mow approximately 30-50 acres of fields each year in midto late-August on a three to five year rotating schedule in order to maintain

grasses without disturbing ground-nesting birds. Refuge fields exist in 

Carlisle, Sudbury, and Wayland. 

Strategy 7: Continue to seek opportunities to develop cooperative 

management agreements with neighboring conservation organizations and 

individuals. We will work with our conservation partners and, where our 

mission, goals, and objectives are compatible, will work together to 

implement habitat management and biodiversity strategies. 

Objective 3: Limit the spread of non-native invasive and overabundant 

species and minimize habitat degradation. 

Strategy 1: Document presence, acreage, and location of invasive and 

overabundant species in conjunction with vegetation surveys and 

development of a cover type map. We will map the existence of non-native 

invasive and overabundant species. 

Strategy 2: Develop an Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP), which 

would provide the fullest possible range of alternative control strategies.

We will include a monitoring program as a part of the plan, which will 

consist of plot sampling, estimates of cover, and responses of wildlife and 

other plants. We will use the IPMP in concert with habitat monitoring to 

assess progress and the effectiveness of different control and eradication

techniques, and identify additional problem species. We will research 

alternative methods of controlling certain species as appropriate, based on

monitoring results. Control strategies will be species specific and may 

employ biological vectors, mechanical methods (hand pulling), fire, or 

herbicides. We will use the least intrusive, but most effective control 

practice. As previously discussed, use of herbicides would require action 

specific step down plans, and in some situations proposed control 

methodologies may also require wetland permitting review and approval. 

Strategy 3: Continue to control water chestnut, purple loosestrife, common 

reed, cattail, and other specific species. We use biological control to combat 

purple loosestrife via the release of beetles and weevils. Depending on 

staffing levels and effectiveness, we will continue to raise beetles in a 

rearing facility and release up to 10,000 Galerucella pusilla and G. 

calmariensis beetles annually in Sudbury, Concord, and Carlisle in an 

effort to cut costs. In addition, we will occasionally release weevils 

(Hylobius transversovittatus) when available. We will quantitatively 

document the effects of beetles and weevils on loosestrife on the refuge. We

will also continue to use herbicides on loosestrife. 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 51 -
Chapter 4: Management Direction

We will control water chestnut in the Concord impoundments, using the 

2002 Water Management Plan as a guide. We drain the impoundments in 

the summer months to control seed viability (survival). We maintain ditches

in the pools as needed, using an amphibious excavator, 

to ensure proper drainage of the pools. In addition, we 

occasionally use an aquatic weed harvester to remove 

whole plants from the impoundments. The weed 

harvester is also used by local and State partners in

rivers and pools where water levels can not be

managed. 

We will manage large, monotypic stands of cattails

through mowing, flooding and herbicides where 

appropriate. 

We have identified a small one-to-five acre patch of

common reed on the Concord River in Carlisle that we 

will control by chemicals, mechanical removal,

mowing, and flooding. Chemical application will probably be the most 

effective and efficient technique. Glyphosphate is the most widely used 

chemical and would be applied in late summer or early fall, directly to the 

plant, when they are in full fluorescence. Stands would probably need to be

treated for two to three consecutive years for effective control. 

Purple loosestrife: Photo by Karla Thompson

Where autumn olive, Asiatic bittersweet, yellow iris (Iris pseudacorus), and 

Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) are found on the refuge, we will 

use hand pulling where feasible. Larger plants of autumn olive and Asiatic

bittersweet will be cut and herbicide will be painted on the stumps to 

prevent re-sprouting. Because autumn olive, Asiatic bittersweet, and yellow 

iris all re-sprout and grow quickly after being cut, burning could actually

worsen the problems caused by these species. We will not use fire as a 

control mechanism. 

Other invasive species that will be managed include Japanese knotweed, 

common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) and glossy buckthorn (Frangula 

alnus). As new invasive species are identified, we will work to monitor and 

reduce and/or eliminate them from the refuge. We will establish annual 

treatment goals and will work in partnership with neighboring landowners, 

towns and agencies to monitor and control invasive species. 

We will also participate in appropriate, experimental invasive species 

control research programs, if such programs have been reviewed and

approved by Service regional or national biological staff and the 

Department of the Interior’s wildlife research arm, the Biological 

Resources Division, now located within the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 

- 52 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 4: Management Direction 

Strategy 4: Control invasive and overabundant animal species using the 

most effective means available. There are no currently identified problems 

related to overabundant or invasive animal species on the refuge. However, 

beaver have occasionally caused localized flooding of on refuge trails and 

maintenance roads on other Complex refuges. We will continue to install 

and maintain beaver control devices on refuge wetlands 

and beaver meadows. In recent years, beavers have 

caused flooding of refuge trails and maintenance roads.

Control of such situations includes manually clearing 

culverts, installing grates on culverts and water-control 

structures, and installing beaver deceivers in dams or 

on culverts. Devices range from a simple PVC pipe 

inserted into dams to reduce water levels, to fencing 

constructed in a semicircle around a culvert with drain 

pipes inserted through the fence. If more serious 

threats to habitat, refuge facilities, adjacent property 

or endangerment of health arise, we will work, in 

coordination with the DFG, to either trap and relocate 

individual animals from problem sites, permit licensed 

sports trappers or hunters to reduce population 

numbers, remove individual beavers through trapping or shooting by 

refuge staff, or permit a licensed animal damage control firm to reduce 

population numbers by trapping. If needed, we will issue a special use 

permit and complete a compatibility determination outlining specific 

requirements and conditions for beaver removal. 

Beaver activity: Photo by David Margaretos 

We will monitor mute swans on the refuge. In an effort to keep this 

aggressive, non-native species from becoming a resident on the refuge, 

territorial or nesting swans on the refuge will be lethally removed after 

obtaining appropriate permitting from our migratory bird office. 

We will monitor and treat hemlocks for infestation by wooly adelgid. One 

current known area of infestation is on Weir Hill, behind the refuge 

headquarters. It is possible that infestations will occur on other parts of 

the refuge as well in the future. 

Goal 3: Build a public that understands, appreciates, and 

supports refuge goals for wildlife. 

Objective 1: Increase the visibility of the refuge in the community and 

raise visitor’s awareness of the Refuge System in general 

and the refuge in particular. 

Strategy 1: Within 3 years, develop a Visitor Services Plan that describes 

all the planned public uses using standard regional guidelines. The plan will 

involve setting public use goals, determining measurable objectives, 

identifying strategies, and establishing criteria for all visitor services. The 

plan will also outline future funding and staffing needs. Several step-down 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 53 -
Chapter 4: Management Direction

plans will be required prior to opening or expanding public use plans 

including a fishing plan and hunting plan (Maps 4-1 through 4-4 indicate 

public uses at Great Meadows NWR). 

Strategy 2: Work with individual towns to improve directional 

signage to all public use areas on the refuge.

Strategy 3: Within 10 years, create and open several wildlife 

management demonstration sites throughout the refuge. We 

will further develop potential sites in the Visitor Services Plan. 

We will design these areas to demonstrate various wildlife 

management activities, their success and failures, and explain 

what things people can do at home to help wildlife. We will 

strive for the refuge to be seen by the public as a premier 

destination to learn about wildlife management. We will 

develop environmental education and interpretive programs, 

signs, and brochures to explain these demonstration sites to 

visitors. We will develop one demonstration area/site at the 

Concord impoundments. 

Strategy 4: Within 7 years, replace the existing observation 

tower with a universally accessible observation platform. The 

new structure will be built within the footprint of the existing 

observation area, and will provide all visitors with equal 

opportunity to view the Concord impoundments and 

understand refuge management techniques and practices. We 

will design the lower level of this structure to provide visitors 

hands-on experience into how these pools are managed. Visitors would also 

be exposed to various exotic species management options. 

Observation Tower at the Concord 

Impoundments: USFWS Photo 

Strategy 5: Develop and initiate a monitoring program to evaluate intensity 

and potential impact of each public use. We will participate in research 

projects that look at impacts of uses on wildlife areas and means of 

determining carrying capacity of an area. We may modify public use 

activities in the future, if adverse impacts on wildlife or habitat are

identified. 

- 54 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 4: Management Direction 

Map 4-1: Public Use at Concord Division 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 55 -
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Map 4-2: Public Use at Concord Impoundments 

- 56 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 4: Management Direction 

Map 4-3: Public Use at Sudbury Division

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 57 -
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Map 4-4: Public Use at Sudbury Division

- 58 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 4: Management Direction 

Strategy 6: Develop interpretive materials to be placed in the Boston Metro 

area. Materials to be developed may include a kiosk to be placed at Logan 

Airport or the new National Park Service Headquarters, an exhibit in the 

Boston Law Enforcement Office, posters for the “MBTA” and commuter 

train, or Service announcements on the radio. We will work with partners 

from within and outside of the Service to develop such materials and will 

discuss the options in full in the Visitor Services Plan. 

Strategy 7: Continue to staff the Refuge Visitor Contact Station and 

Headquarters Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. The Visitor

Contact Station is occasionally open on weekends from May to October. 

The conference room/auditorium is open to conservation and/or educational 

organizations to conduct meetings and workshops. We also conduct roving 

interpretation on the trails during the summer months, providing staff or

volunteers are available. We will continue to provide simple exhibits on the 

Service and local issues at the Visitor Contact Station. 

Strategy 8: Develop a relationship with a Friends organization or a 

cooperating association to run a small bookstore at the Visitor Contact 

Station. There is currently a small bookstore in the Visitor Contact Station

which had, in the past, been run by the SuAsCo Great Meadows Education 

Fund. This organization is now defunct, and the bookstore has not been 

restocked. Items sold through the store focus on increasing visitors 

understanding and appreciation of the natural world and the refuge. Profits 

from the store are used to support the refuge’s public use program. 

 

Strategy 9: Continue to be active participants in local community and 

conservation organizations. We will also initiate programs to provide local 

communities and landowners with educational and informational material

and strategies related to natural resource protection and restoration. 

Strategy 10: Provide opportunities for volunteers to contribute to the 

success of the refuge. As Great Meadows NWR continues to contribute to

the quality of life in east-central Massachusetts, strong support in the 

community and the region will also continue to contribute to its success. 

Helping hands are needed for program development, data gathering, and

other opportunities discussed in these alternatives. Only with this type of 

assistance can the refuge fully achieve its goals and objectives, support the 

missions of the Refuge System and the Service, and help meet the needs of 

the community. We continue to view volunteers as an essential part of our 

manpower and ability to meet its mandate. Examples of projects volunteers 

assist with include: leading school, Scout, and interpretive programs, 

performing surveys, greeting visitors, staffing special events and the 

Visitor Contact Station, posting boundaries, and maintaining trails. We 

have over 100 volunteers. Some help once a year while others help once a 

week or more often. 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 59 -
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Volunteers participate in a wide variety of activities. These include wildlife 

and wildlands photography, assisting with or conducting educational and 

interpretive programs, providing information to visitors, conducting 

observations and surveys of wildlife species, botanical surveys, fabrication 

of wood duck and bluebird boxes, litter pick-up, trail clearing and 

maintenance, sign rehabilitation, and other maintenance projects. 

The volunteer program at the Complex has been growing steadily. In 1990, 

volunteers provided more than 3,435 hours of assistance to the Complex. In

2000, volunteers provided 20,675 hours of service. The total for 2003 was 

2,532 hours specifically at Great Meadows. Much of this volunteer work was 

done by core volunteers and active Friends Group members. In 2003 and 

2004, we again received incredible support from volunteers. We are deeply 

indebted to all of our volunteers for their dedication and services rendered

for the betterment of our nation’s natural resources. 

Strategy 11: Construct a Visitor Center for the Complex which is 

administered by staff from the Great Meadows NWR. See Chapter 5 for

additional information about the proposed center. 

Objective 2: Provide opportunities for wildlife observation and 

photography where such opportunities can be safely 

provided while achieving refuge purposes. 

Strategy 1: Provide and maintain public use trails. Refuge visitors can 

access trails on both the Concord and Sudbury Divisions. Trails listed 

below currently exist on the refuge. 

Sudbury Division trails 

Weir Hill Trail (Sudbury) - 1.1 miles 

Griscom Trail at Heard Pond (Wayland) - 0.25 mile 

Concord Division trails 

Dike Trail (1.7 miles), Timber Trail (0.4 mile), Edge Trail (0.6 mile) and 

Black Duck Creek Trail (0.15 mile), located at the Concord impoundments 

(Concord) - 2.7 miles 

River Trail and Red Tail Trail located on O’Rourke Farm (Carlisle) - 3

miles 

Route 4 Bridge (Billerica) - new trail partially developed 

In addition, we will work with the Town of Bedford to develop a trail from 

the boat launch on Rt 225 up through Billerica, including access to Two 

Brothers Rocks. 

A process will be developed as part of our Visitor Services Plan to evaluate

opportunities for new trails, including partnerships with towns,

conservation organizations, and private landowners. 

- 60 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 4: Management Direction 

Strategy 2: Continue to provide opportunities for canoeing and kayaking on 

the Concord and Sudbury rivers to enhance opportunities for wildlife 

observation, photography, fishing, and hunting. We will continue to 

maintain 2 formal canoe landings on the refuge, one at Weir Hill and one at 

the Concord impoundments. The State and towns

maintain several other launches and landings as

well (see Maps 4-1 through 4-4). We will establish 

a canoe landing, with appropriate signage, at the 

historic Two Brothers Rocks. We will identify 

additional opportunities in our Visitor Services 

Plan to establish or formalize existing river access 

points along the Sudbury and Concord Rivers. 

Strategy 3: Sponsor an annual photo contest.

From 1998 - 2002, we hosted a very popular

photography contest. Entries fell into three 

categories: wildlife, recreation, and landscape. We

will reinitiate the photography contest beginning 

in 2005. Photos must be taken on one of the 

refuges in Massachusetts. Local sponsors supply 

prizes for winning entries. An unveiling of winning 

photos and slides takes place during National 

Wildlife Refuge Week each October. Winning entries are displayed in the 

Complex Visitor Contact Station for several months. We use entries for 

refuge purposes in educational and promotional programming. 

Paddling on the Sudbury River: Photo by Karla 

Thompson 

 

Strategy 4: Within 3 years, reestablish a parking area at Heard Pond (Map 

4-3). The parking area will hold up to six cars, and will make access to the 

area safer for visitors. A kiosk will be constructed at the parking area, 

signage will be improved, and the parking area will be regularly monitored 

by refuge staff. 

Strategy 5: Within 7 years, build at least three wildlife observation and 

photo blinds on the refuge. We will establish one blind at the Concord 

impoundments, and one at the Sudbury Division. We will construct these 

blinds to be universally accessible, which will provide access and viewing 

opportunities to all visitors. (Map 4-2 and 4-4). 

Objective 3: Provide and enhance opportunities for environmental

education, interpretation, and outreach where appropriate 

and compatible with refuge purposes. 

Strategy 1: Continue to provide assistance to all scheduled school groups 

who use the refuge. Currently, we provide a welcome talk and introduction

to the Refuge System to over 100 classes annually. We lead programs for 

some groups focusing on habitat types, pond study, and refuge 

management. When requested we will continue to assist teachers at their 

schools, as time and funds allow. The Concord Division will continue to be 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 61 -
Chapter 4: Management Direction

the heaviest used Outdoor Classroom site on the refuge by schools. The 

Weir Hill Outdoor Classroom is used to a lesser degree by schools. 

Strategy 2: Continue to sponsor several teacher workshops annually. Oneday workshops include Project Wild activities and activities teachers can 

use at the refuge during a visit. The workshops also discuss planning a field 

trip to the refuge. 

Strategy 3: Continue to sponsor the Urban Education Program. We started 

the program in 1999 with a focus on working with inner city, multi-cultural

students in the Worcester and Boston area. Students in the program visit 

one of the Complex refuges three times and staff members from the refuge 

visit their classroom three times in each of the 4th, 8th and 12th grades.

This long-term relationship with the Service fosters an understanding and 

appreciation for the refuge and creates an avenue for career opportunities 

with the Service. Within the next 10 years, we will expand the program to

include no more than six schools in Boston and six schools 

in Worcester. We will look at expanding the program to

the Lowell and Lawrence area as well. We will publish 

papers and curriculum from this program, which is viewed

as a pilot program for urban refuges across the country. 

Our goal is to encourage students from the program to 

enter college to study natural resources and/or wildlife 

management, and then to participate in the Service 

Student Career Education Program, a program that 

offers college students the opportunity to gain 

professional experience with the Service during school 

with possible job placement after graduation. Environmental Education: Staff photo 

Strategy 4: Continue to offer on- and off-site interpretive programs to 

visitors at all public use areas. As time and funds allow, we will provide offsite interpretive programs when requested. Programs focus on refuge 

management, mission of the Service and species that can be found on the 

refuges. All programs are free and open to the public. Programs to scouts

are offered as requested. Eagle Scouts help to maintain trails and build 

boardwalks. 

 

Strategy 5: Maintain existing informational and educational kiosks and 

provide additional facilities as needed. Existing kiosks are located at the 

Concord impoundments, Weir Hill, and Heard Pond. We will install four

additional kiosks at areas with high public use; specific locations will be 

determined in the Visitor Services Plan. 

Strategy 6: Provide interpretive signs and self-guided trails with fact 

sheets at the Concord impoundments and Weir Hill trails. We will maintain 

interpretive signs about refuge management and species’ natural history 

along the Weir Hill and Concord Dike trails. We will continue to produce 

general Complex brochures, refuge-specific brochures, and a bird guide for 

- 62 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 4: Management Direction 

the refuge. We also provide two self-guided trail brochures: one is found at 

the Sudbury Division - Weir Hill, the other at the Concord Division- Dike 

Trail. Visitors can obtain these brochures at the Visitor Contact Station or

at trail-heads. We will also work with conservation partners to develop a

brochure for a self guided canoe trail on the Concord and Sudbury Rivers. 

Strategy 7: Continue to host between two and four special event days 

annually. Each event is a minimum of four hours and revolves around a 

single theme. Special celebrations may include Bluebird Day, National 

Hunting and Fishing Day, and Wildlife Art Festival. 

Strategy 8: Continue to permit guided tours by outside groups through 

annually renewed Special Use Permits. Each group is required to give 

basic refuge information to the participating public. We receive information 

on each program offered on the refuge including type of program, number

of participants, and number of programs offered. 

Strategy 9: Improve communication with the public through the 

development of an electronic newsletter to local citizens, an improved 

website, and improved media relations. This newsletter will replace the 

previous Meadows Messenger which began in the early 1980’s. Articles in 

the newsletter and website will inform the public of ongoing management 

and upcoming activities. We will develop news releases to more then 20

local papers and radio stations about upcoming events and ongoing 

management activities. 

Strategy 10: Provide assistance to all scheduled school groups to the 

refuge. Within 7 years, we will develop a refuge curriculum for grades K-12

that incorporates Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks and refuge

messages. All groups who use the refuge will participate in one 

of the programs developed. The exhibits, wildlife demonstration 

sites, and refuge management objectives are tied into the 

curriculum. We will show teachers how to use and teach the 

curriculum through an accredited teacher workshop. We will 

assist teachers at their schools, as requested. We will also work 

with other conservation organizations and education programs

to coordinate efforts and messages provided in environmental 

education programs in the area. We will develop a 

welcome/orientation video for schools and visitors to better 

understand the mission and opportunities the refuge has to offer 

visitors. 

Environmental education 

opportunities: USFWS Photo

Strategy 11: Enhance and expand the Outdoor Classroom sites. We will 

spread the school groups more evenly between the Concord Division and 

Weir Hill Outdoor Classroom sites. We will develop a third Outdoor 

Classroom site either at the O’Rourke Farm in Carlisle, Heard Pond in 

Wayland, the Strand property in Sudbury, or at a new Complex Visitor

Center site. We will work with other conservation organizations and 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 63 -
Chapter 4: Management Direction

education programs to coordinate efforts and messages provided in 

environmental education programs in the area. 

Objective 4: Provide opportunities for hunting and fishing where 

appropriate and compatible with refuge purposes. 

Parts of the Great Meadows NWR will be open for archery deer hunting 

and waterfowl hunting. Specific areas are identified below and are depicted 

on Maps 4-1, 4-3 and 4-4. The refuge is currently open for fishing. 

Before hunting is allowed on the refuge, the Code of Federal Regulations

must be amended to authorize the hunting of migratory game birds and big 

game (white tailed deer) hunting on Great Meadows NWR. There will be a 

public comment period announced in the Federal Register. We anticipate 

an early 2005 Federal Register notice. Refuge staff will prepare a Hunt

Plan before hunting is allowed on the refuge. No additional NEPA 

compliance is necessary. 

Providing hunting and fishing opportunities addresses the mandates of 

Executive Order 12996 and the Refuge Improvement Act by providing the 

public with an opportunity to engage in wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Hunting and fishing are recognized by the Service as traditional forms of 

wildlife related outdoor recreation. We anticipate a low to moderate degree

of hunting pressure to occur as a result of opening the refuge for this 

activities. The plan to permit hunting on the refuge will not affect wildlife 

populations in Massachusetts, as the refuge represents only a very small 

portion of the overall habitat available in the State. 

The refuge weighs a number of factors in opening an area to hunting, 

including visitor safety considerations. The Refuge Manager may, upon 

annual review of the hunting program, impose further restrictions on 

hunting activity, recommend that the refuge be closed to hunting, or 

further liberalize hunting regulations within the limits of State law. 

Restrictions would occur if hunting becomes inconsistent with other higher 

priority refuge programs or endangers refuge resources or public safety. 

Annual permits will be required for hunting on the refuge. The permits will 

facilitate managing numbers of hunters and harvest. Fees charged for 

these permits will offset but not completely cover costs associated with 

managing hunting programs. For additional information on the fee 

program, see the section on fees beginning on page 66. 

Enforcement of federal and state hunting and fishing regulations will be

accomplished through patrols by refuge law enforcement officers. 

Enforcement patrols may also be conducted by State Environmental Police 

Officers. The frequency of patrols will be determined by hunter use, the 

level of compliance observed during patrols, and information obtained from

participants, visitors and other sources. Refuge brochures and hunter 

- 64 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 4: Management Direction 

orientation prior to the hunting seasons will emphasize refuge specific 

regulations, safety considerations and the protection of wildlife species 

found on the refuge. 

In addition to State hunting regulations, the refuge may impose additional 

regulations. Examples of refuge regulations that would apply to hunting on

the refuge include: 

 hunters will be required to obtain permits from the refuge to hunt 

on the refuge; 

 hunters may enter the refuge two hours before legal sunrise and 

must leave within 1.5 hours after legal sunset, and hunting can 

occur no earlier than one-half hour before sunrise and one-half hour 

after sunset; 

 no night hunting will be allowed on the refuge; 

 pre-hunt scouting of the refuge is allowed by permit, during specific 

time periods;

 carrying guns is not permissible during pre-hunt scouts; 

 permanent blinds are not permitted on the refuge;

 all hunting materials, tree stands, and flagging must be removed at 

the end of each hunting day; 

 no one shall insert a nail, screw, spike, wire, or other ceramic, metal, 

or other tree-damaging object into a tree, or may hunt from a tree 

into which such an object has been inserted; 

 the unauthorized distribution of bait and the hunting over bait is 

prohibited on wildlife refuge areas; 

 all firearms must be unloaded outside of legal State hunting hours; 

 the use of all terrain vehicles (ATV’s) and snowmobiles on refuge 

land is prohibited; 

 training of dogs on the refuge is not permitted; 

 open fires are not permitted; 

 the use or possession of alcoholic beverages while hunting is 

prohibited 

Check stations will not be established on the refuge at this time but 

reporting requirements will be instituted. Refuge staff will provide 

information about reporting forms when permits are issued. 

The refuge will work with partners to provide increased hunter education

through training, brochures, and news releases. 

As a part of the hunt plan we will 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 open for a shorter duration, limited hours, or limited days of the 

week. In Massachusetts there is no hunting on Sundays. To illustrate the 

maximum potential hunting period, Table 4-1 displays the 2004

Massachusetts hunting seasons for each of the types of hunting proposed

for Great Meadows NWR. 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 65 -
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Table 4-1: 2004 Massachusetts Hunting Seasons 

Season 

Start Date

1 

End Date 

1 

Start Date

2 

End Date 

2 

Start Date

3 

End Date 

3 

Deer 10/11/2004 11/20/2004 11/29/2004 12/11/2004 12/13/2004 12/31/2004

Ducks and Regular 

Canada Goose 10/13/2004 11/27/2004 12/17/2004 1/8/2005 

Early Canada 

Goose 9/7/2004 9/25/2004

Late Canada Goose 1/15/2004 2/15/2004

Strategy 1: Within 2 years, open approximately 2,280 acres of the refuge to

archery deer hunting during the State archery, muzzleloader and shotgun 

seasons (the refuge will not be opened to firearm deer hunting, but archery 

hunters are allowed to hunt with bows during these seasons). Areas to be 

opened include portions of refuge lands north of the Route 225 Bridge in 

Bedford, most of the O’Rourke tract in Carlisle, and portions of lands south 

of Sherman Bridge (Maps 4-1 and 4-3). We will provide hunting 

opportunities on the refuge in accordance with Massachusetts State

regulations and requirements. Among other restrictions, these regulations 

prohibit the discharge of any firearm or arrow upon or across any State or

hard-surfaced highway or within 150 feet of any such highway, and hunting 

within 500 feet of any dwelling or building in use, except as authorized by

the owner of occupant thereof. A permit and fee will be required. 

Any necessary, refuge-specific regulations or restrictions would be 

disseminated through refuge hunting brochures, news releases, refuge

website, and on-site informational signing. 

Strategy 2: Within 2 years, open approximately 334 acres of the refuge to

waterfowl hunting in accordance with Federal and State regulations and 

restrictions. The following areas would be open to waterfowl (ducks and 

geese) hunting: Refuge ownership on the Sudbury River and 

adjacent wetlands from Sherman’s Bridge Road south to Route 20 

and an area adjacent to the south side of Heard Pond including the 

Sudbury River and approximately 74 acres of refuge land, and the 

Concord River and associated wetlands from Route 225 Bridge to 

the northern end of the O’Rourke property (see Maps 4-1 and 4-3). 

With respect to waterfowl, these species are already regulated at 

the State and Federal level. Duck and goose populations are 

managed at the national flyway level. The Service annually

announces a regulatory framework within which States can set their 

hunting seasons, including bag limits and hunting dates. 

The refuge will not be open for the hunting of the American woodcock, a 

migratory game bird. 

Concord River: Photo by Sherry 

Fendel 

- 66 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 4: Management Direction 

Strategy 3: Continue to allow fishing on the Concord and Sudbury rivers.

We provide boat and canoe fishing opportunities, in compliance with State

regulations and restrictions, on the 12 miles of the Sudbury and Concord 

Rivers that flow through the refuge. Fishing within refuge ponds, pools and 

wetlands is prohibited to prevent disturbance to wildlife and habitat. 

Fishing from the banks of the Concord and Sudbury Rivers within the 

refuge is closed to prevent disturbance to migratory birds, destruction of 

habitat, including the marshes along the shoreline, bank erosion, 

litter, and due to limited accessibility. 

Strategy 4: Provide fishing access via a wheelchair-accessible 

fishing pier on Heard Pond. Heard Pond is a state-managed 

“Great Pond” which is open for fishing at designated areas along 

the banks. The refuge will seek funding to install a seasonal 

fishing pier accessible from refuge lands off of Pelham Island 

Road. The pier will be removed each fall and installed each 

spring to encourage safe and accessible fishing. 

Objective 5: Provide opportunities for non-wildlife dependent 

activities when they assist visitors in participating in wildlife 

dependent activities and when such use does not detract from the 

refuge purpose. 

Strategy 1: Continue to allow, but not encourage jogging. Staff 

and volunteers have observed disturbance to wildlife caused by

joggers. We plan to analyze the potential impacts of jogging

within the next three years on Service trust resources and priority public 

uses and will consider modifying or eliminating the use in the future, based 

on this additional analysis. 

Strategy 2: Within a year, eliminate dog walking from the refuge. This use 

has been found to disturb wildlife and other visitors and is not considered 

one of the six priority uses on national wildlife refuges. 

Strategy 3: Remain closed to other non-wildlife dependent activities such as 

bikes on trails, horseback riding, dog sledding, snowmobiling and 

swimming. No picnicking facilities will be provided and permits will not be

issued for events, such as family reunions, where meals are a major 

component. Visitors will be allowed to snack and drink a beverage while on

refuge trails. Bicycles are allowed in parking lots and on entrance roads.

Bikes are not permitted on refuge trails. 

Monarch butterfly: Photo by

Veronique Schejtman 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 67 -
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Goal 4: Adequately protect cultural resources that occur in the 

complex. 

Strategy 1: Continue evaluations or surveys of cultural resources

(archeological and historical) on a refuge project-specific basis. Soil 

disturbance requires resource evaluation and clearance. Federal cultural 

resource protection laws and regulations would be enforced. 

Strategy 2: Within 10 years, initiate and complete cultural and historical 

resource surveys and inventories on a refuge-wide basis. The archeological 

survey portion of this work will be designed to develop predictive models

that could be applied refuge-wide in evaluating the potential of future 

projects to impact cultural resources. 

Strategy 3: Comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act before conducting any ground disturbing activities. Compliance may 

require any or all of the following: State Historic Preservation Records 

survey, literature survey, or field survey. The Service has a legal 

responsibility to consider the effects its actions have on archeological and 

historic resources. 

Goal 5: Maintain a well-trained, diverse staff working productively

toward a shared refuge vision. 

We will continue to utilize Service policy, training opportunities, and other 

appropriate means to meet the staffing goals. 

General Refuge Management

The following management direction applies to various refuge goals and 

across program areas. Some of this direction is required by Service policy 

or legal mandates. Management direction is organized by topic area. 

Refuge Access and Fees 

The Complex will charge an entrance fee at the Oxbow and Assabet River 

NWRs, and at the Concord impoundments of Great Meadows NWR, and a 

user fee for hunting on the Complex. Our fee program will be established 

under the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program (Fee Demo Program), 

a program which Congress initiated in 1997 to encourage Department of 

Interior agencies that provide recreational opportunities to recover costs 

for their public use facilities, improve visitor facilities, promote activities for

visitors and address the maintenance backlog of visitor service projects 

(USFWS 1997a). Congress re-authorized the Fee Demo Program in 2004 

for 10 years. The Fee Demo Program requires at least 70% of revenue 

remain at the collection site. Currently, 80% of the funds raised from user 

fees on a particular refuge in this region stay at the refuge. The other 20%

is sent to the region to be distributed to other refuges. No more than 15% 

- 68 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 4: Management Direction 

of the fees collected can be used for fee collecting or fee collection systems. 

The Complex has received money from these regional funds in previous 

years for public use facilities. If the program does become permanent, the 

percent of revenue remaining on site could change, however it will never be

less than 70% and could be as much as 100%. Visitors with a current duck 

stamp, Golden Eagle Pass, Golden Age Pass or Golden Access Pass do not 

have to pay entrance fees. 

The following entrance fee program would be initiated at the fee areas of 

the Complex. 

 A one day entrance fee will be charged per car or per group if 

arriving via foot or bicycle. Our proposed fee would be $4 per day. 

 An annual pass for three refuges in the Complex (Assabet River, 

Great Meadows and Oxbow) would be available for $12. 

 Daily entrance fees will be collected by refuge staff stationed on site 

or at self-service fee collection stations. 

 Self-service fee collection stations will likely consist of a secure box 

with envelopes to register and pay the daily or annual fee. 

 We will attempt to make purchase of the annual pass available by 

fax and on-line. The pass will also be available at the Refuge 

Headquarters. 

The following Hunting Permit Fee Program will be implemented in 

conjunction with the hunting program described earlier in this chapter. 

We will charge an annual fee of $20 for a hunting permit. This permit will 

be valid for all unrestricted hunting seasons open on the Northern refuges 

(Assabet River, Great Meadows, and Oxbow NWRs). Hunters with a valid 

hunt permit will not have to pay an entrance fee while scouting or 

hunting. 

There may be a need to limit hunting during certain seasons to 

ensure a safe, high-quality hunt. Details of these restrictions and any 

application requirements will be outlined in the Hunting 

Management Plan. Based upon these restrictions, purchase of a 

permit does not guarantee the ability to hunt all seasons on all 

refuges. No additional fee would be required for hunting applications 

for restricted seasons. 

At the time of purchase of the annual hunting permit, the individual may 

choose to purchase an annual entrance pass for an additional $5. The 

combined permit/pass must be purchased jointly. Individuals that do not 

purchase the combination permit/pass would be subject to entrance fees on 

the refuge during times when they are not hunting or scouting. 

We realize that the new fee program will require an adjustment period. 

Our plan for instituting the fee includes: an educational period, a warning 

period, and finally a transition to full enforcement. 

Eastern Bluebird: Photo by Bruce

Flaig 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 69 -
Chapter 4: Management Direction

We may adjust fees over the 15 year period addressed in this plan to reflect 

changes in administrative costs or management goals. 

Accessibility 

Each refuge will operate its programs or activities so that when viewed in 

its entirety, it is accessible and usable by disabled persons. The

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, requires that programs and 

facilities be, to the highest degree feasible, readily accessible to, and usable 

by, all persons who have a disability. 

Non-Wildlife Dependent Public Uses 

We will eliminate dog walking opportunities from the refuge within a year

of the publication of this plan. We have found dog walking to disturb 

wildlife and other visitors and it is not considered one of the six priority

uses on national wildlife refuges. We will continue to allow jogging, but it

will not be encouraged. We plan to analyze the potential impacts of jogging 

within the next three years on Service trust resources and priority public 

uses and will consider modifying or eliminating the use in the future, based 

on this additional information. The refuge will remain closed to other nonwildlife dependent activities such as bicycling, horseback riding, dog 

sledding, snowmobiling and swimming. No picnicking facilities will be 

available. Bicycles are only allowed in parking lots and on public entrance 

roads. 

Fire Management 

U. S. Department of the Interior and Service policy state that Refuge 

System lands with vegetation capable of sustaining fire will develop a Fire 

Management Plan (FMP) (620 DM 1.4B; 621 FW 1.1.1). The FMP, which 

includes Great Meadows NWR, provides direction and continuity in 

establishing operational procedures to guide all fire management 

objectives as identified in the plan. This plan was finalized in March 

of 2003. The FMP includes descriptions of the refuges and addresses

wildland and prescribed fire events. The FMP also defines levels of 

protection needed to ensure safety, protect facilities and resources, 

and restore and perpetuate natural processes, given current 

understanding of the complex relationships in natural ecosystems. It 

is written to comply with a service-wide requirement that refuges 

with burnable vegetation develop a FMP (620 DM 1). 

The associated EA was prepared in compliance with NEPA and the Council 

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 CFR Parts1500 -1508). 

It provides a description of the purpose and need for the project, a brief 

background, the features of each alternative, the affected environment, and 

resulting effects and consequences of each alternative. The selected 

Great Meadows NWR: Staff photo 

- 70 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 4: Management Direction 

alternative, “prescribed fire and wildland fire suppression” is discussed in 

detail in the EA. Alternatives which were considered, but not selected, 

include differing combinations of: allowing naturally ignited fires to burn in 

some instances; use of prescribed burning to achieve wildlife resource and 

habitat objectives; and, wildland fire suppression. A “no-action” alternative 

of allowing all fires to burn at all times was initially considered, but 

dismissed as not suitable for further consideration in the development of 

this proposal. The no-action alternative was rejected because it fails to

meet Service policy in regards to potential liability for losses of life and 

property, as well as its unacceptable environmental, social, and economic 

costs. 

The mission of the Complex is to protect and provide quality habitat for fish 

and wildlife resources and for the development, advancement, 

management, and conservation thereof. By defining an appropriate level of 

wildland fire protection, and integrating a prescribed fire program based 

on biological needs, the FMP and EA are fully supportive and sensitive to

the purpose of the Complex, and of benefit to the Service, in performing its 

activities and services. 

If you would like a copy of the FMP, or the EA, please contact the Refuge 

Headquarters in Sudbury. 

Land Protection 

The Service is currently working on a new national land conservation policy

and strategic growth initiative. This policy will develop a vision and process 

for growth of the Refuge System, helping individual refuges better evaluate 

lands suitable for inclusion in the Refuge System. The process will help 

ensure that lands the Service protects are of national and regional 

importance and meet certain nationwide standards and goals. Also, some of 

the focus of reevaluating Refuge System growth has come from the need to 

address nationwide operations and maintenance (O&M) backlogs on 

existing properties. Many refuges, including Great Meadows NWR, are not 

fully staffed under current budgets and have significant O&M backlogs. 

Expanding boundaries creates a need for additional staff, O&M funds, as 

well as additional dollars for the land protection itself. Our Director has 

asked that we focus, in the interim, on acquiring inholdings within already 

approved boundaries, which is our proposal under all alternatives for these

three refuges. Additionally, we may make slight modifications to our 

boundary to acquire additional lands of high resource value adjacent to the 

refuge, if we have a willing seller. 

In the future, we may look at wetland, upland and river systems near Great

Meadows NWR which are of interest for possible private-lands habitat 

improvement projects, easements, and/or acquisition. In particular, we 

believe protection of lands associated with the Sudbury, Assabet and 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 71 -
Chapter 4: Management Direction

Concord River watershed is important for the health of fish and wildlife on 

the refuge. 

The Service’s land acquisition policy is to obtain the minimum interest 

necessary to satisfy refuge objectives. Conservation easements can 

sometimes be used in this context, when they can be shown to be 

a cost-effective method of protection. In general, conservation 

easements must preclude destruction or degradation of habitat, 

and allow refuge staff to adequately manage uses of the area for 

the benefit of wildlife. Because development rights must be

included, the cost of purchasing conservation easements often 

approaches that of fee title purchase, thus rendering this method

less practical. 

We will continue to protect and acquire lands within the present 

acquisition boundary at Great Meadows NWR. Donations of easements or

voluntary deed restrictions prohibiting habitat destruction would be 

encouraged. In addition, the Service could negotiate management 

agreements with local and State agencies, and accept conservation 

easements on upland tracts. 

Funding for land acquisition comes from the Land and Water Conservation

Fund and the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund under the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act. 

Resource Protection and Visitor Safety 

Protection of visitors and both natural and cultural resources will be 

improved. We propose to increase refuge staff by one additional, full-time

Park Ranger, and provide the necessary, intensive federal law enforcement 

training required for dual function law enforcement responsibilities to two 

additional staff (e.g., an assistant manager, refuge operations specialist, or

an outdoor recreation planner). 

Refuge staff will complete a fire suppression contract or agreement with 

state or local fire suppression agencies for wildfires occurring on the refuge 

(see section Fire Management at the beginning of this chapter). 

Special Use Permits and Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement 

Guided tours, by outside groups, are permitted on the refuges if the activity 

is determined to be appropriate and compatible with the refuge(s) purpose. 

Permitting will be divided into four categories by the type of use and the 

regularity of the activity requested. Where appropriate, one Permit or 

Agreement will be developed for all three northern refuges in the Complex 

including Oxbow, Assabet River and Great Meadows NWRs. 

Special Use Permits may be issued to user groups or individuals for annual

Vernal Pool: Photo by Rob Vincent 

- 72 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 4: Management Direction 

or single events. These organizations or individuals are those who want to 

use the refuges for a special purpose (e.g. commercial photographer, 

special event or research study), or to gain access to an area otherwise 

closed to the public (e.g. one time entrance to closed areas to 

film/photograph special event or hold special wildlife celebration day on 

refuge). Groups will be given specific requirements and educational 

guidelines on materials to present to the public. The specific charge and 

specific requirements will be determined on a case by case basis. 

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) may be issued to user groups/individuals who want to use the 

refuges for a special purpose or gain access to an area otherwise closed to 

the public, on a regular basis or annually. Groups will be given specific 

requirements and educational guidelines on materials to present to the 

public. The specific charge and specific requirements will be determined on

a case-by-case basis. 

A concession may be developed if a business operated by private enterprise 

is providing a public service (recreational, educational and interpretive 

enjoyment of our lands and waters for the visiting public), and generally 

requires some sort of capital investment. Concessionaires will generally 

gross a minimum of $1,000 and the concession will be charged either a fixed 

franchise fee or a percent of gross income. Groups will also be given specific 

requirements and educational guidelines on materials to present to the 

public. 

Research 

The Service encourages and supports research and management studies on

refuge lands that improve and strengthen natural resource management 

decisions. The Refuge Manager encourages and seeks research relative to 

approved refuge objectives that clearly improves land management, 

promotes adaptive management, addresses important management issues 

or demonstrates techniques for management of species and/or habitats. 

Priority research addresses information that will better manage the 

Nation’s biological resources and is generally considered important to: 

Agencies of the Department of Interior; the Service; the Refuge System; 

and State Fish and Game Agencies, or important management issues for 

the refuge. 

We will consider research for other purposes, which may not directly relate

to refuge specific objectives, but may contribute to the broader 

enhancement, protection, use, preservation and management of native 

populations of fish, wildlife and plants, and their natural diversity within 

the region or flyway. These proposals must still pass the Service’s 

compatibility policy. 

We will maintain a list of research needs that will be provided to 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 73 -
Chapter 4: Management Direction

prospective researchers or organizations upon request. Our support of 

research directly relates to refuge objectives and may take the form of: 

funding, in-kind services such as housing or use of other facilities, direct 

staff assistance with the project in the form of data collection, provision of 

historical records, conducting of management treatments, or other 

assistance as appropriate. 

All researchers on refuges, current and future, will be required to submit 

research proposals which include a detailed research proposal following 

Service Policy FWS Refuge Manual Chapter 4 Section 6. All proposals

must be submitted at least three months prior to the 

requested initiation date of the project. Special Use 

Permits must also identify a schedule for annual 

progress reports. The Regional Refuge biologists, 

other Service Divisions and State agencies may be

asked to review and comment on proposals. 

Wild and Scenic River Designation 

Great Meadows NWR protects 12 miles of the 

Concord and Sudbury Rivers, which are designated 

under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. We will 

continue to work with our partners to implement, 

review and update the River Conservation Plan, which 

was adopted in 1999, as required by the establishing 

act. We have also identified funding needs in our Refuge Operations Needs 

System (RONS) (See Appendix E) for both biological and interpretive 

programs to enhance our management and conservation of these two rivers

where they flow through/by the refuge. None of the management actions 

violate the guidelines for Wild and Scenic river designations. For additional 

information on this designation log onto http://www.nps.gov/rivers/wsrsuasco.html. 

Concord River: Photo by Catherine Ross 

- 74 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 5: Refuge Administration 

Chapter 5: Refuge Administration 

The Great Meadows NWR runs along the Concord and Sudbury Rivers 

from Framingham to Billerica. The refuge is managed as two separate 

Divisions. The Concord Division encompasses lands in the towns of 

Billerica, Bedford, Carlisle, and Concord. The Sudbury Division 

encompasses lands in Concord, Lincoln, Sudbury, and Wayland. 

The refuge will remain a single administrative unit with two divisions. The 

building which currently serves as the headquarters and visitor contact 

station will be converted to a purely administrative building upon 

completion of a visitor center at a separate, to-be-determined, location. 

Refuge Staffing 

The eight Eastern Massachusetts NWRs are managed as a Complex, with

centrally stationed staff taking on duties at multiple refuges. 

The refuge is one of eight refuges managed under the Complex. This 

refuge is one of two staffed offices within the Complex and houses the 

Refuge Complex Headquarters and administrative personnel at the 

Sudbury office (see Appendix G for complete staffing chart). Within 3 

years, we will attempt to gain approval to fill the following vacancies at 

Great Meadows NWR. 

Refuge Manager ..............................................................sets goals and 

objectives for the 

refuge and establishes 

and maintains 

partnerships, 

Interpretive Park Ranger........................................provides programs for 

the public, helps 

maintain visitor 

facitilities, and 

conducts 

environmental 

education 

Field Training Law Enforcement 

Officer...................................................................leads the Complex’s

law enforcement 

program 

Maintenance Workers (1) ...............................................maintain refuge 

facilities and 

equipment 

Administrative Staff (1) ..................................................manage office and 

secretarial demands 

on the refuge

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 75 -
Chapter 5: Refuge Administration

Staff assigned to Great Meadows NWR also work on the other seven 

refuges in the Complex. 

We also will continue to recruit 2-4 interns each year to 

assist with the education interpretation and biology 

programs. The interns will work between 8-12 weeks, 

working up to 40 hours each week. Internships could be 

completed for school credit. Free housing will be offered in 

the dorm to interns. 

Additional staff is needed at Great Meadows NWR to 

properly manage refuge lands as well as work with partners. 

By 2015, 14 full-time permanent employees will work at 

Great Meadows NWR. The refuge staff will include filling all 

positions described. 

Table 5-1: Proposed staffing increases 

Bench at Concord Impoundments: Photo by

Joan Ross

Position Description

Biologist 

Collects data and work with 

researchers and develops habitat and 

wildlife management plans 

Biological technician Collects data and assists biologists 

Education Specialist Oversight of new Visitor Center 

Volunteer Coordinator/ 

Outreach Specialist 

Works with local and national partners 

to assist refuge meets its goals and 

objectives 

Maintenance Worker Restores habitat as well as maintain 

new and old facilities and equipment 

Park Rangers (3) 

Protects refuge resources and visitors 

(law enforcement person) and staff 

new facilities 

The CCP examines the need for staff specific to the three refuges that were 

organized under the Draft CCP/EA dated April 2003. A total of 39 full time 

personnel and a seasonal Biotech are needed to fully implement all three 

Refuge CCPs. Permanent staff serving all three refuges may be stationed 

at the Refuge Headquarters in Sudbury, MA. Appendix G identifies 

currently filled positions, recommended new positions, and the overall 

supervisory structure. The new positions identified will increase visitor 

services, biological expertise, and visibility of the Service on refuge lands. 

- 76 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 5: Refuge Administration 

Refuge Funding 

Successful implementation of the CCPs for each refuge relies on our ability 

to secure funding, personnel, infrastructure, and other resources to 

accomplish the actions identified. Full implementation of the actions and 

strategies in this CCP would incur one-time costs of $2.7 million. These 

costs include staffing, major construction projects, and individual resource 

program expansions. Most of these projects have been identified as Tier 1 

or Tier 2 Projects in the Refuge System’s Refuge Operations Needs

System database (RONS). Appendix F lists RONS projects and their 

recurring costs, such as salaries, following the first year. Also presented in 

Appendix F is a list of projects in the Service’s current Maintenance 

Management System (MMS) database for the Complex. Currently, the

MMS database lists $6.07 million in maintenance needs for the refuge. 

Refuge Buildings and Facilities 

The existing Refuge Headquarters, Visitor Contact Station and 

maintenance buildings are located at the Sudbury Division, at the end of 

Weir Hill Road, and will be maintained. The comfort station (restroom 

facilities) at the Concord Division will be open year round and the small 

shop located in Concord will be maintained as a storage area for heavy 

equipment. Visitor facilities at the Sudbury Division will be remodeled to 

provide higher-quality visitor experiences, as funds allow. Two storage 

barns/buildings are located on Water Row in Sudbury. We will maintain 

two residences and one dorm facility in Sudbury and one residence in 

Carlisle. 

As part of the Centennial Celebration for the Refuge System, the Service 

identified ten refuges in the country for new visitor centers. The Complex 

ranked number three on the Service’s list. Refuges were ranked on a 

number of factors including their need for a facility and potential to provide 

opportunities for a large audience. The site for the new facility is not 

identified in this document. However, below are the criteria we will use to 

identify potential sites. Sites chosen will be evaluated in a later 

Environmental Assessment. The new center might be located at Great 

Meadows, Oxbow, or Assabet River NWRs or off-site in the vicinity of one 

of these refuges. The new facility will house exhibits focusing on a variety 

of environmental themes as well as refuge management activities. We will 

implement recommendations for interior facility design from the Complex 

Project Identification Document, after it is finalized. We will evaluate each 

potential site with the following criteria: 

 Access from a major travel route (Route 2, 128, etc.) 

 Access from public transportation 

 Accessibility of utilities 

 Presence of trust species, habitats or other important resources 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 77 -
Chapter 5: Refuge Administration

 Opportunity for outdoor features associated with center, including 

interpretive trails 

 Topography 

 Potential disturbance to habitats 

 Presence of hazardous wastes 

 Potential impacts to neighbors 

 Buffer from current or predicted commercial activity 

After the new Visitor Center is built, the current headquarters on Weir Hill 

Road will be used for administrative purposes only by refuge staff. 

In addition to the new visitor center, a visitor contact station will be built at 

the Concord Division by 2015. The contact station will be a small building

for a refuge staff person or volunteer to greet the public and conduct 

interpretive programs. It may contain a few professionally 

designed exhibits explaining ongoing management activities 

at the refuge. 

Two new equipment storage areas will be built by 2017. These 

areas will house large equipment and provide refuge 

maintenance staff a safe and up to code area to repair and 

maintain refuge vehicles and equipment. Placement and size 

of these facilities is still to be determined. 

Step-Down Management Plans 

The Refuge Manual (Part 4, Chapter 3) lists a number of stepdown management plans generally required on most refuges. 

These plans describe specific management actions refuges 

will follow to achieve objectives or implement management 

strategies. Some require annual revisions, such as hunt plans, 

while others are revised on a 5-to-10 year schedule. Some of 

these plans require NEPA analysis before they can be 

implemented. In the case of the Complex, some of the plans 

are developed for each refuge, while some plans are developed

for the Complex with specific sections that pertain to 

individual refuges. In the following lists, we have identified 

those plans that are specific to the refuge and those that will be included in 

an overall Complex plan. 

The following plans are either up-to-date or in progress and will be 

completed within 1-year of issuance of the CCP. 

Spring at Great Meadows: Photo 

by John Grabill 

 Habitat Management Plan (Refuge)

 Fire Management Plan (Complex) 

 Spill Prevention and Counter Measure Plan (Complex) 

 Law Enforcement Management Plan (Complex) 

 

- 78 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 5: Refuge Administration 

The plans indicated in the following list either need to be initiated or are 

out-of-date and require complete revision. Additional management plans 

may be required as future Service policy dictates. 

 Habitat and Wildlife Inventory Plan (Refuge) 

 Integrated Pest Management Plan (Complex) 

 Visitor Services Plan (Complex) 

 Energy Contingency Plan (Complex)

 Hunt Plan (Refuge) 

 Fishing Plan (Refuge) 

 Cultural Resources Management Plan (Complex) 

 Migratory Bird Disease Contingency Plan (Complex) 

 Safety Management Plan (Complex) 

 Continuity of Operations Plan (Complex) 

 Sign Plan (Complex) 

Maintaining Existing Facilities

Periodic maintenance of existing facilities is critical to ensure safety and 

accessibility for refuge staff and visitors. Existing facilities include the 

refuge visitor contact station and offices, maintenance compound, and 

numerous parking areas, observation platforms, and trails. Many of these 

facilities are not currently Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 

compliant; upgrading is needed. Appendix F displays the fiscal year (FY) 

2004 MMS database list of backlogged maintenance entries for the refuge. 

Compatibility Determinations 

Federal law and policy provide the direction and planning framework to

protect the Refuge System from incompatible or harmful human activities 

and to ensure that Americans can enjoy Refuge System lands and waters. 

The Administration Act, as amended by the Refuge Improvement Act, is 

the key legislation on managing public uses and compatibility. Before 

activities or uses are allowed on a national wildlife refuge, we must 

determine that each is a “compatible use.” A compatible use is a use that, 

based on the sound professional judgment of the Refuge Manager, “...will 

not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission 

of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge.” “Wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses may be authorized on a refuge when they are compatible 

and not inconsistent with public safety. Except for consideration of 

consistency with State laws and regulations as provided for in section (m), 

no other determinations or findings are required to be made by the refuge 

official under this Act or the Refuge Recreation Act for wildlife-dependent 

recreation to occur.” (Refuge Improvement Act) 

Compatibility determinations (CDs) were distributed (in the draft 

CCP/EA) for a 45 day public review in mid 2003. These CDs have since 

been approved, and will allow the continuation of the following public use 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 79 -
Chapter 5: Refuge Administration

programs: wildlife observation and photography, environmental education

and interpretation, fishing, and hunting. Since releasing the draft CCP/EA, 

we have also distributed CDs for scientific research, motorized boating, and 

jogging for a public review period. All comments were considered and 

utilized in the revision. These new CDs are now final and included in 

Appendix H.

Additional CDs will be developed when appropriate new uses are proposed. 

CDs will be re-evaluated by the Refuge Manager when conditions under 

which the use is permitted change significantly; when there is significant 

new information on effects of the use; or at least every 10 years for nonpriority public uses. Priority public use CDs will be re-evaluated under the 

conditions noted above, or at least every 15 years with revision of the CCP. 

Additional detail on the CD process is in Parts 25, 26, and 29 of Title 50 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations, effective November 17, 2000. 

Monitoring and Evaluation 

This Final CCP covers a 15-year period. Periodic review of the CCP is 

required to ensure that established goals and objectives are being met, and 

that the plan is being implemented as scheduled. To assist this review 

process, a monitoring and evaluation program will be implemented, 

focusing on issues involving public use activities, and wildlife habitat and 

population management. 

Monitoring of public use programs will involve the continued collection and 

compilation of visitation figures and activity levels. In addition, research 

and monitoring programs will be established to assess the impacts of public

use activities on wildlife and wildlife habitat, assess conflicts between types

of refuge uses, and to identify compatible levels of public use activities. We

will reduce these public use activities if we determine that incompatible 

levels are occurring. 

We will collect of baseline data on wildlife populations and habitats as 

described in Chapter 4. This data will update often limited existing records

of wildlife species using the refuge, their habitat requirements, and 

seasonal use patterns. This data will also be used in the evaluation of the 

effects of public use and habitat management programs on wildlife 

populations. 

We will monitor refuge habitat management programs will for positive and 

negative impacts on wildlife habitat and populations and the ecological 

integrity of the ecosystem. The monitoring will be of assistance in 

determining if these management activities are helping to meet refuge 

goals. Information resulting from monitoring would allow staff to set more 

specific and better management objectives, more rigorously evaluate 

management objectives, and ultimately, make better management 

- 80 - Great Meadows NWR 
Chapter 5: Refuge Administration 

decisions. This process of evaluation, implementation and reevaluation is 

known simply as “adaptive resource management”. 

Monitoring and Evaluation for this CCP will occur at

two levels. The first level, which we refer to as 

implementation monitoring, responds to the 

question, “Did we do what we said we would do, 

when we said we would do it?” The second level of 

monitoring, which we refer to as effectiveness 

monitoring, responds to the question, “Are the 

actions we proposed effective in achieving the results 

we had hoped for?” Or, in other words, “Are the 

actions leading us toward our vision, goals, and 

objectives?” Effectiveness monitoring evaluates an 

individual action, a suite of actions, or an entire 

resource program. This approach is more analytical 

in evaluating management effects on species, 

populations, habitats, refuge visitors, ecosystem integrity, or the socioeconomic environment. More often, the criteria to monitor and evaluate

these management effects will be established in step-down, individual 

project, or cooperator plans, or through the research program. The Habitat 

and Wildlife Inventory and Monitoring Plan, to be completed, will be based 

on the needs and priorities identified in the HMP. 

Adaptive Management

This CCP is a dynamic document. A strategy of adaptive management will 

keep it relevant and current. Through scientific research, inventories and 

monitoring, and our management experiences, we will gain new information 

which may alter our course of action. We acknowledge that our information 

on species, habitats, and ecosystems is incomplete, provisional, and subject 

to change as our knowledge base improves. 

Objectives and strategies must be adaptable in responding to new 

information, as well as changes in time and location. We will continually

evaluate management actions, through monitoring or research, and to 

reconsider whether their original assumptions and predictions are still 

valid. In this way, management becomes an active process of learning 

“what really works”. It is important that the public understand and 

appreciate the adaptive nature of natural resource management. 

The Refuge Manager is responsible for changing management actions or 

objectives if they do not produce the desired conditions. Significant changes 

may warrant additional NEPA analysis; minor changes will not, but will be

documented in annual monitoring, project evaluation reports, or the annual 

refuge narratives. 

Sunrise at Great Meadows NWR: Photo by Sue

Abrahamsen 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 81 -
Chapter 5: Refuge Administration

Additional NEPA Analysis 

NEPA requires a site specific analysis of impacts for all federal actions. 

These impacts are to be disclosed in either an EA or EIS.

Most of the actions and associated impacts in this plan were described in 

enough detail in the draft CCP/EA to comply with NEPA, and will not 

require additional environmental analysis. Although this is not an allinclusive list, the following programs are examples that fall into this 

category: protecting wildlife habitat, implementing priority wildlifedependent public use programs, acquiring land, and controlling invasive 

plants. 

Other actions are not described in enough detail to comply with the sitespecific analysis requirements of NEPA. Examples of actions that will 

require a separate EA include: construction of a new visitor center and 

headquarters, and future habitat restoration projects not fully developed or

delineated in this document. Monitoring, evaluation, and research can 

generally be increased without additional NEPA analysis. 

Plan Amendment and Revision

Periodic review of the CCP will be required to ensure that objectives are

being met and management actions are being implemented. Ongoing 

monitoring and evaluation will be an important part of this process. 

Monitoring results or new information may indicate the need to change our 

strategies. 

The Service’s planning policy (FWS Manual, Part 602, Chapters 1, 3, and 4) 

states that CCPs should be reviewed at least annually to decide if they 

require any revisions (Chapter 3, part 3.4 (8)). Revisions will be necessary if 

significant new information becomes available, ecological conditions 

change, major refuge expansions occur, or when we identify the need to do 

so during a program review. At a minimum, CCPs will be fully revised 

every 15 years. We will modify the CCP documents and associated 

management activities as needed, following the procedures outlined in 

Service policy and NEPA requirements. Minor revisions that meet the 

criteria for categorical exclusions (550 FW 3.3C) will only require an 

Environmental Action Statement. 

- 82 - Great Meadows NWR 
Literature Cited 

Literature Cited 

Begley, William and Duncan Ritchie. 1998 Intensive (Locational) Archaeological Survey: Robinson 

Well Project Area, Mhc No. 20211, Concord, Ma. Prepared by The Public Archaeology 

Laboratory, Inc. Rhode Island for Weston and Sampson Engineers, Inc. Peabody, Ma. 

Bolian, Charles R., Scott Dillon and Eugene Winter. 1982. A Cultural Resources Survey of the 

Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Massachusetts. Report prepared for U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Region V, One Gateway Center, Newton, Massachusetts and Interagency 

Archaeological Services, Atlanta. 

Clarke, F. 2000. SUASCO (Sudbury, Assabet and Concord) River Watershed Biodiversity 

Protection and Stewardship Plan. Francis H. Clark. Under the Massachusetts Watershed 

Initiative of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 2000. http://www.state.ma.us/index.html

Department of Revenue. 2000. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Local Services, 

Municipal Data Bank. 

Dincauze, D.F. 1974. An Introduction to the Archaeology of the Greater Boston Area, 

Archaeology of Eastern North America, Vol. 2, No.1. 

Dincauze, D.F. 1976. The Neville Site: 8,000 Years at Amoskeag...Peabody Museum Monographs 

4. Cambridge. 

Dincauze, D.F. 1981. Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction in the Northeast: the Art of 

Multidisciplinary Science. in Foundations in Northeast Archaeology, Edited By Dean R. Snow, pp 

51-96. 

Dincauze, D.F. 1993. Paleoindians in the Eastern Forest. in From Kostenki to Clovis: Upper 

Paleolithic-Paleo-Indian Adaptations, Edited by O. Soffer And N. D. Praslov. New York: Plenum. 

pp. 199-218.

Dincauze, D.F. And M.T. Mullholland. 1977. Early and Middle Archaic Site Distributions and 

Habitats in Southern New England. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 288: 439-456. 

Dineen, Debbie. 2001. Personal Communication. Spring, 2001. 

Eaton, L. and K. Carr. 1991. Contaminant Levels in the Sudbury River, Massachusetts. Final 

Report Number FY91-NEFO-2-EC. 

Ells, Stephen. 2002. A Bibliography of the Biodiversity and Natural History of the Sudbury 

River-Concord River Valley, including Great Meadows, the Estabrook Woods and Walden 

Woods. Lincoln, MA. 

Hudson, A. 1889. History of the Town of Sudbury. Town of Sudbury, Ma. 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 83 -
Chapter 5: Refuge Administration

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. (16 U.S.C. § 1361 Et Seq.) 

Massachusetts Audubon Society. 2003. http://www.massaudubon.org•Birds-&-Beyond•ibaintro.html 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering. 1981. SUASCO River 

Basin Water Quality Management Plan. 94pp. 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. 1998a. Surface Water Quality 

Standards: 314 CMR 4.03. Division of Water Pollution Control. 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. 1999. Final Massachusetts Section 

303(D) List of Waters 1998. Division of Watershed Management. Worcester, MA 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. 2000. Massachusetts 1999 Annual Air 

Quality Report. Air Assessment Branch, Wall Experiment Station, 37 Shattuck Street, Lawrence, 

Massachusetts 01843. 

Massachusetts Department of Public Health. 1994. Public Health Interim Freshwater Fish 

Consumption Advisory. Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment. Boston, MA. 

Massachusetts Department of Public Health. 1999. Freshwater Fish Consumption Advisory List. 

Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment. Boston, MA. 

Massachusetts Department of Revenue. 2001: http://www.dls.state.ma.us/allfiles.htm

MassWildlife, Natural Heritage And Endangered Species Program and the Massachusetts 

Chapter of the Nature Conservancy. 1998. Our 

Irreplaceable Heritage: Protecting Biodiversity in Massachusetts. 83 pp. 

Massachusetts Division of Fish & Game. 2004. MassWildlife Abstract of the 2004 Massachusetts 

Fish & Wildlife Laws. Undated. 

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife, Natural Heritage & Endangered

Species Program, Westborough, Ma. 

Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. 1996. SUASCO River Watershed 

Resource Assessment Report (Draft). 84pp. 

Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. 1998. Massachusetts Section 303(D) 

List of Waters (Final). 131pp. 

Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. 2003 Air Quality Report. 88 pp.

Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, MA 

Massachusetts Historical Commission. 1985. Historic and Archaeological Resources of 

Central Massachusetts: A Framework for Preservation Decisions. Massachusetts Historical 

- 84 - Great Meadows NWR 
Literature Cited 

Commission, Office of the Secretary of State, Boston, MA 

McAdow, R. 1990. The Concord, Sudbury, and Assabet Rivers; A Guide to Canoeing, Wildlife and 

History. Bliss Publishing Company, Inc. Marlborough, MA. 223 pp. 

Mello, Mark J. and E. Peters. 1992. Survey of Lepidoptera at Fort Devens, with Notes on Mello, 

Mark J. and E. Peters. 1994. The Lloyd Center for Environmental Studies, South Dartmouth, Ma.

Unpublished Data. 

National Park Service. 2001. http://www.nps.gov/rivers/index.html. 

National Resources Conservation District. 1995. Middlesex County, Massachusetts Interim Soil 

Survey Report. Westford, Massachusetts. 4th Edition, 123 pp.

National Weather Service. 2001. 

National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. (16 U.S.C. § 668dd Et Seq.) 

O’Steen, Lisa. 1987. Cultural Resource Literature and Research Review for the Proposed Pelham 

Mainline Branch of the Champlain Gas Pipeline Corridor: New Hampshire And Massachusetts. 

Garrow & Associates, Inc. submitted to ERT. Inc., Concord, Ma. 

Plagge, L. 2000. Observations by Lisa Plagge During 2000 Field Season, Biological Technician at 

USFWS Great Meadows NWR. 

Population Estimates Program, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC 20233. 

Contact: Statistical Information Staff, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau (301) 457-2422 

Public Law 104-106. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, February 10, 1996. 

Ritchie, Duncan. 1980. Cultural Resources Survey. Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, 

Sudbury, Massachusetts. prepared by Public Archaeology Laboratory, Department of 

Anthropology, Brown University, for U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Submitted to Heritage 

Conservation And Recreation Service, Interagency Archaeological Services, Atlanta. 

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. 

Ritchie, Duncan. 1984. Musketaquied, 8,000 B.P.: Early Archaic Settlement and Resource Use in 

the Sudbury/Concord River Drainage. Paper presented at 24th Annual Meeting of the 

Northeastern Anthropological Association, Hartford, CT. 

Ritchie, Duncan. 1985. Archaeological Investigations at the Hartford Avenue Rockshelter, 

Uxbridge, Massachusetts: The Data Recovery Program. The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc. 

Report No. 40-2. Submitted to the Massachusetts, Department of Public Works, Boston, MA. 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 85 -
Chapter 5: Refuge Administration

Ritchie, Duncan. 1985 Archaeological Investigations of a Maintenance Building Site, Weir Hill 

Tract, Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Sudbury, Massachusetts. Prepared By Public 

Archaeology Laboratory, Providence, Rhode Island for U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, One 

Gateway Center, Suite 700, Newton Corner, MA.

Ritchie, Duncan and Ann Davin 1984 An Intensive Level Archaeological Survey of the Town of 

Bedford Water Treatment Facilities, Bedford, Massachusetts. Prepared by Public Archaeology 

Laboratory, Inc. Providence, Rhode Island, for Camp, Dresser and Mckee, Boston, Ma. 

Roberts, David. 1995. Geology, Eastern North America. Peterson Field Guides. Roger T. 

Peterson (Editor). Houghton Mifflin CO. New York, N.Y. 368 pp. 

Rowlett, Gregory. 1985. An Intensive Inventory for a New Shop Complex on the Weir 

Hillelbanobscott Tract, Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Massachusetts. Performed by

Region 6, U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service, Regional Historian•Archaeologist, Denver, CO. 

Save Our Heritage. 1999. http://www.saveourheritage.com. 

Semel, B. and P.W. Sherman. 1995. Alternative Placement Strategies for Wood Duck Nest Boxes. 

Wildlife Society Builletin 23: 463-471.

Sudbury River Basin Water Quality Survey. 1994. Massachusetts Department of Environmental 

Protection. 22pp. 

Sweet C.W. and E. Prestbo. 1999. Wet Deposition of Mercury in the U.S. and Canada. Presented

at “Mercury In The Environment Specialty Conference”, September 15-17, 1999, Minneapolis, 

Mn. Proceedings Published by Air and Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh, PA 

University of Connecticut. 2000. A Provisional List of Non-Native Invasive and Potentially 

Invasive Plants in New England. Leslie J. Merhoff, University of Connecticut. January 1, 2000: 

http://www.eeb.uconn.edu/bioconctr/publications/publication-3.html

U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. Census 2000 Data: http://factfinder.census.gov

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1995. Interim Soil Survey of Middlesex County 

Massachusetts. Natural Resource Conservation Service. Published by the Middlesex County 

Conservation District, July, 1995. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1985. Soil Survey of Worcester County Massachusetts, 

Northeastern Part. Soil Conservation Service (Now the Natural Resource Conservation

Service). 

U.S. Department of Interior. 2003. Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. 

http://www.ios.doi.gov/nrl/recfees/recfee.htm

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards “Airs 

Graphics” Web Site At http://www.epa.gov

- 86 - Great Meadows NWR 
Literature Cited 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Refuge Manual. Wash., D.C. U.S. Gov’t Printing Office. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Fisheries USA. The Recreational Fisheries Policy of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Wash, D.C.,U.S. Gov’t Printing Office. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997a. Recreation Fee Programs Frequently Asked Questions. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000b. Nongame Birds of Management Concern, 1995 List: 

http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/speccon 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000c. Final Compatibility Regulations and Final Compatibility 

Policy Pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 50 CFR Parts

25, 26 and 29

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Policy on Maintaining Biological Integrity, Diversity, and 

Environmental Health of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

http://policy.fws.gov/library/01FR3809. 

Wilson, J. 1988. Archaeological Survey for Three Small Projects: Sudbury Unit, Great Meadows 

National Wildlife Refuge. Prepared by Regional Archaeologist, Region 5, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 1 Gateway Center, Suite 700 Newton Corner, MA. 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 87 -
Chapter 5: Refuge Administration

(This page intentionally left blank)

- 88 - Great Meadows NWR 
Glossary

Glossary 

accessibility- the state or quality of being easily 

approached or entered, particularly as it relates to

the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

accessible facilities- structures accessible for 

most people with disabilities without assistance; 

ada-accessible (e.g., parking lots, trails, 

pathways, ramps, picnic and camping areas,

restrooms, boating facilities (docks, piers, 

gangways), fishing facilities, playgrounds, 

amphitheaters, exhibits, audiovisual programs, 

and wayside sites.)

adaptive management- responding to changing

ecological condiditions so as to not exceed

productivity limits of specific place. For 

example, when crop growth slows, a good farmer 

learns to recognize ecological signs that tell 

either to add more manure or to allow a field to

lie fallow. Adaptive management becomes 

impossible when managers are forced to meet the

demands of outsiders who are not under local 

ecological constraints (from Dodson et al., 1998) 

agricultural land- nonforested land (now or

recently orchards, pastures, or crops) 

alternative- a reasonable way to fix an identified

problem or satisfy a stated need (40 cfr 1500.2 

(cf. “management alternative”)) 

amphidromous fish- fish that can migrate from

fresh water to the sea or the reverse, not only for 

breeding, but also regularly at other times during

their life cycle

anadromous fish- fish that spend a large portion 

of their life cycle in the ocean and return to 

freshwater to breed 

aquatic- growing in, living in, or dependent 

upon water

aquatic barrier- any obstruction to fish passage 

appropriate use- a proposed or existing use of a 

national wildlife refuge that (1) supports the 

refuge system mission, the major purposes, goals

or objectivies of the refuge; (2) is necessary for 

the safe and effective conduct of a priority 

general public use on the refuge; (3) is otherwise 

determined under service manual chapter 605 

FW 1 (draft), by the refuge manager and refuge

supervisor to be appropriate 

area of biological significance- cf. “special 

focus area” 

best management practices- land management

practices that produce desired results (n.b. 

usually describing forestry or agricultural 

practices effective in reducing non-point source 

pollution, like reseeding skidder trails or not

storing manure in a flood plain. In its broader 

sense, practices that benefit target species.) 

biological or natural diversity- the variety of 

life in all its forms 

breeding habitat- habitat used by migratory

birds or other animals during the breeding season

buffer zones- land bordering and protecting

critical habitats or water bodies by reducing

runoff and nonpoint source pollution loading;

areas created or sustained to lessen the negative 

effects of land development on animals, plants, 

and their habitats 

breeding habitat- habitat used by migratory

birds or other animals during the breeding season

candidate species- species for which we have 

sufficient information on file about their 

biological vulnerability and threats to propose 

listing them

carrying capacity- the size of the population

that can be sustained by a given environment

catadromous fish- fish that spend most of their 

lives in fresh water, but migrate to sea to

reproduce 

categorical exclusion- (CE, CX, CATEX, 

CATX) pursuant to the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA), a category of federal agency 

actions that do not individually or cumulatively

have a significant effect on the human 

environment (40 CFR 1508.4)

CFR- the Code of Federal Regulations 

Challenge Cost Share Program- a service 

administered grant program that provides 

matching funds for projects supporting natural

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 89 -
Glossary

resource education, management, restoration, or

protection on service lands, other public lands, 

and private lands 

community- the locality in which a group of

people resides and shares the same government

community type- a particular assemblage of

plants and animals, named for its dominant

characteristic 

compatible use- “a wildlife-dependent 

recreational use or any other use of a refuge that, 

in the sound professional judgment of the 

Director, will not materially interfere with or 

detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the 

system or the purposes of the refuge.”—National

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of

1997 (public law 105-57; 111 stat. 1253)

compatibility determination- a required

determination for wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or any other public uses of a refuge before a 

use is allowed

Comprehensive Conservation Plan- a 

document mandated by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 that 

describes desired future conditions for a refuge 

unit, and provides long-range guidance for the 

unit leader to accomplish the mission of the 

system and the purpose(s) of the unit (p.l. 105-

57; FWS manual 602 FW 1.4)

concern- cf. “issue” 

conservation- managing natural resources to

prevent loss or waste (n.b. management actions 

may include preservation, restoration, and 

enhancement.) 

conservation agreements - voluntary written

agreements among two or more parties for the 

purpose of ensuring the survival and welfare of

unlisted species of fish and wildlife or their 

habitats or to achieve other specified 

conservation goals. 

conservation easement- a legal agreement 

between a landowner and a land trust (e.g., a 

private, nonprofit conservation organization) or

government agency that permanently limits uses 

of a property to protect its conservation values 

cool-season grass- introduced grass for crop and 

pastureland that grows in spring and fall and is

dormant during hot summer months 

cooperative agreement- the legal instrument

used when the principal purpose of a transaction 

is the transfer of money, property, services, or 

anything of value to a recipient in order to

accomplish a public purpose authorized by 

federal statute, and substantial involvement 

between the service and the recipient is 

anticipated (cf. “grant agreement”) 

cultural resource inventory- a professional 

study to locate and evaluate evidence of cultural 

resources present within a defined geographic 

area (n.b. various levels of inventories may 

include background literature searches, 

comprehensive field examinations to identify all 

exposed physical manifestations of cultural 

resources, or sample inventories for projecting 

site distribution and density over a larger area. 

Evaluating identified cultural resources to

determine their eligibility for the National 

Register of Historic Places follows the criteria in 

36 CFR 60.4 (cf. FWS manual 614 FW 1.7).) 

cultural resource overview- a comprehensive 

document prepared for a field office that

discusses, among other things, project prehistory

and cultural history, the nature and extent of

known cultural resources, previous research, 

management objectives, resource management

conflicts or issues, and a general statement of 

how program objectives should be met and 

conflicts resolved (an overview should reference 

or incorporate information from a field offices 

background or literature search described in

section viii of the Cultural Resource 

Management Handbook (FWS manual 614 FW

1.7).) 

dedicated open space- land to be held as open 

space forever 

designated wilderness area- an area designated 

by Congress as part of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System (FWS Manual 610 FW 1.5 

(draft))

diadromous- fish that migrate from freshwater 

to saltwater or the reverse; a generic term that 

includes anadromous, catadromous, and 

amphidromous fish 

easement- an agreement by which landowners 

give up or sell one of the rights on their property

(e.g., landowners may donate rights-of-way

- 90 - Great Meadows NWR 
Glossary

across their properties to allow community 

members access to a river (cf. “conservation 

easement”).) 

ecosystem- a natural community of organisms 

interacting with its physical environment, 

regarded as a unit 

ecotourism- visits to an area that maintains and 

preserves natural resources as a basis for 

promoting its economic growth and development

ecosystem approach- a way of looking at 

socioeconomic and environmental information

based on the boundaries of ecosystems like 

watersheds, rather than on geopolitical 

boundaries 

ecosystem-based management- an approach to 

making decisions based on the characteristics of

the ecosystem in which a person or thing belongs 

(n.b. this concept considers interactions among

the plants, animals, and physical characteristics 

of the environment in making decisions about

land use or living resource issues.)

emergent wetland- wetlands dominated by

erect, rooted, herbaceous plants 

endangered species- a federal- or state-listed

protected species that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range 

environmental education- “...education aimed 

at producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable 

about the biophysical environment and its 

associated problems, aware of how to help solve 

these problems, and motivated to work toward 

their solution.”—Stapp et al. 1969 

Environmental Assessment- (EA) a concise 

public document that briefly discusses the

purpose and need for an action, its alternatives, 

and provides sufficient evidence and analysis of 

its impacts to determine whether to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement or Finding of 

No Significant Impact (q.v.) (cf. 40 CFR 1508.9)

Environmental Impact Statement- (EIS) a

detailed, written analysis of the environmental 

impacts of a proposed action, adverse effects of

the project that cannot be avoided, alternative 

courses of action, short-term uses of the 

environment versus the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity, and any

irreversible and irretrievable commitment of 

resources (cf. 40 CFR 1508.11)

estuaries- deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent 

tidal wetlands that are usually semi-enclosed by

land but have open, partly obstructed or sporadic

access to the ocean, and in which ocean water is 

at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff 

from land 

estuarine wetlands- “the estuarine system

consists of deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent 

tidal wetlands that are usually semi-enclosed by

land but have open, partly obstructed, or sporadic

access to the open ocean, and in which ocean 

water is at least occasionally diluted by 

freshwater runoff from the land.”—Cowardin et

al. 1979

exemplary community type- an outstanding

example of a particular community type 

extirpated- no longer occurring in a given

geographic area

Federal land- public land owned by the Federal

Government, including national forests, national

parks, and national wildlife refuges 

Federal-listed species- a species listed either as 

endangered, threatened, or a species at risk

(formerly, a “candidate species”) under the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

Finding of No Significant Impact- (FONSI) 

supported by an Environmental Assessment, a 

document that briefly presents why a Federal

action will have no significant effect on the 

human environment, and for which an

Environmental Impact Statement, therefore, will 

not be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13)

fish passage project- providing a safe passage 

for fish around a barrier in the upstream or 

downstream direction 

focus areas- cf. “special focus areas” 

forbs- flowering plants (excluding grasses,

sedges, and rushes) that do not have a woody

stem and die back to the ground at the end of the 

growing season

forested land- land dominated by trees 

forested wetlands- wetlands dominated by trees 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 91 -
Glossary

Geographic Information System- (GIS) a 

computerized system to compile, store, analyze 

and display geographically referenced

information (e.g., GIS can overlay multiple sets 

of information on the distribution of a variety of

biological and physical features.) 

grant agreement- the legal instrument used 

when the principal purpose of the transaction is 

the transfer of money, property, services, or

anything of value to a recipient in order to

accomplish a public purpose of support or 

stimulation authorized by federal statute and

substantial involvement between the service and

the recipient is not anticipated (cf. “cooperative 

agreement”) 

grassroots conservation organization- any 

group of concerned citizens who come together

to actively address a conservation need 

habitat fragmentation- the breaking up of a 

specific habitat into smaller, unconnected areas 

(n.b. a habitat area that is too small may not

provide enough space to maintain a breeding 

population of the species in question.) 

habitat conservation- protecting an animal or

plant habitat to ensure that the use of that habitat 

by the animal or plant is not altered or reduced

habitat- the place where a particular type of 

plant or animal lives 

hydrologic or flow regime- characteristic 

fluctuations in river flows 

important fish areas- the aquatic areas 

identified by private organizations, local, state, 

and federal agencies that meet the purposes of 

the Conte act 

informed consent- “...the grudging willingness 

of opponents to go along with a course of action

that they actually oppose.”—Bleiker 

Intergrated Pest Management (IPM)-

sustainable approach to managing pests by

combining biological, cultural, physical, and

chemical tools in a way that minimizes 

economic, health, and environmental risks 

interjurisdictional fish- populations of fish that 

are managed by two or more states or national or

tribal governments because of the scope of their 

geographic distributions or migrations 

interpretive facilities- structures that provide 

information about an event, place, or thing by a 

variety of means, including printed, audiovisual, 

or multimedia materials (e.g., kiosks that offer 

printed materials and audiovisuals, signs, and

trail heads.) 

interpretive materials- any tool used to provide

or clarify information, explain events or things, 

or increase awareness and understanding of the 

events or things (e.g., printed materials like 

brochures, maps or curriculum materials;

audio⁄visual materials like video and audio tapes,

films, or slides; and, interactive multimedia 

materials, CD-Rom or other computer 

technology.) 

interpretive materials projects- any 

cooperative venture that combines financial and 

staff resources to design, develop, and use tools 

for increasing the awareness and understanding 

of events or things related to a refuge

introduced invasive species- non-native species 

that have been introduced into an area and,

because of their aggressive growth and lack of 

natural predators, displace native species 

issue- any unsettled matter that requires a 

management decision (e.g., a service initiative, 

an opportunity, a management problem, a threat

to the resources of the unit, a conflict in uses, a 

public concern, or the presence of an undesirable 

resource condition.) 

Issues Workbook- a packet of questions 

distributed in order to solicit public comments on

the Refuge Complex and the planning process. 

Basic information on the Refuge Complex was 

bundled with the Issues Workbooks. Workbooks 

were not randomly distributed, nor were 

questions intended to have statistical 

significance. 

lacustrine wetlands- “the lacustrine system

includes wetlands and deepwater habitats with

all of the following characteristics: (1) situated in

a topographic depression or a dammed river

channel; (2) lacking trees, shrubs, persistent

emergents, emergent mosses or lichens with

greater than 30% areal coverage; and (3) total 

area exceeds eight ha (20 acres).”—Cowardin et 

al. 1979

land trusts- organizations dedicated to

- 92 - Great Meadows NWR 
Glossary

conserving land by purchase, donation, or

conservation easement from landowners

limiting factor- an environmental limitation that 

prevents further population growth

local land- public land owned by local

governments, including community or county 

parks or municipal watersheds

local agencies- generally, municipal

governments, regional planning commissions, or

conservation groups 

long-term protection- mechanisms like fee title 

acquisition, conservation easements, or binding 

agreements with landowners that ensure land use

and land management practices will remain

compatible with maintaining species populations

over the long term

management alternative- a set of objectives 

and the strategies needed to accomplish each 

objective (FWS Manual 602 FW 1.4)

management concern- cf. “issue”; “migratory 

nongame birds of management concern” 

management opportunity- cf. “issue” 

management plan- a plan that guides future

land management practices on a tract 

management strategy- a general approach to

meeting unit objectives (n.b. a strategy may be

broad, it may be detailed enough to guide 

implementation through specific actions, tasks, 

and projects (FWS Manual 602 FW 1.4).)

mesic soil- sandy-to-clay loams containing

moisture retentive organic matter, well drained

(no standing matter) 

migratory nongame birds of management

concern- species of nongame birds that (a) are 

believed to have undergone significant

population declines; (b) have small or restricted 

populations; or (c) are dependent upon restricted 

or vulnerable habitats 

mission statement- a succinct statement of the 

purpose for which the unit was established; its 

reason for being 

mitigation- actions taken to compensate for the 

negative effects of a particular project (e.g.,

wetland mitigation usually restores or enhances a 

previously damaged wetland or creates a new 

wetland.) 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969-

(NEPA) requires all Federal agencies to examine 

the environmental impacts of their actions, 

incorporate environmental information, and use 

public participation in planning and

implementing environmental actions (Federal

agencies must integrate NEPA with other 

planning requirements, and prepare appropriate 

NEPA documents to facilitate better 

environmental decisionmaking (cf. 40 CFR 

1500).)

National Wildlife Refuge Complex- (Complex) 

an internal Service administrative linking of 

refuge units closely related by their purposes, 

goals, ecosystem, or geopolitical boundaries. 

National Wildlife Refuge System- (System) all 

lands and waters and interests therein

administered by the Service as wildlife refuges, 

wildlife ranges, wildlife management areas, 

waterfowl production areas, and other areas for 

the protection and conservation of fish and 

wildlife, including those that are threatened with 

extinction

native plant- a plant that has grown in the 

region since the last glaciation and occurred

before European settlement

non-consumptive, wildlife-oriented 

recreation- wildlife observation and 

photography and environmental education and

interpretation (cf. “wildlife-oriented recreation”) 

non-point source pollution- nutrients or toxic 

substances that enter water from dispersed and

uncontrolled sites 

nonforested wetlands wetlands dominated by 

shrubs or emergent vegetation

Notice of Intent- (NOI) an announcement we 

publish in the Federal Register that we will 

prepare and review an Environmental Impact

Statement (40 CFR 1508.22) 

objective- a concise statement of what we want 

to achieve, how much we want to achieve, when

and where we want to achieve it, and who is

responsible for the work. Objectives derive from

goals and provide the basis for determining 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 93 -
Glossary

strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, 

and evaluation the success of strategies. Make 

objectives attainable, time-specific, and 

measurable. 

occurrence site- a discrete area where a 

population of a rare species lives or a rare plant 

community type grows 

old fields - areas formerly cultivated or grazed, 

where woody vegetation has begun to invade

(n.b. if left undisturbed, old fields will eventually 

succeed into forest. Many occur at sites 

originally suitable for crops or pasture. They

vary markedly in the Northeast, depending on

soil and land use and management history.) 

outdoor education project- any cooperative 

venture that combines financial and staff 

resources to develop outdoor education activities 

like labs, field trips, surveys, monitoring, or

sampling 

outdoor education- educational activities that 

take place in an outdoor setting 

palustrine wetlands- “the palustrine system

includes all nontidal wetlands dominated by

trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent

mosses or lichens, and all such wetlands that

occur in tidal areas where salinity due to oceanderived salts is below 0$.”—Cowardin et

al. 1979

Partners for Wiildlife Program- a voluntary,

cooperative habitat restoration program among 

the Service, other government agencies, public 

and private organizations, and private 

landowners to improve and protect fish and

wildlife habitat on private land while leaving it 

in private ownership

partnership- a contract or agreement among two 

or more individuals, groups of individuals,

organizations, or agencies, in which each agrees 

to furnish a part of the capital or some service in

kind (e.g., labor) for a mutually beneficial 

enterprise 

planning updates- newsletters distributed,

primarily through mailing lists,m in order to

update the interested public on the status of the 

CCP project. 

population monitoring- assessing the 

characteristics of populations to ascertain their 

status and establish trends on their abundance, 

condition, distribution, or other characteristics 

prescribed fire- the application of fire to

wildland fuels, either by natural or intentional 

ignition, to achieve identified land use objectives 

(FWS Manual 621 FW 1.7)

private land- land owned by a private individual

or group or non-government organization 

private landowner- cf. “private land” 

private organization- any non-government 

organization 

proposed action (or alternative)- activies for 

which an Environmental Assessment is being

written; the alternative containing the actions and

strategies recommended by the planning team. 

The proposed action is, for all proactival 

purposes, the draft CCP for the refuge. 

protection- mechanisms like fee title 

acquisition, conservation easements, or binding 

agreements with landowners that ensure land use

and land management practices will remain

compatible with maintaining species populations

at a site (cf. “long-term ~”) 

public- individuals, organizations, and nongovernment groups; officials of federal, state, 

and local government agencies; native american 

tribes, and foreign nations— includes anyone 

outside the core planning team, those who may

or may not have indicated an interest in the

issues and those who do or do not realize that our 

decisions may affect them

public involvement- offering to interested 

individuals and organizations that our actions or 

policies may affect an opportunity to become

informed; soliciting their opinions. 

public involvement plan- long-term guidance 

for involving the public in the comprehensive 

planning process 

public land- land owned by the local, state, or 

Federal government 

rare species- species identified for special 

management emphasis because of their 

uncommon occurrence 

rare community types- plant community types 

- 94 - Great Meadows NWR 
Glossary

classified as rare by any state program (as used 

in CCP’s, includes exemplary community types.) 

recommended wilderness- areas studied and 

found suitable for wilderness designation by both 

the Director (FWS) and Secretary (DOI), and 

recommended by the President to Congress for 

inclusion in the National Wilderness System

(FWS Manual 610 FW 1.5 (draft))

Record of Decision- (ROD) a concise public

record of a decision by a Federal agency

pursuant to NEPA (N.b. a ROD includes:•the 

decision; •all the alternatives considered; •the 

environmentally preferable alternative; •a 

summary of monitoring and enforcement, where

applicable, for any mitigation ; and, •whether all 

practical means have been adopted to avoid or

minimize environmental harm from the 

alternative selected (or if not, why not).) 

refuge goals- “...descriptive, open-ended, and 

often broad statements of desired future 

conditions that convey a purpose but do not 

define measurable units.”— Writing Refuge 

Management Goals and Objectives: A Handbook 

refuge mailing list- the “original” Great 

Meadows Refuge Complex mailling list which

preceded the CCP process. This list contained 

names and addresses of people with an interest in 

the refuge. As part of the planning process, the 

list was continually updated to include

conservation agencies, sporting clubs, 

Congressionals, workbook respondents, open 

house⁄focus group attendees, etc. 

refuge purposes- “the terms ‘purposes of the

refuge’ and ‘purposes of each refuge’ mean the 

purposes specified in or derived from the law, 

proclamation, Executive Order, agreement, 

public land order, donation document, or

administrative memorandum establishing, 

authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit,

or refuge subunit.”—National Wildlife Refuge

System Improvement Act of 1997

refuge lands- lands in which the service holds 

full interest in fee title or partial interest like an

easement 

restoration- the artificial manipulation of habitat 

to restore it to its former condition (e.g., 

restoration may involve planting native grasses 

and forbs, removing shrubs, prescribed burning, 

or reestablishing habitat for native plants and

animals on degraded grassland.) 

riparian- of or relating to the banks of a stream

or river 

riparian agricultural land- agricultural land

along a stream or river 

riparian forested land- forested land along a 

stream or river (cf. note above)

riparian habitat- habitat along the banks of a 

stream or river (cf. note above)

riverine- within the active channel of a river or 

stream

riverine wetlands- generally, all the wetlands 

and deepwater habitats occurring within a 

freshwater river channel not dominated by trees, 

shrubs, or persistent emergents 

runoff- water from rain, melted snow, or 

agricultural or landscape irrigation that flows 

over a land surface into a water body (cf. “urban

runoff”) 

sandplain grassland- dry grassland that has 

resisted succession due to fire, wind, grazing, 

mowing, or salt spray (N.b. Characterized by

thin, acidic, nutrient-poor soils over deep sand

deposits, sandplains primarily occur on the coast 

and off-coast islands, or inland, where glaciers or 

rivers have deposited sands.) 

Service presence- service programs and 

facilities that it directs or shares with other 

organizations; public awareness of the service as 

a sole or cooperative provider of programs and

facilities 

site improvement- any activity that changes the 

condition of an existing site to better interpret 

events, places, or things related to a refuge. (e.g., 

improving safety and access, replacing nonnative with native plants, refurbishing

footbridges and trail ways, and renovating or 

expanding exhibits.) 

special focus area- an area of high biological

value (N.b. fie normally direct most of our 

resources to SFA’s that were delineated because 

of: 1.the presence of federal-listed endangered 

and threatened species, species at risk (formerly, 

“candidate species”), rare species, concentrations

of migrating or wintering waterfowl, or

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 95 -
Glossary

shorebird stopover habitat; 2.their importance as 

migrant landbird stopover or breeding habitat; 

3.the presence of unique or rare communities; or

4.the presence of important fish habitat.) 

special habitats- as used in CCP’s; wetlands, 

vernal pools, riparian habitat, and unfragmented 

rivers, forests and grasslands (N.b. many rare

species are dependent on specialized habitats 

that, in many cases, are being lost within a 

watershed.) 

special riparian project- restoring, protecting,

or enhancing an aquatic environment in a

discrete riparian corridor within a special focus 

area 

species at risk- a species being considered for 

Federal listing as threatened or endangered

(formerly, “candidate species”) 

species of concern- species not federal-listed as 

threatened or endangered, but about which we or

our partners are concerned 

State agencies- generally, natural resource 

agencies of State governments 

State land- State-owned public land 

State-listed species- cf. “Federal-listed species” 

(N.b. this is how to write the phrase “Federaland State-listed species”.) 

step-down management plan- a plan for

dealing with specific refuge management

subjects, strategies, and schedules, e.g., cropland, 

wilderness, and fire (FWS Manual 602 FW 1.4) 

stopover habitat- habitat where birds rest and

feed during migration 

telecommunications- communicating via 

electronic technology

telecommunications project- any cooperative 

venture that combines financial and staff 

resources to develop and use computer-based

applications for exchanging information about a 

watershed with others 

threatened species- a federal-listed, protected 

species that is likely to become an endangered

species in all or a significant portion of its range

tiering- incorporating by reference the general

discussions of broad topics in Environmental

Impact Statements into narrower statements of 

environmental analysis by focusing on specific 

issues (40 CFR 1508.28)

tributary- a stream or river that flows into a 

larger stream, river, or lake 

trust resource- a resource that the government 

holds in trust for the people through law or 

administrative act (N.b. a Federal trust resource 

is one for which responsibility is given wholly or

in part to the Federal government by law or 

administrative act. Generally, Federal trust 

resources are nationally or internationally 

important no matter where they occur, like 

endangered species or migratory birds and fish 

that regularly move across state lines. They also 

include cultural resources protected by Federal 

historic preservation laws, and nationally

important or threatened habitats, notably 

wetlands, navigable waters, and public lands like 

state parks and national wildlife refuges.) 

unfragmented habitat- large, unbroken blocks 

of a particular type of habitat

unit objective- desired conditions that must be 

accomplished to achieve a desired outcome 

upland- dry ground (i.e., other than wetlands) 

upland meadow or pasture- areas maintained 

in grass for livestock grazing; hay production

areas (N.b. meadows may occur naturally in tidal 

marshes and inland flooded river valleys or,

more frequently, at upland sites where vegetation 

has been cleared and grasses planted. 

Eventually, meadows will revert to old fields and

forest if they are not mowed, grazed, or burned. 

Grasses in both managed meadows and pastures

usually are similar, but pasture herbs often differ 

because of selective grazing.) 

urban runoff water from rain, melted snow, or 

landscape irrigation flowing from city streets and 

domestic or commercial properties that may 

carry pollutants into a sewer system or water 

body

vernal pool- depressions holding water for at

least two months in the spring or early summer, 

is absent of fish, and is important for amphibians

during the breeding season. 

vision statement- a concise statement of what 

- 96 - Great Meadows NWR 
Glossary

the unit could achieve in the next 10 to 15 years 

visitor center- a permanently staffed building

offering exhibits and interpretive information to 

the visiting publc. Some visitor center are colocated with refuge offices, others include 

additional facilities such as classrooms or

wildlife viewing areas 

visitor contact station- compared to a visitor 

center, a contact station is a smaller facility 

which may not be permanently staffed 

warm-season grass- native prairie grass that

grows the most during summer, when coolseason grasses are dormant 

watchable wildlife- all wildlife is watchable 

(N.b. a watchable wildlife program is one that 

helps maintain viable populations of all native 

fish and wildlife species by building an active, 

well informed constituency for conservation. 

Watchable wildlife programs are tools for 

meeting wildlife conservation goals while at the 

same time fulfilling public demand for wildlifedependent recreational activities (other than sport 

hunting, sport fishing, or trapping).) 

watershed- the geographic area within which

water drains into a particular river, stream, or

body of water; land and the body of water into

which the land drains

well protected- a rare species or community 

type 75 percent or more of its occurrence sites 

are on dedicated open space 

wet meadows- meadows located in moist, lowlying areas, often dominated by large colonies of

reeds or grasses (N.b. often they are created by 

collapsed beaver dams and exposed pond

bottoms. Saltmarsh meadows are subject to daily 

coastal tides.) 

wetlands- “Wetlands are lands transitional 

between terrestrial and aquatic systems where 

the water table is usually at or near the surface or 

the land is covered by shallow water.”—

Cowardin et al 1979 

wilderness- cf. “designated wilderness” 

wildfire- a free-burning fire requiring a 

suppression response; all fire other than

prescribed fire that occurs on wildlands (FWS 

Manual 621 FW 1.7) 

wildland fire- every wildland fire is either a 

wildfire or a prescribed fire (FWS Manual 621 

FW 1.3)

wildlife management- manipulating wildlife 

populations, either directly by regulating the 

numbers, ages, and sex ratios harvested, or

indirectly by providing favorable habitat

conditions and alleviating limiting factors 

wildlife-oriented recreation- recreational 

experiences in which wildlife is the focus (“the 

terms ‘wildlife dependent recreation’ and 

‘wildlife-dependent recreational use’ mean a use

of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, or environmental

education and interpretation.”— National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997)

working landscape- the rural landscape created 

and used by traditional laborers (N.b. agriculture, 

forestry, and fishing all contribute to the working 

landscape of a watershed (e.g., keeping fields

open by mowing or by grazing livestock).) 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 97 -
Glossary

(This page left intentionally blank)

- 98 - Great Meadows NWR 
List of Preparers 

List of Preparers 

Members of the Planning Team and 

Contributers

Elizabeth A. Herland 

Project Leader 

Eastern Massachusetts Complex 

Tim Prior 

Deputy Project Leader 

Eastern Massachusetts Complex 

Stephanie Koch 

Wildlife Biologist 

Eastern Massachusetts Complex 

Bill Perry 

Refuge Planner 

Eastern Massachusetts Complex 

Debra Kimbrell-Anderson

Refuge Manager 

Assabet and Oxbow NWRs 

Eastern Massachusetts Complex 

Michael Dixon 

Outdoor Recreation Planner 

Eastern Massachusetts Complex 

Sharon Fish Marino 

Former Refuge Manager 

Monomoy NWR 

Carl Melberg 

Land Acquisition Planner 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Northeast Regional Office 

Bud Oliveira 

Deputy Chief of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, Region 4 

Former Project Leader 

Eastern Massachusetts Complex 

Pamela Hess

Appalachian Mountain Club

Former Deputy Project Leader 

Eastern Massachusetts Complex 

Chuck Bell 

Former District Manager Northeast District 

Division of Fish and Game 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

Debbie Dineen, Natural Resources, Town of 

Sudbury 

Curt Laffin, Planning Consultant 

Jack Lash 

Planning and Ecology Director Department 

of Environmental Management, 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

Tom Poole 

Natural Resource Manager 

Army at Devens Reserve Forces Training 

Area 

Bill Woytek 

Division of Fish and Game, Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts 

Bruce Flaig and Marijke Holtrop 

Generously allowed the refuge to use their 

photographs, many of which were used in this 

plan 

Lindsay Krey

Assistant Planner 

Former Team Leader 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Northeast Regional Office 

Nicole Allison

Former Wildlife Biologist 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Northeast Regional Office 

William Archambault 

Fisheries Supervisor South 

Former Regional NEPA Coordinator 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Northeast Regional Office 

Melissa Brewer 

Former Fisheries Biologist 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Norheast Regional Office 

John Eaton, Cartographer 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 99 -
List of Preparers

Northeast Regional Office 

Andrew French 

Former Realty Officer 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Northeast Regional Office 

Thomas Bonetti 

Refuge Planner 

Former Team Leader for this project. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Northeast Regional Office 

Victoria Barr

Archeologist 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Northeast Regional Office 

Rick Jorgensen 

Realty Specialist 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Northeast Regional Office 

Wendy Lilly-Hanson 

Former Wildlife Biologist 

Eastern Massachusetts Complex 

Janet Kennedy 

Refuge Manager Parker River NWR 

Former Deputy Project Leader for Eastern 

Massachusetts Complex 

Deborah Long 

Deputy Refuge Manager Forsythe NWR 

Former Monomoy NWR Refuge Manager 

Lisa Plagge 

Former Bio-technician 

Great Meadows, Oxbow, and Assabet NWRs 

Eastern Massachusetts Complex 

Pamela Rooney 

Engineering Supervisor 

Former Planning Team Leader 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Northeast Regional Office 

Rick Schauffler 

Wildlife Biologist and Cartographer 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

New England Field Office 

Janith Taylor 

Regional Biologist 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

New England Field Office 

Sharon Ware 

Refuge Manager Sachuest Point NWR 

Former Refuge Manager at Monomoy NWR 

Mike Amaral

Senior Endangered Species Specialist 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

New England Field Office 

Addresses 

Northeast Regional Office 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

300 Westgate Center Dr. 

Hadley, MA 01035 

Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex Headquarters 

73 Weir Hill Road 

Sudbury, MA 01776 

New England Field Office 

70 Commercial St., Ste 300

Concord, NH 03301-5087 

Monomoy NWR 

Wikis Way, Morris Island 

Chatham, MA 02633

- 100 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appendices 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Relevant Laws 

Appendix B: U.S. Forest Service Content Analysis Team Summary Report

Appendix C: Responses to Substantive Comments

Appendix D: Species Lists 

Appendix E: RONS and MMS 

Appendix F: Existing and Proposed Staffing Charts for Assabet River, Great Meadows, and 

Oxbow NWRs 

Appendix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 101 -
Literature Cited

(This page intentionally left blank.)

- 102 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appendix A: Relevant Laws 

Appendix A: Relevant Laws 

Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986 

This Act authorized the purchase of wetlands with Land and Water Conservation Fund 

moneys, removing a prior prohibition on such acquisitions. The Act also requires the 

Secretary to establish a National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan, requires the States 

to include wetlands in their Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans, and transfers to

the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund amount equal to import duties on arms and 

ammunition. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884), as amended 

Public Law 93-205, approved December 28, 1973, repealed the Endangered Species 

Conservation Act of December 5, 1969 (P.L. 91-135, 83 Stat. 275). The 1969 Act had 

amended the Endangered Species Preservation Act of October 15, 1966 (P.L. 89-669, 80

Stat. 926). The 1973 Endangered Species Act provided for the conservation of ecosystems 

upon which threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants depend, both

through federal action and by encouraging the establishment of state programs. The act: 

• authorizes the determination and listing of species as endangered and threatened; 

• prohibits unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and transport of endangered 

species; 

• provides authority to acquire land for the conservation of listed species, using land 

and water conservation funds; 

• authorizes establishment of cooperative agreements and grants-in-aid to states 

that establish and maintain active and adequate programs for endangered and 

threatened wildlife and plants; 

• authorizes the assessment of civil and criminal penalties for violating the act or 

regulations; and 

• authorizes the payment of rewards to anyone furnishing information leading to 

arrest and conviction for any violation of the act of any regulation issued 

thereunder. 

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management 

The purpose of this Executive Order, signed May 24, 1977, is to prevent Federal agencies 

from contributing to the “adverse impacts associated with occupancy and modification of 

floodplains” and the “direct or indirect support of floodplain development.” in the course of 

fulfilling their respective authorities, Federal agencies “shall take action to reduce the risk 

of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to 

restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. 

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 

This Act was passed to improve the administration of fish and wildlife programs and 

amends several earlier laws, including the Refuge Recreation Act, the National Wildlife

Refuge Administration Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It authorizes the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 103 -
Appendix A: Relevant Laws

secretary to accept gifts and bequests of real and personal property on behalf of the 

United States. It also authorizes the use of volunteers on service projects and 

appropriations to carry out volunteer programs. 

Historic Preservation Acts 

There are various laws for the preservation of historic sites and objects.

Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 431 - 433) – The Act of June 8, 1906, (34 Stat. 225) authorizes

the President to designate as National Monuments objects or areas of historic or scientific 

interest on lands owned or controlled by the United States. The Act required that a permit 

be obtained for examination of ruins, excavation of archaeological sites and the gathering 

of objects of antiquity on lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretaries of Interior, 

Agriculture, and Army, and provided penalties for violations. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa - 470ll) -- Public Law 96-95,

approved October 31, 1979, (93 Stat. 721) largely supplanted the resource protection 

provisions of the Antiquities Act for archaeological items. 

This Act established detailed requirements for issuance of permits for any excavation for 

or removal of archaeological resources from Federal or Indian lands. It also established 

civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized excavation, removal, or damage of any 

such resources; for any trafficking in such resources removed from Federal or Indian land 

in violation of any provision of Federal law; and for interstate and foreign commerce in 

such resources acquired, transported or received in violation of any state or local law. 

Public Law 100-588, approved November 3, 1988, (102 Stat. 2983) lowered the threshold 

value of artifacts triggering the felony provisions of the act from $5,000 to $500, made

attempting to commit an action prohibited by the Act a violation, and required the land

managing agencies to establish public awareness programs regarding the value of 

archaeological resources to the Nation. 

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 469-469c) -- Public Law 86-523, 

approved June 27, 1960, (74 Stat. 220) as amended by Public Law 93-291, approved May 

24, 1974, (88 Stat. 174) to carry out the policy established by the historic sites act (see 

below), directed Federal agencies to notify the Secretary of the Interior whenever they

find a Federal or Federally assisted, licensed or permitted project may cause loss or 

destruction of significant scientific, prehistoric or archaeological data. The Act authorized 

use of appropriated, donated and/or transferred funds for the recovery, protection and 

preservation of such data. 

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C 461-462, 464-467) -- The Act of 

August 21, 1935, (49 Stat. 666) popularly known as the Historic Sites Act, as amended by

Public Law 89-249, approved October 9, 1965, (79 Stat. 971) declared it a National policy to 

preserve historic sites and objects of national significance, including those located on 

refuges. It provided procedures for designation, acquisition, administration and protection 

of such sites. Among other things, National Historic and Natural Landmarks are 

designated under authority of this Act. As of January, 1989, 31 national wildlife refuges 

- 104 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appendix A: Relevant Laws 

contained such sites. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470-470b, 470c-470n) -- Public Law 

89-665, approved October 15, 1966, (80 Stat. 915) and repeatedly amended, provided for 

preservation of significant historical features (buildings, objects and sites) through a 

grant-in-aid program to the states. It established a National Register of Historic Places 

and a program of matching grants under the existing National Trust for Historic 

Preservation (16 U.S.C. 468-468d). 

The Act established an Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which was made a 

permanent independent agency in Public Law 94-422, Approved September 28, 1976 (90 

Stat. 1319). That Act also created the Historic Preservation Fund. Federal agencies are 

directed to take into account the effects of their actions on items or sites listed or eligible

for listing in the National Register. 

As of January, 1989, 91 historic sites on national wildlife refuges have been placed on the 

National Register. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1948 

This Act provides funding through receipts from the sale of surplus federal land, 

appropriations from oil and gas receipts from the outer continental shelf, and other 

sources for land acquisition under several authorities. Appropriations from the fund may 

be used for matching grants to states for outdoor recreation projects and for land

acquisition by various federal agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715- 715d, 715e, 715f-715r) 

This Act established the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission which consists of the 

Secretaries of the Interior (chairman), Agriculture, and Transportation, two members

from the House of Representatives, and an ex-officio member from the state in which a 

project is located. The Commission approves acquisition of land and water, or interests 

therein, and sets the priorities for acquisition of lands by the Secretary for sanctuaries or 

for other management purposes. Under this Act, to acquire lands, or interests therein, the 

state concerned must consent to such acquisition by legislation. Such legislation has been 

enacted by most states. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718-718j, 48 Stat. 452), 

as amended 

The “Duck Stamp Act,” as this March 16, 1934, authority is commonly called, requires each 

waterfowl hunter 16 years of age or older to possess a valid Federal hunting stamp. 

Receipts from the sale of the stamp are deposited in a special Treasury account known as 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and are not subject to appropriations. 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 105 -
Appendix A: Relevant Laws

National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12401; 104 Stat. 3127) 

Public Law 101-610, signed November 16, 1990, authorizes several programs to engage

citizens of the U.S. in full- and/or part-time projects designed to combat illiteracy and 

poverty, provide job skills, enhance educational skills, and fulfill environmental needs. 

Several provisions are of particular interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

American Conservation and Youth Service Corps -- as a Federal grant program 

established under Subtitle C of the law, the Corps offers an opportunity for young adults 

between the ages of 16-25, or in the case of summer programs, 15-21, to engage in 

approved human and natural resources projects which benefit the public or are carried out 

on Federal or Indian lands. 

To be eligible for assistance, natural resources programs will focus on improvement of 

wildlife habitat and recreational areas, fish culture, fishery assistance, erosion, wetlands 

protection, pollution control and similar projects. A stipend of not more than 100 percent of 

the poverty level will be paid to participants. A Commission established to administer the 

Youth Service Corps will make grants to States, the Secretaries of Agriculture and 

Interior and the Director of ACTION to carry out these responsibilities. 

National and Community Service Act -- Will make grants to states for the creation of fulltime and/or part-time programs for citizens over 17 years of age. Programs must be

designed to fill unmet educational, human, environmental, and public safety needs. 

Initially, participants will receive post-employment benefits of up to $1000 per year for 

part-time and $2500 for full-time participants. 

Thousand Points of Light -- Creates a nonprofit Points of Light Foundation to administer 

programs to encourage citizens and institutions to volunteer in order to solve critical social 

issues, and to discover new leaders and develop institutions committed to serving others. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 

1, 1970, 83 Stat. 852) as amended by P.L. 94-52, July 3, 1975, 89 Stat. 258, and P.L. 94-83,

August 9, 1975, 89 Stat. 424). 

Title I of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that all Federal 

agencies prepare detailed environmental impact statements for “every recommendation or 

report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting 

the quality of the human environment.” 

The 1969 statute stipulated the factors to be considered in environmental impact 

statements, and required that Federal agencies employ an interdisciplinary approach in 

related decision-making and develop means to ensure that unquantified environmental 

values are given appropriate consideration, along with economic and technical 

considerations. 

Title II of this statute requires annual reports on environmental quality from the 

President to the Congress, and established a Council on environmental quality in the 

Executive Office of the President with specific duties and functions. 

- 106 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appendix A: Relevant Laws 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) as 

amended 

This act defines the Refuge System as including wildlife refuges, areas for protection and 

conservation of fish and wildlife which are threatened with extinction, wildlife ranges, 

game ranges, wildlife management areas, and waterfowl production areas. The Secretary 

is authorized to permit any use of an area provided such use is compatible with the major 

purposes for which such area was established. The purchase considerations for rights-ofway go into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for the acquisition of lands. By 

regulation, up to 40% of an area acquired for a migratory bird sanctuary may be opened to 

migratory bird hunting unless the Secretary finds that the taking of any species of 

migratory game birds in more than 40% of such area would be beneficial to the species. 

The Act requires an Act of Congress for the divestiture of lands in the system, except (1)

lands acquired with Migratory Bird Conservation Commission funds, and (2) lands can be 

removed from the system by land exchange, or if brought into the System by a cooperative 

agreement, then pursuant to the terms of the agreement. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

Public Law 105-57, amends the National Wildlife System Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee), 

providing guidance for management and public use of the refuge system. The Act 

mandates that the Refuge System be consistently directed and managed as a national 

system of lands and waters devoted to wildlife conservation and management. 

The Act establishes priorities for recreational uses of the Refuge System. Six wildlifedependent uses are specifically named in the act: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation. These activities are to be

promoted on the Refuge System, while all non-wildlife dependant uses are subject to 

compatibility determinations. 

A compatible use is one which, in the sound professional judgment of the Refuge Manger, 

will not materially interfere with or detract from fulfillment of the Refuge System Mission 

or refuge purpose(s). 

As stated in the Act, “the mission of the System is to administer a national network of 

lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of 

the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” 

The act also requires development of a comprehensive conservation plan for each refuge 

and management of each refuge consistent with the plan. When writing CCP, planning for 

expanded or new refuges, and when making management decisions, The Act requires

effective coordination with other Federal agencies, state fish and wildlife or conservation 

agencies, and refuge neighbors. A refuge must also provide opportunities for public 

involvement when making a compatibility determination or developing a CCP. 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 107 -
Appendix A: Relevant Laws

North American Wetlands Conservation Act (103 Stat. 1968; 16 U.S.C. 4401-4412) 

Public Law 101-233, enacted December 13, 1989, provides funding and administrative

direction for implementation of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the 

Tripartite Agreement on wetlands between Canada, U.S. and Mexico. 

The Act converts the Pittman-Robertson account into a trust fund, with the interest 

available without appropriation through the year 2006 to carry out the programs

authorized by the Act, along with an authorization for annual appropriation of over $20 

million plus an amount equal to the fines and forfeitures collected under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act. 

Available funds may be expended, upon approval of the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Commission, for payment of not to exceed 50 percent of the United States share of the cost 

of wetlands conservation projects in Canada, Mexico, or the United States (or 100 percent 

of the cost of projects on Federal lands). At least 50 percent and no more than 70 percent 

of the funds received are to go to Canada and Mexico each year. 

A North American Wetlands Conservation Council is created to recommend projects to be 

funded under the Act to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. The Council is to 

be composed of the Director of the Service, the Secretary of the National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation, a State fish and game agency director from each flyway, and three 

representatives of different nonprofit organizations participating in projects under the 

Plan or the Act. The Chairman of the Council and one other member serve ex officio on the 

Commission for consideration of the Council’s recommendations. 

The Commission must justify in writing to the Council and, annually, to Congress, any

decisions not to accept Council recommendations. 

Oil Pollution Act of 1990

Public Law 101-380 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.; 104 Stat. 484) established new requirements 

and extensively amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1301 et. seq.) 

to provide enhanced capabilities for oil spill response and natural resource damage

assessment by the Service. It required Service consultation on developing a fish and 

wildlife response plan for the National Contingency Plan, input to Area Contingency 

Plans, review of Facility and Tank Vessel Contingency Plans, and to conduct damage

assessments associated with oil spills. 

One aspect of particular interest to the service involves the identification of ecologically 

sensitive areas and the preparation of scientific monitoring and evaluation plans. Research 

conducted by the Service is to be directed and coordinated by the National Wetland 

Research Center. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial Cct of 2000 

This Act paves the way for a special, nationwide outreach campaign. The law calls for a 

Centennial Commission of distinguished individuals to work with partners in carrying out 

- 108 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appendix A: Relevant Laws 

the outreach campaign. The law also calls for a long-term plan to address the major 

operations, maintenance, and construction needs of the Refuge System 

These centennial activities will help broaden visibility, strengthen partnerships, and fortify 

facilities and programs for wildlife and habitat conservation and recreation. They will build 

a stronghold of support for the National Wildlife Refuge System to sustain it in a new era 

of both challenge and opportunity.

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 

This Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer refuges, hatcheries, and 

other conservation areas for recreational use, when such uses do not interfere with the 

area’s primary purposes. It authorizes construction and maintenance of recreational 

facilities and the acquisition of land for incidental fish and wildlife oriented recreational 

development or protection of natural resources. It also authorizes the charging of fees for 

public uses. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (16 U.S.C. 715s) 

Section 401 of the Act of June 15, 1935, (49 stat. 383) provided for payments to counties in 

lieu of taxes, using revenues derived from the sale of products from refuges. 

Public Law 93-509, approved December 3, 1974, (88 Stat. 1603) required that moneys 

remaining in the fund after payments be transferred to the Migratory Bird Conservation

Fund for land acquisition under provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. 

Public Law 95-469, approved October 17, 1978, (92 Stat. 1319) expanded the revenue 

sharing system to include National Fish Hatcheries and service research stations. It also

included in the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund receipts from the sale of salmonid 

carcasses. Payments to counties were established as: 

1) on acquired land, the greatest amount calculated on the basis of 75 cents per acre, threefourths of one percent of the appraised value, or 25 percent of the net receipts produced

from the land; and 

2) on land withdrawn from the public domain, 25 percent of net receipts and basic 

payments under Public Law 94-565 (31 U.S.C. 1601-1607, 90 Stat. 2662), payment in lieu of 

taxes on public lands. 

This amendment also authorized appropriations to make up any difference between the 

amount in the Fund and the amount scheduled for payment in any year. The stipulation

that payments be used for schools and roads was removed, but counties were required to 

pass payments along to other units of local government within the county which suffer 

losses in revenues due to the establishment of refuges. 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 109 -
Appendix A: Relevant Laws

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act of 1948 

This Act provides that upon determination by the Administrator of the General Services 

Administration, real property no longer needed by a Federal agency can be transferred, 

without reimbursement, to the Secretary of the Interior if the land has particular value for 

migratory birds, or to a state agency for other wildlife conservation purposes. 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794 )as amended 

Title 5 of Public Law 93-112 (87 Stat. 355), signed October 1, 1973, prohibits discrimination 

on the basis of handicap under any program or activity receiving Federal financial 

assistance. 

The Volunteer and Community Partnership Act 

The Volunteer and Community Partnership Act of 1998 brings recognition and additional 

authorities to the volunteer program and community partnerships, as well as supports 

education programs. Under this Act, refuges can now more easily conduct business with 

community partners under the auspices of the newly authorized and streamlined 

administrative processes. Leveraging Federal dollars and staff, Refuge Managers can 

operate and construct services through cooperative agreements, deposit donations in 

individual accounts at the refuge, and match donations. 

Youth Conservation Corps Act (16 U.S.C. 1701-1706, 84 Stat. 794) 

Public Law 91-378, approved August 13, 1970, declares the YCC pilot program a success 

and establishes permanent programs within the Departments of Interior and Agriculture 

for young adults who have attained the age of 15, but not the age of 19, to perform specific 

tasks on lands and waters administered under jurisdiction of these Secretaries. Within the 

Fish and Wildlife Service, YCC participants perform various tasks on national wildlife 

refuges, national fish hatcheries, research stations, and other facilities. 

The legislation also authorizes the Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture 

to establish a joint grant program to assist states employing young adults on non-Federal 

public lands and waters throughout the U.S. 

Requires the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to prepare a joint report to the 

President and Congress prior to April 1 of each year. 

Wilderness Act of 1964 

Public Law 88-577, approved September 3, 1964, directed the Secretary of the Interior, 

within 10 years, to review every roadless area of 5,000 or more acres and every roadless 

island (regardless of size) within national wildlife refuges and national parks for inclusion 

in the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

- 110 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appendix B: U.S. Forest Service CAT Report 

Appendix B: U.S. Forest Service Content Analysis Team Summary Report 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 111 -
November 26 

2003 

Analysis of Public Comment 

200 E 

Broadway 

Room 301 

P.O. Box 7669 

Missoula, MT 

59807 

406-329-3038 

 

CAT 

Content 

Analysis 

Team U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish & Wildlife 

Service 

The Eastern Massachusetts 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Assabet River, Great Meadows, 

Oxbow Wildlife Refuges 

Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all 

its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, 

religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family 

status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program 

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s 

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA 

is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Table of Contents i 

Table of Contents 

Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1

Summary of Comments........................................................................................... 2

Synopsis............................................................................................................... 2

Planning Processes.............................................................................................. 3

General Planning ............................................................................................ 3

Time frame for planning/length of comment period......................................... 3

Public Involvement .......................................................................................... 3

Relationship to Regional Planning Efforts ....................................................... 4

Statutory Authority........................................................................................... 4

Trust and Integrity ........................................................................................... 4

Clarity/Organization of Planning Documents................................................... 4

Technical & Editorial ....................................................................................... 5

Purpose and Need................................................................................................ 6

Range of Issues .............................................................................................. 6

Guiding Policy for Public Lands....................................................................... 6

Alternatives........................................................................................................... 7

Affected Environment ........................................................................................... 8

General resources........................................................................................... 8

Water quality ................................................................................................... 8

Vegetation....................................................................................................... 8

Invasives ......................................................................................................... 9

Wildlife Management....................................................................................... 9

Refuge Administration ........................................................................................ 11

General Suggestions..................................................................................... 11

Land Acquisition............................................................................................ 11

Buildings and Facilities.................................................................................. 11

Staffing and Funding ..................................................................................... 12

Enforcement.................................................................................................. 12

Wild and Scenic Rivers ................................................................................. 12

Priority Public Uses ............................................................................................ 13

Analysis of Existing Conditions and Need for Further Analysis..................... 13
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Table of Contents ii 

General Management Direction.....................................................................13

Refuge Access ..............................................................................................14

Fees ..............................................................................................................15

Hunting ..........................................................................................................16

Dogs and Public Safety .................................................................................20

Fishing...........................................................................................................21

Environmental Education...............................................................................21

Recreation ..........................................................................................................23

Snowmobiling ................................................................................................23

Jogging..........................................................................................................23

Picnicking ......................................................................................................24

Bicycling ........................................................................................................24

Horseback Riding ..........................................................................................24

Dog-Walking..................................................................................................25

Birdwatching..................................................................................................25

Trapping ........................................................................................................25

Socioeconomic Concerns ...................................................................................26

Appendix A Coding Structure and Demographic Codes.................................. A-1

Appendix B Demographics.............................................................................. B-6

Appendix C Early Attention Letters.................................................................. C-1

Appendix D Information Requests................................................................... D-1

Appendix E Organized Response Report........................................................ E-1

Appendix F List of Preparers ............................................................................F-1
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Introduction 1 

Introduction 

The contracted U.S. Forest Service Content Analysis Team report summarizes public 

comment submitted on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment (hereafter Draft CCP/EA) prepared to describe the alternatives for the Assabet 

River, Great Meadows, and Oxbow refuges in the Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex. This report provides a narrative review of concerns raised as well as 

appendices detailing the coding process for reviewing public comments, analyzing 

demographic information derived from responses, and listing individuals responsible for the 

analysis. The narrative summary provides an overview of pervasive themes in public 

sentiment rather than a comprehensive description of each public concern. 

Public input on the Draft CCP/EA is documented, analyzed, and summarized using a process 

called content analysis. This is a systematic method of compiling and categorizing the full 

range of public viewpoints and concerns regarding a plan or project. This process makes no 

attempt to treat comments as votes. In no way does content analysis attempt to sway decision 

makers toward the will of any majority. Content analysis ensures that every comment is 

considered at some point in the decision process. Content analysis is intended to facilitate 

good decision-making by helping the planning team to clarify, adjust, or incorporate 

technical information into the final guidelines. The process facilitates agency response to 

comment. 

All responses (i.e., letters, emails, faxes, oral testimony, and other types of input) are 

included in this analysis. In the content analysis process, each response is given a unique 

identifying number, which allows analysts to link specific comments to original letters. 

Respondents’ names and addresses are then entered into a project-specific database program, 

enabling creation of a complete mailing list of all respondents. The database is also used to 

track pertinent demographic information such as responses from special interest groups or 

federal, state, tribal, county, and local governments. 

All input is considered and reviewed by an analyst. Comments are then entered into the 

database. In preparing the final summary analysis, public statements are reviewed again 

using database printouts. These reports track all coded input and allow analysts to identify a 

wide range of public concerns and analyze the relationships between them in a narrative 

summary. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service solicited comments on the Draft CCP/EA from July 20, 

2003 to September 3, 2003. 

During the comment period, 1,907 responses, oral and written, were received. Twenty-five 

responses were duplicates; therefore 1882 responses were entered into the comment database. 

Organized response campaigns (forms) represented 70 percent (1,334 of 1,907) of the total 

responses. 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Summary of Comments 2 

Summary of Comments 

Synopsis 

The general tenor of comments is appreciative and laudatory. Typically, respondents endorse 

Alternative B. While there are many specific exceptions to these trends, the two most 

common are opposition to new or increased hunting on the refuge, and opposition to 

proposed limits on non-motorized recreation on the refuge, such as dog-walking and 

picnicking. Endorsement of Alterative B is often couched with provisos, such as that it 

eliminate hunting on the refuge. 

Where analysts were able to identify unit-specific comments (such as those about the Great 

Meadows), the database includes that identification; FWS may wish to review unit-specific 

comments. In general, however, analysts do not discern any appreciable difference in 

comments addressed to the various units. The overall themes of comments are the same, and 

most specific suggestions could apply equally to all three refuges. Where site-specific 

suggestions or concerns are relevant to this summary, they are identified.
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Summary of Comments 3 

Planning Processes 

General Planning 

Although respondents are generally complimentary of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

staff and the CCP/EA, commentors provide some suggestions and various criticisms of the 

document. Respondents also request an opportunity to revisit the plan after its 

implementation and make any necessary changes. 

Time frame for planning/length of comment period 

Some respondents are disappointed in the comment period, arguing that holding the comment 

period during the summer months limits the informed input that communities and individuals 

can give. Specifically, the Suasco Watershed Community Council states, “The summer 

timing of this public review may have inadvertently and unfortunately limited public 

comment.” Also, some respondents want more time to review the “technical and 

voluminous” conservation plan so that they may submit more informed comments. 

Respondents are also disappointed that the agency failed to adequately inform the public of 

the comment period. One respondent from Concord, for example, wanted notice of the 

comment period posted on the bulletin board at the Great Meadows Refuge. The FWS, some 

argue, should extend the comment period and improve outreach efforts so that communities 

and individuals may provide well-informed and useful comments. 

Public Involvement 

Many respondents feel satisfied with the FWS’s level of public involvement and education; 

they praise the agencies past efforts and eagerly anticipate additional opportunities for 

interest groups and communities to stay involved in the refuge’s management. One Maynard 

respondent affirms, “Your efforts to involve the local communities are appreciated and 

should benefit us all.” There are, however, a significant number of respondents who believe 

the FWS could improve their public involvement and education efforts. One individual 

states, “Community members in the towns abutting the land appear to have very little 

knowledge about your proposal, and therefore have had very little input.” Respondents urge 

the FWS to hold more public meetings in schools, libraries, senior centers, and town offices, 

as well as take advantage of the media to improve public involvement and educate 

communities. “[Great Meadows Refuge] is a wonderful opportunity for public outreach—a 

place to engage dedicated environmentalists in a dialogue with U.S. Fish and Wildlife and to 

recruit new support for the service and its mission.” 

Civic and conservation organizations express interest in collaborating with the FWS on 

management issues. The City of Marlborough Conservation Commission, for example, 

would like to work cooperatively with the FWS in managing the Refuge Complex and the 

Memorial Forest and Desert Natural Area “to enhance biodiversity and wildlife while 

allowing public access where suitable.” Conservation commissions from other towns express 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Summary of Comments 4 

interest in collaborative management as well. Similarly, respondents nominate the 

Massachusetts Audubon Society, the Trustee of Reservations, the Friends of Assabet River 

Wildlife Refuge, The Friends of the Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge, The Great Meadows 

Neighborhood Association, Bay State Trail Riders Association, and the Sudbury Valley 

Trustees as good candidates for public involvement. 

Relationship to Regional Planning Efforts 

Respondents ask for clarification of the CCP’s compatibility with other regional management 

efforts, such as: the Maynard Open Space by-law for the Maynard portion of the Sudbury 

Annex in 1987 and its hunting restrictions; the Freedom’s Way Association bill currently 

before congress to formally designate 43 communities as a national heritage area near the 

Great Meadows complex; wildlife management and conservation restrictions near Bolton 

Flats and Devens South Post; the goals of Wild and Scenic River designations; and the 

original intent of the O’Rourke farm “river reservation.” 

Statutory Authority 

Respondents sometimes address real or perceived conflicts between the CCP and federal or 

state law. Some respondents remind the FWS that projects proposed “within the Oxbow 

boundary are subject to the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act,” and that the National 

Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 permits hunting as “one of six priority wildlifedependent uses.” 

Trust and Integrity 

Some respondents question the intent of the agency, and are disappointed that the land 

management decisions proffered in the CCP do not reflect the historical uses of the land. “I 

know that I would not have voted for FWS to take the land if I had believed that I would 

never have access to that property for recreational use. You duped the residents of these 

towns so that you could get this property,” exclaims one respondent. 

Other respondents, however, praise the FWS staff and their efforts. These respondents trust 

the agency to make appropriate land management decisions based on expertise and 

dedication. 

Clarity/Organization of Planning Documents 

Many respondents approve of the CCP and commend the agency. “I would like to say that it 

is an impressive document [and] remarkably well-written,” comments one typical 

respondent. Commentors also support the document’s consideration of and compatibility 

with neighboring areas. 

Some respondents express disappointment, however, in the agency’s website performance 

and the size of the electronic document. 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Summary of Comments 5 

Technical & Editorial 

Respondents suggest the agency provide clearer, more accurate maps. Respondents also 

provided editorial suggestions. For example, “Correction: The Commission would like to 

point out an error on the map on page 2-71. A parking lot is shown on Maple St. north of the 

service road. This site is in fact a private home. There is a parking lot across the street on 

Greenough Conservation Land existing there.” Another respondent wrote, “Please correct the 

capitalization on Sudbury section maps 2-6, 2-7, 2-16 to Sherman Bridge Road. It is two 

words. It’s a street in Wayland.”
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Summary of Comments 6 

Purpose and Need 

Range of Issues 

Some respondents feel that FWS is making a mistake in classifying certain issues as beyond 

the scope of the EA. These respondents want the FWS to evaluate and mitigate noise and air 

pollution impacts on visitors and wildlife caused by Hanscom Field air traffic. One 

commentor states, “The CCP should include a plan to evaluate impacts to waterfowl, 

especially during nesting seasons, from air traffic at Hanscom Field. The CCP should 

identify noise from Hanscom Field as an issue with which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife staff 

should be more involved.” Respondents protest the expansion of Hanscom Field and its 

related impacts to the visitor experience; and ask that FWS partner with local communities 

and federal agencies—the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation 

Administration—to analyze the impacts of the expansion. One conservation organization 

asks the FWS to participate in the evaluation of jet ski impacts to recreation and wildlife on 

the Concord River. 

Guiding Policy for Public Lands 

Respondents repeatedly describe the agency’s mission as one of wildlife protection, and 

assert that human activities and development should be limited. “In establishing the 

permitted uses for the refuge, you must not bow to public pressure. You must follow the 

charter of a NWR. To do that, you need to establish what the sensitive species are in the 

refuge, and how they are best managed. You must define what additional resources should be 

involved to preserve habitat for the animals. This might include re-establishing topographical 

features, acquiring adjacent land, procuring easements on neighboring lands, or managing 

tourists.” Respondents emphasize the history of the land and its importance to local 

communities, and suggest that informed management decisions that benefit biodiversity 

would best preserve the refuge. To accomplish this, respondents suggest the agency 

“recognize areas in proximity to the refuge and consider such in managing refuge resources,” 

as wildlife and ecosystems do not recognize political boundaries. 

The land that makes up the Assabet River, Great Meadows, and Oxbow Wildlife Refuges is 

important to the people in the neighboring communities. Many respondents feel connected to 

the land, historically, spiritually, and personally. 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Summary of Comments 7 

Alternatives 

Many respondents either support Alternative A or B, while little is said regarding Alternative 

C. Proponents of Alternative A are concerned about expanding or limiting specific activities 

such as hunting and dog-walking. Some of these respondents request not expanding or 

allowing hunting. Other respondents ask to retain, rather than prohibit, existing “nonwildlife” dependent activities. In general, these respondents desire Refuge Complex 

management to continue as is. 

Respondents support Alternative B more for its management approach than allowed 

activities. Many of these respondents favor active management for invasive species and 

wildlife habitat. Additionally, supporters of Alternative B approve of the levels of funding 

and staffing proposed. Respondents are divided about the benefits of the phased opening of 

the refuge. Other concerns stemming from Alternative B include additional fees, allowed 

uses, and land acquisitions. Repeatedly, respondents endorse Alternative B while asking that 

it permit non-motorized uses such as dog-walking, and prohibit hunting. 

Some respondents feel that no alternative considered is adequate. New alternatives suggested 

include: emphasizing non-consumptive, non-lethal approaches to population control; 

promoting the refuge as “open space,” not a hunting preserve; and providing more local level 

decision-making. 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Summary of Comments 8 

Affected Environment 

General resources 

One respondent requests that the FWS include in its bibliography the respondent’s 

publication, “A Bibliography of the Biodiversity and the Natural History of the Sudbury 

River- Concord River Valley, including the Great Meadows, the Estabrook Woods, and 

Walden Woods.” 

One respondent avows support for “projects that deal with restoring the native ecology to the 

area.” 

Water quality 

One respondent requests protection of water quality and quantity in the Assabet River 

corridor and drainage. Related to the issue of quantity, one respondent raises the issue of 

connected aquifers: “Areas outside the scope of the CCP and town water supply wells (Pg. 1-

24): Protecting the remaining base flow—the groundwater that supplies flow to the streams 

during dry times—in the tributaries and main stem of the Assabet River is critical to 

protecting water quality and aquatic habitat in the watershed . . . therefore, we suggest that 

any requests for access to the refuges for the purpose of drilling new water supply wells be 

reviewed for impacts to the wetlands and tributary streams on and off the refuges and suggest 

using the groundwater model of the Assabet River watershed currently being developed by 

the US Geological Survey (Northborough) to evaluate potential habitat impacts of proposed 

increased withdrawals.” 

One respondent argues that water quality degradation should be a critical part of the 

CCP/EA, rather than being considered out of scope: “I thought the water quality section was 

weak. Having raised the red flag that the rivers are heavily contaminated, I did not feel that 

the text clearly explained what that meant for the public and for wildlife in the refuge, and 

what the prospects for correction are. For example, I had thought that a major current issue 

was discharge of excessive nutrients from waste water treatment plants leading 

eutrophication and low-oxygen conditions.” 

Vegetation 

Respondents request that the FWS complete proposed cover-type maps to assess species 

occurrence and distribution. One respondent provides extensive advice: “Biological 

Inventories and Mapping Alternative B calls for a thorough inventory of all species on the 

refuges: It would be ideal to be that comprehensive. If priorities are needed, we suggest the 

following order of importance: Reptiles, especially turtles; Complete documentation of 

vernal pools; Invertebrates: Select representative habitats to inventory macro invertebrates in 

order to provide a representational picture of invertebrates in the different habitats on the 

refuge and to identify any rare species. Invertebrates can also serve as indicators of overall 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Summary of Comments 9 

ecosystem health; Benthic macro invertebrates: select representative habitats for river, 

stream, pond and wetland surveys within the refuge; Field invertebrates: select a 

methodology that targets representative field types, such as wet meadow and upland field.” 

Several respondents suggest that the refuge should sustain and enhance grassland and 

shrubland habitat on all three units to promote early-successional species, many of which are 

in decline in the Northeast. One respondent suggests creation of a butterfly refuge on the 

south side of the patrol road running from the Hudson Road gate to the radar station. 

Invasives 

The need to inventory refuge resources is connected by one respondent to the need to control 

invasives: “The Service's proposal to complete a comprehensive invasive plant inventory by 

2007 will help guide species-specific management. Many exotic and invasive plant species in 

the watershed have become discouragingly pervasive. SVT recommends that the Service 

prioritize its efforts on species that are threatening rare habitats, out-competing rare or statelisted species, or are still in low density numbers. The need for exotic species control 

research is great and the Service's proposal to participate in experimental invasive species 

control could result in new innovative methods.” 

Many respondents support efforts to eliminate invasive non-native species. Indeed, a number 

urge the FWS to help catalyze a regional control effort in cooperation with abutters, state, 

federal, and town authorities, and non-profits, arguing that, “Without a systematic treatment 

of this issue, invasive plants will continue to be dispersed throughout the area by wildlife, 

people, and mechanical means.” 

Several respondents raise concerns about invasives at Puffer Pond, given new fishing access 

to Puffer. One respondent writes: “At present Puffer Pond is pristine and free from invasive 

species such as milfoil and water chestnut that have infected other waterways within 

Massachusetts, especially in local ponds including nearby Lake Boon. Allowing canoes 

previously used in these infected waterways increases the probability of infecting Puffer 

Pond with these invasives. Canoe portage presents still another problem in that Puffer Pond 

is a fair distance from the existing entrances. If auto canoe portage were allowed to the pond, 

temporary parking (allowing driving on the refuge proper) for canoe launch would have to be 

provided. This could (would) become permanent parking because of the undesirability of 

leaving the canoe and its contents to move the canoe carriers to an approved parking area 

after launch and then walking back to the canoe launch area.” 

Concerns about targeted species are raised in two cases: one respondent argues that cattails 

are native, and should not be removed; a number of respondents argue that mute swans are 

harmless and should be 

Wildlife Management 

The most commonly offered input regarding wildlife management reflects an overwhelming 

sense of community and a desire to harmonize refuge planning efforts with past, present, and 

future local and regional land management activities. As one respondent summarizes, “The 

physical configuration and multiple ownership (plus the unique natural history heritage) of 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Summary of Comments 10 

the valley demands a common vision and a systems and team approach. If all the landowners 

will work together in supporting and adding to the enormous environmental, natural resource 

and knowledge base that has already been put in place by past generations, the resulting 

synergy will produce a ‘refuge’ of far greater proportions and impact than could ever occur if 

each property owner goes off on his/her own.” This sentiment is reflected over and over in 

comments. Often, people state, “our town” or “our organization” already has wildlife survey 

data, or “our town/community” wishes to expand its knowledge of natural resources in the 

area. These respondents encourage FWS to utilize existing data and established management 

practices when making decisions for the refuge, and frequently urge FWS to “coordinate,” 

“consult,” and “share information.” 

A related theme touched on by many respondents is the quality of wildlife species data 

provided in the CCP. Respondents request consistently high-quality data, and some 

respondents request that FWS provide the most up-to-date species information possible. 

Some respondents argue that the agency is drifting away from what they perceive to be its 

central mission: providing “refuge” for wildlife. A number of people assert that in a wildlife 

refuge, wildlife needs should take precedence over human needs. Echoing this view, many 

people request that FWS conduct thorough wildlife assessments to determine what kinds of 

human activities (if any) might be appropriate on the refuge. A number of respondents 

believe that hunting and trapping for wildlife population control are not appropriate. Some 

people encourage non-lethal—or at least humane—population control methods. 

All respondents who comment on wildlife monitoring support Alternative B; however, these 

people encourage FWS to provide more detail regarding how, when, and where monitoring 

will occur.
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Summary of Comments 11 

Refuge Administration 

General Suggestions 

A number of respondents urge FWS to address refuge management from a regional 

perspective, encouraging the FWS to integrate refuge management with the management of 

surrounding lands through community partnerships. Several people ask the FWS to justify 

splitting the Great Meadows refuge into two units. They argue that this area is all part of one 

ecosystem and, accordingly, should be managed as one unit. 

The few people who address historical and archaeological sites simply ask the FWS to 

inventory these resources and to preserve and enhance them when possible. 

Land Acquisition 

Many respondents comment on the proposed land acquisition boundaries, with the majority 

of people in favor of expanding them. A typical respondent argues that, “In a plan that 

purports to run for the next 15 years, it seems shockingly shortsighted to limit land 

acquisition (including through donations) by the refuge.” Some respondents suggest that 

expansion is the best way to protect whole ecosystems and waterways, while others 

encourage an expanded refuge area to protect threatened and endangered species and wildlife 

corridors. Some people ask the FWS to include specific areas, such as the former Fort 

Devens South Post area and parts of the Assebet and Nashua rivers, in the land acquisition 

boundaries. 

Some respondents discourage the FWS from expanding the land acquisition boundaries. 

Typically these sentiments stem from disagreement with FWS management choices, such as 

limits on horseback use. 

Buildings and Facilities 

Respondents voice a myriad of opinions regarding what kinds of buildings and facilities 

should be provided at the refuge. Suggesting that visitor education is an important component 

of gaining public support for the refuge, a number of respondents encourage the FWS to 

build a visitor center or at the least, a contact station. Some of these respondents make more 

specific suggestions, such as using existing buildings for a contact station/visitor center or 

locating such a facility at Hudson Road or at Deven’s near Jackson Gate. A number of people 

support the idea of an administration building on the refuge. 

Citing the importance of public education, many people ask the FWS to locate kiosks at 

strategic locations throughout the refuge. Comments regarding refuge parking focus on lot 

location with many people discouraging parking at Heard Pond. These respondents contend 

that there has been too much garbage dumping and vandalism at the Heard Pond site to make 

it a desirable parking place. One respondent asks the FWS to place portable toilets at all 

parking facilities in the refuge. A number of people support development of an observation 

deck. A few other specific refuge management suggestions offered by respondents include: 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Summary of Comments 12 

remove barbed wire from the refuge, use smaller information signs, establish a picnic area 

with a bear-proof garbage can, and construct fire hydrants on White Pond Road and along 

Sudbury Road. 

Staffing and Funding 

Although one respondent believes that the refuge should not have rangers because they 

merely “. . . harass old ladies . . .,” most people feel that adequate refuge staffing is essential. 

While many people assert that Alternative B will meet desired staffing levels, a number of 

other respondents contend that proposed staffing levels are too low. These people cite 

anticipated user conflicts, present refuge hazards, and the current downsizing trend in 

government as reasons to increase proposed staffing levels. Some respondents suggest 

utilizing community groups and/or to form partnerships with volunteer organizations to 

supplement staffing needs. 

With regard to refuge management funding, the only direction provided by respondents is a 

request that the FWS ensure its adequacy. 

Enforcement 

Respondents who comment on enforcement say that the level of enforcement on the refuge 

needs to increase. Some respondents suggest that implementation of some programs be 

delayed until adequate enforcement is in place. Others recommend developing a contingency 

plan in case proposed enforcement levels are not effective. An additional suggestion offered 

by some people is that the FWS have a backup force in place of either volunteers and/or 

community officers. 

The key areas identified by respondents as needing increased policing efforts are off-highway 

vehicle trespass, poaching, dumping, trespass, and vandalism. As a typical respondent writes, 

“Preventing illegal use by ATVs is a major enforcement challenge for properties with large 

borders surrounded by suburban landscapes and with many potential entry points.” 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The one concern regarding wild and scenic river designation expressed by several 

respondents is that hunting is incompatible with this designation and should be prohibited 

within these areas. 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Summary of Comments 13 

Priority Public Uses 

Analysis of Existing Conditions and Need for Further 

Analysis 

Several respondents question CCP visitor estimates and request better calculations, one 

respondent suggesting that based on personal experience the estimate of 70,000 people per 

year visiting Oxbow is “wildly incorrect. It is probably more like 7,000.” 

Numerous respondents request that scientific analysis of wildlife populations take place prior 

to any hunting or trapping. One conservation organization suggests that the CCP be driven 

entirely by wildlife surveys: “We suggest three overarching management priorities when 

considering policies about public use activities: 1. Public uses allowed under the CCP should 

be based on the findings of wildlife inventory and habitat management step-down plans. 

Public use plans should be based on wildlife inventory and habitat management plans; 2. The 

Service should monitor and adjust allowed public uses based on impacts to wildlife and 

habitat during the drafting/revision of step-down plans; 3. Public use should be coordinated 

among partner organizations with land holdings in the vicinity of refuges.” 

Several respondents argue that ongoing monitoring will be critical to management of 

wildlife-dependent recreation, typically: “The proposed additional monitoring projects in 

Alternative B for all three refuges must include at least that level of detail about how the 

monitoring and evaluation will be carried out. For example: The CCP states on pages 2-29, 

2-68, and 2-95 that the Visitor Services Plans, to be completed by 2007, for Assabet River, 

Great Meadows, and Oxbow Refuges would include a monitoring program to evaluate the 

intensity and potential impacts of all the wildlife-dependent public uses on the refuges. What 

data have you collected to date on this issue and what has your analysis of the results shown? 

What steps are now being taken or will be taken until 2007 when the monitoring program is 

in place to ensure that current management of wildlife-dependent uses is not having an 

adverse effect on the resources?” 

General Management Direction 

Respondents offer a number of suggestions for general management direction of the Refuge 

Complex relating to priority public uses, typically defining the extent to which they believe 

various recreational activities should be permitted. Many respondents, for example, argue 

that the refuge should be “open to the public,” by which they typically mean members of the 

public who undertake non-motorized recreation such as picnicking and jogging. For many, 

this is their defining test of the value of the refuge and a natural consequence of it being 

public land, e.g., since we pay taxes we get to use it. 

For a few respondents, general access to the refuge is part payback for the original 

government acquisition of the land. For many more, there is a significant level of anger at the 

prospect of restriction of passive uses, e.g., “[Great Meadows] has been used with great 

respect and affection by the local public for well over the thirty years that we’ve lived here. I 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Summary of Comments 14 

can’t imagine what reason or right the Federal Government might think it has to interfere 

with that use.” 

Some respondents acknowledge the mission of the refuge, and couch their suggestions in 

terms of “wildlife-dependent uses.” These respondents suggest that jogging, dog-walking, 

picnicking, and bicycling are dependent on wildlife. 

Many other respondents functionally argue that the purpose of the refuge should be 

redefined, making other arguments for permitting non-motorized recreation. For example, 

although few respondents articulate the thought as clearly and plainly, many implicitly 

advanced an argument in consonance with this comment: “The following suggestions are 

based upon the assumption that the primary purpose of the refuge is to preserve native 

species and habitat, but that other compatible uses are acceptable if they support and do not 

significantly interfere with the primary use.” 

Other respondents implicitly or explicitly question the priority attached to those activities 

defined as wildlife-dependent, e.g., “The boundary between wildlife-dependent and nonwildlife dependent activities is not always clear. The more important distinction, in our view, 

is between outdoor activities that have an adverse effect on the health and diversity of 

populations of natural organisms, and those that have little or no such impact.” 

Related to the assertion that only harmful public uses should be restricted, one respondent 

suggests that permitting only harmless uses would mean “hiking, skiing, snowshoeing, and 

not much else.” A significant number of respondents asserted that off-highway vehicle use—

legal and illegal—results in harm, and should be prohibited. 

Some respondents offer support for the general direction of the FWS preferred alternative or 

general confidence in the agency’s ability to sort things out. Some respondents ask the 

agency to monitor use and make appropriate judgments down the line, saying that the agency 

should continually evaluate relationship between recreational uses, ensure that all legal uses 

receive fair consideration and access, and minimize conflict. 

Refuge Access 

Again, many respondents argue for “access” to the Refuge Complex, by which they usually 

mean easy entrance for non-motorized recreation. While some respondents assert that certain 

specific activities (dog-walking, jogging, etc.) may negatively impact the refuge, most argue 

that non-motorized uses are harmless. 

Regarding infrastructure, some respondents request that the FWS eliminate the maximum 

number of trails and roads to protect wildlife. Some respondents assert that off-trail access 

should be by permit only. One respondent asks that access be limited where it may impact 

state-listed rare species, such as Blanding’s turtles, and argues that the FWS should survey 

for rare reptiles and amphibians before opening areas or new infrastructure for recreation 

access. 

According to one respondent, “It would be nice if one long trail could be paved for 

handicapped people in wheelchairs.” 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Summary of Comments 15 

Respondents provide many suggestions for specific access points and trails they would like 

to see developed. 

Fees 

A considerable number of respondents support fees for use of the Refuge Complex. As one 

respondent said at a public meeting, “They are great areas; I enjoy walking them a lot. I’d be 

happy to give somebody twenty bucks tonight to walk in them the rest of the year.” Some of 

those who support user fees hinge continued support on clear and appropriate local 

application of funds, or on fee levels remaining stable. 

A considerable number of respondents also oppose user fees at the refuge. Some respondents 

oppose fees based on their perception that the FWS is effectively double-dipping; quote one 

respondent, “We’ve already paid through taxes.” 

Respondents oppose user fees for a number of other reasons, arguing variously that fees will 

deter use (especially by low-income individuals) or alienate local residents and collaborators. 

Some perceive fees as a barrier, e.g.: “I am very much opposed to the plans for Great 

Meadows. This land has been use and enjoyed for many years, and I cannot fathom that 

access may be impeded by restricted hours and fees. The community benefits greatly from a 

refuge that is easily and freely accessible to all.” “It belongs to all of us,” another respondent 

writes, “not the few who are able to pay admission costs.” A number of respondents argue 

that fees change the nature of a recreational experience, e.g., “It destroys the soul of the 

experience.” 

With regard to both opposition to fees and concern about the proposed fee schedule, it is 

worth noting that a number of respondents appear unaware of or uninterested in the 

possibility of purchasing an annual pass instead of paying upon each entrance to the park. For 

some respondents, then, fees may appear deceptively exorbitant. 

With regard to fee schedules, several suggestions are advanced. Several respondents propose 

that local residents be exempted from fees. Some respondents suggest that volunteers receive 

free passes. A number of respondents suggest that hunting fees be higher than other entrance 

fees. Some respondents complain that a car full of hunters (for example) would be charged 

less for entrance than a family of bicyclists, and argue that non-motorized arrivals are less 

intrusive and solve parking problems, and should be admitted for lower charges than motor 

vehicles. One respondent suggests charging a parking fee, rather than an entrance fee. 

Several respondents request clarification of fee schedules, in one case asking whether there 

are any fee differences between Alternatives B and C, and in another asking whether a $15 

annual duck stamp wouldn’t obviate the need to pay $20 for an annual permit. 

Respondents also offer suggestions and concerns regarding the mechanics of fee collection 

and enforcement. A number of respondents argue that enforcement will be impractical and 

expensive, arguing that self-service doesn’t work and that all refuge entrances will have to be 

staffed. Likewise, a number of respondents question whether entrance gates will work in a 

refuge with as many porous boundaries between local residences and conservation land as 

the refuge has. Several respondents ask whether fee income will be outweighed by financial 

and goodwill costs, and ask the FWS to provide a detailed analysis of costs and benefits. 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Summary of Comments 16 

Hunting 

Hunting was the issue most frequently addressed in comments on the EMNWR CCP. The 

hunting issue most frequently raised by respondents was safety—many residents and 

recreationists fear that hunting will put them in danger. These responses merit close scrutiny, 

which follows in a section on public safety. However, many other issues were raised vis-à-vis 

hunting, and they will be discussed here. 

Hunting advocates 

Although lesser in number than those opposed to hunting, a number of both area residents 

and others voiced support for hunting on the Refuge. Some respondents assert that the 

purpose of refuges is conservation—not preservation—and that hunting should be allowed on 

all wildlife refuges. Others argue that hunting is plainly a wildlife-dependent activity, and 

one with important cultural and educational values. One respondent writes, “Hunting should 

also be recognized and allowed as a legitimate wildlife-dependent recreational activity. 

Pursuing wild game for sport and table fare is an American tradition as old as our country 

itself. Family bonds are forged and strengthened as parents pass on to their children valuable 

lessons in conservation and outdoor ethics. Hunting is a total wildlife-dependent experience 

that fosters an intimate knowledge of game and habitat and teaches a wide variety of 

wilderness skills.” 

Other respondents argue that sportsmen and women have “been the primary source of 

funding” for many conservation efforts, provide money to FWS, and therefore deserve entry 

to the refuge complex. Some respondents assert that hunters have been losing territory to 

development in northeast Massachusetts for decades, and argue that the refuge complex 

should, in fairness, and to relieve hunting pressure on other areas, be available. 

Addressing the issue of displacement, several respondents indicate that hunting does not 

impact other recreationists. As a typical respondent states, “If you're worried about 

compatibility issues on the river as to being able to share, I hunt the Sudbury River, and 

people go by in their kayaks, I don't shoot when they’re paddling by. I wave to them. They 

don't wave back, but I wave to them. I'm sitting there with my dog just, you know, letting 

them go on by.” 

Some hunting advocates also seek to allay safety concerns, arguing that hunting is an 

extremely safe sport. “Some local people have concerns about the opening of these areas to 

hunting. It is important to inform the public of the safeguards, rules and restrictions that will 

be associated with the harvest of resident wildlife. . . . If practiced safely hunting is no more 

dangerous than many other daily activities.” 

Some respondents (hunters and non-hunters alike) suggest that the Refuge permit bow 

hunting only, .e.g., “Once the abutters have an understanding of how close one must be to 

their quarry to execute a lethal shot, they will also understand that before a shot is made, and 

there is no question about what it is the archer is taking aim at. So there will be no mistaking 

a human or household pet for a deer. . . . It is not some beer-guzzling bubba sitting in wait for 

the first thing that moves but rather responsible people who have been through statemandated training in the sport of bow hunting and who are dedicated to the sport who wish 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Summary of Comments 17 

every hunt to be a safe incident free experience for themselves and anybody they share the 

woods with.” 

Respondents also offer suggestions for ensuring safe hunts, such as banning buckshot and 

limiting magazine capacity. Some respondents suggest using testing, expense, and the 

willingness of hunters to assist with Refuge goals to ensure that only a safe and ethical subset 

of hunters have access to the Refuge. 

Advocates of hunting also claim that hunting provides effective population control for 

nuisance species, arguing that waterfowl befoul water and recreation areas, and that deer 

cause traffic accidents, browse crops and ornamentals, and carry lyme disease-infected ticks. 

Hunters also assert that their activities are humane, asserting that overpopulation will be 

addressed either through lingering, painful deaths by starvation or disease, or through quick 

and painless execution. 

Some respondents support hunting but are concerned that access to Oxbow may be being 

increased too much, and ask that use be monitored and adjusted as necessary. Some 

respondents ask the agency to limit expansion to what can be handled by existing 

enforcement capability. Some respondents ask that waterfowl hunting at Oxbow include “the 

marshes and potholes,” as well as Hop Brook near the train tracks. One respondent urges that 

there be no limits on waterfowling. 

One respondent suggests that pheasant stocking continue at Oxbow, but not be expanded to 

Assabet. 

Opposition to hunting 

Opposition to hunting at the EMNWR is intense and widespread, at least within the subset of 

individuals who provided comment on the CCP. When respondents differentiate between 

game species, opposition to hunting turkey and grouse is common, but support for a limited 

deer hunt is more common. Leaving aside public safety, and the associated question of 

displacement, comments which question the wisdom of permitting (or expanding existing) 

fall into four broad categories: requests for additional analysis; concern over impacts; moral 

outrage; and concerns about iniquitous treatment of recreationists. 

Additional Analysis

Some respondents don’t plainly oppose hunting, but ask for additional analysis to justify and 

focus hunting. For example, one respondent says, “I am not in favor of hunting in that area 

unless it is required to control species that have no natural means of control, and justified by 

appropriate studies.” Some respondents suggest that hunting not be regarded as recreation, 

but as wildlife population management, and that therefore it should be utilized only where 

comprehensive biological surveys and analysis indicate it would be of value for biodiversity 

or habitat protection. These respondents argue that only species with real overpopulations 

should be hunted (and ask for hard evidence, rather than anecdotes of browsed ornamentals), 

excluding species—such as woodcocks—that appear to be in decline. Some respondents 

question whether scientific analysis will indicate that hunting in such a limited area will have 

real impacts on area populations. 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Summary of Comments 18 

Some respondents assert that the CCP inadequately analyzes the impact of hunting. 

Respondents request more data on the cost of ministering to hunters, on impacts on public 

safety, habitat, and species, and on methods of implementation. Some respondents ask the 

FWS to evaluate the economic impacts of hunting, positing that displacement of other 

recreationists’ results in negative impacts. Respondents ask for boundary clarifications and 

improved maps of available hunting areas. Respondents ask whether the agency has assessed 

its liability for hunting accidents. 

Connected with the sense that analysis is inadequate is the argument that the “cure” is 

inappropriate to the problem. Respondents suggest that beavers be controlled through nonlethal means, which they argue have been proven more effective than trapping. 

Impacts

Several respondents oppose hunting based on perceived impacts to other resources. As one 

respondent writes, “A great number of migratory birds rely on this sanctuary for breeding, as 

do many amphibians, reptiles, fish and mammals. Loud noise such as gun shot is known to 

interfere with breeding. Such interference seems in direct conflict with the intent of this land 

as sanctuary.” Numerous area residents complain that the sound of gun shots is aesthetically 

disturbing as well as frightening. 

Several respondents express concern about the impact of lead shot on wildlife and water 

quality. Several respondents argue that hunting off-trail with or without dogs will cause 

damage, and suggest that off-trail use be as limited for hunters as it is for other recreationists. 

Several respondents argue that many migratory birds are in decline, and ask that none be 

hunted. 

Moral objections

Comments from both area residents and apparent respondents to a campaign by animal rights 

organizations indicate revulsion at the idea of hunting, particularly on a national wildlife 

refuge. For example: “Of all the violent, destructive activities in the world, hunting is right 

up at the top of the list. I am really disgusted at these proposed changes, as is the rest of my 

family. We live very close to Great Meadows, and I'm sure that the last thing we want to hear 

in the middle of a peaceful Saturday afternoon is gunfire ripping though the air followed by 

the squeal of a helpless animal gasping its last breath.” Or: “Hunting, especially trapping, is 

an unnecessary and cruel attack on nature's innocent creatures. To permit people to entertain 

themselves by cruelly destroying the lives of other beings is unconscionable. Hatred, 

selfishness, and violence tear the world we live in today. Encouraging people to hunt and to 

kill does nothing to heal our wounds and move us toward a better world.” 

Respondents argue that hunting should not be permitted, because, they allege: it benefits a 

small constituency; fees for sportsmen and women are a minor part of overall conservation 

funding; hunters kill two animals for each they harvest, leaving the others to die suffering, 

lingering deaths; hunters present a danger to non-game species; in terms of population 

control, predators better select prey; hunting stresses wildlife. 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Summary of Comments 19 

Respondents are particularly angered by the idea of hunting on a refuge, which they perceive 

to be directly in conflict with the purpose and definition of a refuge. One typical respondent 

describes shooting wildlife on a wildlife refuge as “oxymoronic.” 

Iniquity 

A strong sentiment running through the comments is a sense that there is something 

inconsistent, unfair, and hypocritical about permitting hunting on the EMNWR while 

prohibiting activities such as dog-walking, jogging, and picnicking on the basis of their 

wildlife impacts. As one respondent writes, “It makes absolutely no sense to me that hunting 

will be allowed in the refuge, but dogs on leashes and bike riding will not be allowed. How in 

the world are dogs on leashes and people on bicycles considered dangerous to wildlife, yet 

people with guns are okay?” Or as a conservation group writes, “Inconsistent or arbitrary 

management of public use could lead to confusion and resentment. Why could someone who 

is hunting grouse have a dog (unleashed!) whereas non-hunters must leave their canine 

friends at home? Can a birdwatcher take along a sandwich, or is that considered picnicking? 

If the pace of a jogger spooks wildlife, then why can someone cross-country ski?” 

Many respondents assert that quiet recreation opportunities are rare, but that adequate 

hunting is already available. 

 

Hunting and Public Safety 

Many respondents argue that expanded hunting will threaten the safety of area residents and 

other recreationists. It is easiest to consider these comments in two categories: threats to 

people, and displacement of recreationists. 

Threats to people 

Many respondents, including many local residents, argue that a) they will feel unsafe if 

hunting is permitted on the Refuge, and b) that people or animals will be injured or killed by 

friendly fire. A typical comment: “I was brought up learning how to handle a gun, including 

shotguns, and remember going deer hunting with my father in Lincoln, Lexington and other 

towns west of Boston—albeit over 50 years ago. . . . Without prejudice one way or the other 

about the justification for hunting, I think the CCP fails to address the important issue of 

public safety and the dangers resulting to adjacent schools, roadways and homes in the 

Refuge area. Clearly, MetroWest is already too overbuilt to allow for the extended hunting 

proposed in the CCP.” Or: “I do not want to be shot hanging clothes in my back yard.” 

To protect visitors to other conservation lands, some respondents suggest that hunters be 

prohibited from using public access points to other lands (such as Foss Farm and Greenough 

Conservation lands). Local abutters and area residents are particularly concerned about stray 

or mistargeted bullets, and raise concerns regarding a number of specific sites such as the 

Maynard public school campus and the southern portion of the Sudbury unit. 

One respondent raises concerns regarding the resources local law enforcement will expend as 

a result of increased hunting: “As the Chief of Police in the Town of Billerica I am concerned 

about proposed hunting on and around the Concord River. This has been a safety and noise 

concern for residents of west Billerica for many years. I feel that this proposed change will 

increase these problems. Please take into consideration that this end of the refuge is a 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Summary of Comments 20 

populated area and hunting can pose safety risks. Additionally this will cause an influx of 

Police calls to the area to determine if hunters are on private property or refuge land. Does 

the plan have any contingency to compensate the town for this added use of resources?” 

Displacement 

Many respondents aver that they will be unable to use the Refuge during hunting season. One 

respondent asks that the FWS “Expand the Compatibility Determination analysis to include 

an assessment of recreational compatibility. This should include a determination that the 

conditions that motivated the past Refuge Manager to ban hunting have been alleviated.” 

Respondents argue that creating an exclusive use for significant portions of the year is unfair 

and unwise. Some respondents express significant concern for area recreationists over 

unmarked and porous boundaries between the Refuge, conservation land, and residences, 

particularly where hunters might go off-trail. A typical respondent writes, “I am also opposed 

to hunting, not for moral reasons, but for safety reasons. I and my dogs were the target of a 

hunter at Great Meadows several years ago. I had to hit the ground and crawl behind a tree 

for safety. He didn't see me, though when he heard me, he took off in a hurry.” 

Some respondents complain that hunting season occupies optimal use times for the Refuge, 

one respondent stating that no one uses refuges in summer because “the deer flies will kill 

you.” Several respondents think along similar lines, suggesting reduced hunting opportunities 

to permit other recreation: “Maybe hunting could be limited to a few weekends per season,” 

writes one, while another suggests a couple days of hunting per week. Another respondent 

suggests things would be better “if you had one or two hunting days where experienced 

hunters signed up to do a ‘cull’ if you could actually get them to kill sick, old and slow 

individuals instead of the healthiest, biggest and most impressive animals—and those days be 

highly publicized so innocent people wouldn't be hurt.” 

Some respondents suggest that the only safe course of action is to close the Refuge to other 

uses during hunting season. 

To alleviate these concerns, some respondents argue that hunting should only be done by 

professionals paid by the refuge for wildlife management: “If the refuge needs to use deadly 

force to carry out the mission, have that applied by trained professionals and not by anyone 

with ten bucks and a shotgun.” 

Several respondents mention the need to educate both hunters and area residents on the 

schedule and placement of legal hunting. Several respondents talk about the need to increase 

law enforcement to deal with increased hunting, and some assert that the Refuge’s record of 

successful interdiction of motorized trespass and vandalism indicates a current inability to 

enforce laws, and little confidence that hunting can be safely policed. 

Dogs and Public Safety 

A number of respondents offer intensely felt comments advocating continued use of dogs on 

the refuge as a matter of personal safety. These respondents, all women, state that prohibiting 

dogs effectively prohibits their use of the refuge, e.g., “I am a woman and very aware that 

when I am in the woods—I am an easy prey object for defective human types. I would never 

walk alone in the woods without my dog—a 120 pound dog at my side is a huge deterrent to 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Summary of Comments 21 

even trying something. I have been approached in the past by questionable behavior and my 

dog at that time did place himself between me and the man creeping up behind me. The man 

turned and left. By banning dogs on-leashes at Great Meadows you effectively ban all 

women.” 

Fishing 

With the exception of the occasional “let us fish anywhere we want,” most fishing comments 

are restricted to Puffer Pond on the Assabet River. There is considerable support for fishing 

on Puffer Pond, and for the proposal to do so, and some respondents argue that anglers 

infrequently transport invasives. 

There are also a number of respondents who request that fishing be prohibited on Puffer 

Pond. Respondents argue that anglers will disturb nesting birds, erode the shore, trample 

vegetation, bring in invasives, and drag boats through the refuge. As one respondent writes, 

“Little consideration has been given to the effect [fishing] would have upon Puffer Pond's 

habitat. The shoreline risking areas would gradually be expanded by use, destroying 

additional shoreline habitat and pond plants. Trash that is left behind such as beverage 

containers, fishing gear wrappers, tangled fish line in trees, on the ground and in the water, 

are a danger to birds, waterfowl, and other wildlife. How a shoreline fishing area would be 

made handicapped accessible is not discussed. Catch and release is an ideal fishing concept. 

However, it can prove to be fatal to many fish due to hook swallowing and extraction. 

Enforcement of catch and release will be difficult. Due to the small size of the pond, the 

popularity of fishing, and the high density of the area, the pond would soon be in danger of 

being greatly depleted. This rapid removal of fish would affect other wildlife populations that 

depend upon the pond for food. These would include the colony of great blue herons 

currently residing in the refuge near the pond, raccoon, and other water and fish dependent 

animals.” 

Respondents concerned about impacts to Puffer Pond, but not categorically opposed to 

fishing, suggest very limited shoreline access to the Pond, to reduce impacts, and in one case 

a prohibition on the use of treble hooks. One respondent offers extensive recommendations 

for minimizing the threat of invasives. 

Several respondents ask how the agency intends to adequately enforce restrictions and 

monitor impacts at Puffer Pond. 

Environmental Education 

A large majority of respondents who chose to address this section of the CCP support the 

environmental efforts and facilities proposed in Alternative B, advocating more 

environmental education for people of all ages. Several respondents encourage completion of 

the proposed Sudbury River interpretive canoe trail. Several respondents encourage the FWS 

to think bigger, and develop its educational plan in concert with other regional entities and 

efforts, such as a Sudbury-Concord River valley regional conservation study and education 

effort. One respondent urges that “a full-scale information/education center is included as 

part of the future considerations for the Oxbow. . . . The Oxbow is also significant because it 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Summary of Comments 22 

offers the additional opportunity for linkages with other state, private and town owned lands. 

And it is also situated in the center of the proposed Freedom's Way National Heritage Area.” 

One respondent urges the FWS to use the refuge principally for biological studies. 

With regard to facilities, one respondent is “very interested in the potential development of a 

visitor center in the area of Great Meadows NWR. We would like to explore any 

opportunities to increase the public understanding of the Sudbury, Assabet River and 

Concord Wild and Scenic Rivers within the educational materials and displays presented at 

the visitor center.” One respondent urges the FWS to continue historical tours: “These have 

been very popular and have provided a way by which some of Maynard's older residents can 

view the refuge. Several such tours a year would provide access to history and wildlife 

through use of a motorized van or bus.” 

One organization requests clarification on facilities development “The proposed management 

of public outreach is unclear. The only designated public outreach position is slotted for 

Great Meadows. Does this position support all three refuges, or Great Meadows, or the 

complex as a whole? Does this individual coordinate volunteer efforts and recruit volunteers 

for all three refuges, or Great Meadows, or the complex as a whole?” 

Some respondents complain that recreational restrictions undermine opportunities for 

education at the refuge, and urge that leashed dogs and off-trail nature study and photography 

be permitted. Several respondents urge the FWS to close some areas to hunting to permit 

educational tours in spring and fall.
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Summary of Comments 23 

Recreation 

Due to the refuge’s proximity to heavily populated areas, and an already existing recreational 

trail system, accessing the refuge for recreation is a major concern of many respondents. 

Some respondents even see the refuge as a sort of town park. Many local residents that 

responded did not expect restrictions on recreation when they supported FWS’s offer to buy 

the property. Others support the concept that wildlife sanctuary should be the priority, and 

use limitations should be imposed. 

Some respondents see access for recreation at the refuge as a means to an end: “Through 

controlled access to refuges you can create and sustain a community of citizens who will not 

only care for the refuges but also support the Fish and Wildlife Service in its struggle to 

maintain them.” 

Some respondents want the refuge to be used for quiet sports only, and ask that motors be 

prohibited to reduce noise, air and water pollution, erosion of soil, and to increase safety. As 

one respondent states, “I urge you to support making the refuge into a place where passive 

recreation can take place. By that I mean prohibiting motorized vehicles and hunting. The 

land is a treasure for hikers, bikers, runners, birdwatchers, nature lovers and, as such, should 

be preserved for this and future generations.” 

Snowmobiling 

Snowmobilers describe themselves as law-abiding recreationists that are respectful of others 

and wildlife. One local snowmobile club would like to establish a trail through the refuge, 

maintained by the club, for the club’s enjoyment. This club goes on to point out that 

snowmobiling will not harm the terrain or wildlife because snowmobiling usually occurs 

from the beginning of January to the beginning of April (at the latest) and only when there is 

a minimum of four inches of snow. Further, snowmobiling is already governed by 

Massachusetts laws requiring, among other things, that snowmobiles stay on the trail. 

Snowmobiling, the club concludes, is a traditional use in the area and ask the FWS to let 

snowmobilers use traditional trails. 

Jogging 

Joggers view the refuge as a safe, peaceful place to pursue their activity, and are confused as 

to why jogging would be banned. One respondent states that the refuge “. . . is a beautiful 

place to jog, particularly because it is one of the few off-road places with no early morning 

traffic. It would be shame if joggers were not allowed to use the paths of the Wildlife 

refuge.” Another respondent asserts that, “The joggers I’ve seen are respectful of walkers, 

seems inconsistent when hiking, snowshoeing, and cross-country skiing are allowed.” 

Another respondent writes: “If anyone ever asks, I guess I’ll just tell folks, ‘Oh no, I’m not 

running, I’m just hiking real fast.’” 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Summary of Comments 24 

Picnicking 

Picnicking is viewed by many respondents as a harmless past time that allows people to 

enjoy the refuge’s beauty. As one respondent puts it, “Is this really such a huge problem? On 

my daily walks I never see any trash along the trails. . . . What is so bad about taking a 

family, a lunch basket, and enjoying a couple of hours surrounded by nature?” These 

respondents ask the FWS to allow picnicking within the refuge. 

Bicycling 

Similar to jogging, many respondents assert that the refuge offers a safe, traffic-free 

environment for bicycling. These respondents also point out that bicycling is already an 

important component of the surrounding towns, and that many local residents have moved 

into the area because of its extensive town trail system. By not allowing bicycling in the 

refuge, FWS will be creating a gap in the local trail systems. For example, the nearby areas 

of the Stow Town Forest, the Sudbury State Forest, the Memorial Forest Reservation, and 

Desert Natural Area allow bicyclists on the trails. The addition of the refuge to this 

significant resource would yield excellent opportunities for exercise and enjoyment of the 

natural setting, by allowing cyclists to connect with other available areas. Therefore, 

respondents ask that the refuge acknowledge the local trail systems’ benefits by allowing 

responsible cyclists to use the refuge’s roads. Some cyclists are willing to be flexible as to 

when and where they can pursue their sport. One respondent suggests FWS provide signage 

to indicate allowed routes and speed limits to help restrict bicycling that may conflict with 

wildlife activities. Another proposes that the FWS set aside periods during the day when 

bicycling would be permitted. Others suggest allowing cycling on paved roads only. 

Other respondents aren’t as sympathetic to cyclists, and would like to see bicycles kept off 

the refuge. One respondent asserts that riding a bike is a poor way to observe wildlife, and 

that if the refuge allows cycling, many cyclists would speed through or venture off 

designated paths. 

Horseback Riding 

As with the cyclists, equestrians are concerned that not allowing horseback riding in the 

refuge will compromise access to other conservation/state/local forest trails immediately 

surrounding the refuge, such as the Stow Town Forest, Sudbury State Forest, Marlboro State 

Forest, Sudbury Conservation Land, and the Desert Memorial Forest. The refuge is located 

directly in the middle these properties, and presently corridors allow horseback riders to 

travel from one conservation land to another. Further, this group asserts that horseback riding 

has not impacted other uses in the aforementioned areas. These trail riders ask that the refuge 

be open to horseback riding, and that consideration be given to an access trail so riders may 

traverse the refuge to access other conservation areas. Another respondent asks FWS to work 

with various trail riding and breed organizations in Massachusetts, to establish a horseback 

riding plan that serves the needs of wildlife and those who enjoy nature from horseback. 

Further, the Bay State Trail Riders offer to help with the maintenance of any connector trails 

with volunteer work days and funds if necessary. 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Summary of Comments 25 

Some respondents point out the economic benefits of horseback riding, stating that equine 

activities are engaged in by a large number of Massachusetts citizens and also make a 

significant contribution to the Massachusetts economy. For example, they assert that equine 

agriculture provides over $200 million per year in direct spending into the Massachusetts 

economy, over 5,000 jobs and more than $13.2 million in state and local tax revenues. 

Limiting horseback riding would harm the economy. 

Equestrians state that they oppose expansion of the refuge’s boundaries as long as it limits 

horseback riding. 

Dog-Walking 

Many respondents assert that given the popularity and demand for areas to walk dogs, and 

the fact that parts of the refuge have been used responsibly for decades by dog-walkers; FWS 

should make part of the refuge available for this pastime. These dog walking enthusiasts 

request that leashed dog-walking be allowed on refuge trails in appropriate areas, and that 

strict fines are in place for anyone releasing a dog or failing to pick up after their animal. 

Others are willing to allow an exclusion of dogs during the most sensitive times, when 

wildlife surveys identify an impact on nesting birds or other animal life. Many of these 

respondents view dog-walking as meditative and a way of connecting to the natural beauty of 

the earth, something that is consistent with refuge goals. These respondents assert that 

without substantial evidence that dog-walkers are threatening the integrity of the refuge it is 

unjust and an act of discrimination to prohibit dog-walking. On the other hand, one 

respondent would like to see dogs banned from the refuge, stating that many dog owners 

don’t obey leash rules to the detriment of wildlife, and further, even on a leash dogs frighten 

animals. 

Birdwatching 

Birdwatchers and nature photographers are concerned that they will be confined strictly to 

trails when observing wildlife, while hunters would not. If hunters are allowed off trail, they 

assert, birders should be allowed off trail as well. 

Trapping 

Some respondents ask that the Refuge be open to beaver and muskrat trapping, asserting that 

modern traps are instant and humane, and arguing that small game threatens children, pets, 

and livestock, and that beavers “cause extensive property damage.” 

Some respondents ask whether and under what circumstances which furbearers could be 

trapped, and what constitutes an invasive species and appropriate control methods. 

Some respondents oppose trapping on the grounds that it is inhumane; other respondents 

perceive trapping as ham-fisted interference in natural systems that function best on their 

own.
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Summary of Comments 26 

Socioeconomic Concerns 

Several respondents applaud Alternative B for helping to make Maynard a “destination.” One 

respondent requests permission to graze in the Oxbow unit, and one requests continued 

cooperative farming. 

Several area residents request development of an “abutter policy,” without clearly 

articulating what the components of such a policy would be. 

Several respondents urge consideration of impacts to area parking, specifically at Monsen 

Road at Great Meadows, and at the east gate of Assabet River off Old Marlborough Road. 

Some respondents are concerned about refuse at entry points. 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Appendix B: Coding Structure and Demographic Codes A-1 

Appendix A 

Coding Structure and Demographic Codes

Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA 

Header Information 

Coders will identify organization type, number of signatures, response type and delivery type 

on all letters by filling in the proper box. Use CIC (Common Interest Class) field only if this 

information is requested by the Administration. Fill in additional fields when necessary. 

Header Order: MID, OT, S, and RT, and DT fields are required. IA, UT, LG, F, CIC, RI,

and CE fields are optional fields and used only where necessary. The TS (Total Signatures) 

field will tally automatically in Oracle. A stamp containing these fields will be placed on the 

working copy. 

 

MID OT S RT DT IA UT LG F CIC RI CE TS 

Mail Identification (MID) 

The Mail Identification number is a unique respondent number assigned in the CAET Oracle 

Program. The Oracle form contains mailing information needed to create mailing labels and 

obtain project specific demographic information about a respondent. 

Organization Types (OT) 

The Organization Type code identifies a specific type of organization, association, 

government agency, elected official, or individual. 

Government Agencies and Elected Officials 

F Federal Agency 

N International Government/International Government Association 

S State Government Agency/Elected Official/Association 

C County Government Agency/Elected Official /Association 

T Town/City Government Agency/Elected Official/Association 

Q Tribal Government/Elected Official/Tribal Member/Association 

E Government Employees Organizations/Unions 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Appendix B: Coding Structure and Demographic Codes A-2 

FW Fish Wildlife Service Employee 

XX Regional/other governmental agency (multi-jurisdictional) 

Business and Industry 

A Agriculture Industry or Associations (Farm Bureaus, Animal Feeding) 

B Business (my/our, Chamber of Commerce) 

G Range/Grazing Orgs and Permittees 

HT Hunting/trapping Industry or Org 

M Mining Industry/Assn (locatable) 

O Energy Industry (Oil, Gas, Coal, Pipeline) 

U Utility Group or Org (water, electrical, gas) 

L Timber or Wood Products Industry/Assn 

Other Organizations 

AD Academic 

AR Animal Rights 

CH Church/Religious Groups 

D Placed Based Groups (Multi-issue, focused on a specific region—i.e., QLG) 

H Consultants/legal representatives 

J Civic Organizations (Kiwanis, Elks, Community Councils) 

K Special Use Permittees (Outfitters, Concessions, Ski Areas) 

P Preservation/Conservation Organization 

PA Professional Association/Society 

QQ Tribal Non-Governmental Organization/Member 

RB Mechanized Recreation (bicycling) 

RC Recreational/Conservation (Trout Unlimited, Elk Foundation, Ducks Unlimited) 

RM Recreational - Motorized 

RN Recreational - Non-Motorized (hiking, biking, horseback riding) 

SC All Schools 

X Conservation Districts 

Y Other (Organization with an indecipherable focus—i.e., Ice Cream Socialist Party) 

Z Multiple Use/Wise Use 

Unaffiliated 

I Unaffiliated Individual or Unidentifiable Respondent 

Number of Signatures (S) 

The number of signatures is the total count of names associated with a mail identification 

(Mail ID) number. The procedure for determining the number of signatures for a Mail ID 

number is consistent across all response types. In other words, letters, forms, and other types 

will be treated the same for determining the number of signatures. Each individual name 

associated with one Mail ID is counted as one signature. When a Mail ID has an incomplete 

name associated with it, such as an anonymous letter or an email address, it is counted as one 

signature. Mr. and Mrs. X are counted as two signatures. 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Appendix B: Coding Structure and Demographic Codes A-3 

Response Type (RT) 

The Response Type identifies the specific format of correspondence. 

1 Letter 

2 Form or Letter Generator 

3 Resolution 

4 Action Alert 

5 Transcript (dictated Audio, Video, Telephone response) 

Delivery Types and Descriptions (DT) 

The Delivery Type identifies the method of delivery for the correspondence. 

E Email 

F Fax 

H Hand-delivered/oral testimony (personally delivered) 

M Mail or commercial carrier (includes video, audio, letter format) 

T Telephone 

U Unknown 

User Type (UT) 

The User Type identifies the purpose for which an individual, organization, or agency uses 

public lands/refuge. 

A Area Residents 

B Businesses and Services 

D Dog Walkers 

E Environmental Educational 

K Bikers 

F Anglers 

H Hikers 

P Photographers 

W Non-motorized Recreation 

M Motorized Recreation 

S Horseback Riding 

T Hunters 

X Non-identifiable 

Early Attention (IA) 

Early Attention codes are applied only to those documents requiring an early response from 

the ID team. The Early Attention codes are listed in order of priority. If more than one code 

applies to a single document, the code with the highest priority is attached. 

1 Threat of harm – Any response that threatens physical harm to administration, 

agency, or project personnel. 

2 Notice of appeal or litigation – Any response that describes the respondents' intent 

to appeal an action or bring legal suit against the agency. 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Appendix B: Coding Structure and Demographic Codes A-4 

3 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests – Any response that officially 

requests information and documentation under the FOIA. 

4 Provides proposals for new alternatives – Any response that suggests a new 

alternative to the proposed action. These do not include critiques of alternatives or 

partial changes of existing alternatives. 

5 Requires detailed review – Any response that requires detailed review. These 

responses may include detailed scientific or technical analysis, or significant 

enclosures. 

5A Provides extensive technical edits – includes extensive use of lined out text, 

suggestions to delete text, and/or replace text. 

5M Provides maps – Any response that includes map enclosures. 

6 Government entities – Any response from an elected official, writing in his/her 

official capacity, representing a Federal, State, county, or municipal government. 

Also includes official correspondence from any government agency. 

6A Requests for cooperating agency status from a government entity. 

7 Public hearing – Any response that requests a public hearing. 

Information Request (RI) 

Information Request codes are applied only to those documents with specific requests for 

information pertaining to the proposal. 

A Mailing List Only/Nothing to Code 

B Request to be Removed from the Mailing List 

C Request for Copy of Federal Register Notice 

D General Request for Other Information 

E Request for Confirmation of Receipt of Letter 

Comment Extension Request (CE) 

Comment Extension codes are used when a respondent has a specific request for extending 

the comment period. 

0 Request to Extend the Comment Period 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November, 2003 

Appendix C: Demographics A-1 

Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA 

The coding structure is a topical outline with alpha and numeric codes attached. It is a tool to 

identify public comments and sort them into recognizable topic categories. Once comments 

are assigned codes, they are then entered into a database from which they can be reported and 

sorted in any combination needed for analysis. 

The coding structure is organized into required fields called subject and category codes. 

Subject codes are five-character alpha codes that represent broad themes associated with a 

project. Category codes are five-digit numeric codes that define specific subtopics within 

each subject code, and they are generally arranged from the general to specific with 

subcategories nested within categories. 

PLANN (Subject Code) - Introduction - Chapter 1 and 

Coordination with Others - Chapter 5 

10000 (Category Code) Planning Process and Policy 

10100 Timeframes for planning/Length of comment period (adequacy of, timing)

10200 Public Involvement (General strategies, methods & techniques, collaborative 

efforts, pre-EIS/CCP consultation)

10300 Scoping (General comments, planning before the EIS) 

10400 Relationship to other planning processes (Conflicts with other area projects, 

general planning)

10500 Statutory Authority (Compliance with laws and regulations; general references to/ 

violations of NEPA, APA, NFMA, Planning Regs. For resource-specific regulations, 

code to resource)

10600 Science/Resource-Based Decision-Making (Use of science in Decisionmaking; 

general references to use of science and scientific documents)

10700 Budgetary Ramifications (References to the cost of implementing the proposed 

rule, project funding)

10800 Agency Organization, Structure and Staffing (General comments not specific 

to project, includes trust and integrity issues)

10810 Trust and Integrity 

10900 Coordination & Consultation (Interagency, State, Private, Tribal)

11100 Clarity/organization of planning documents 

11200 Technical and Editorial Comments 

12000 Purpose and Need (General references to the purpose and need of the CCP/EA and needs for 

further analysis; if specific, code to the resource).

12100 Project Area (Scope of project)

12200 Proposed Action/ Decision to be Made (What it should/should not include)
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November, 2003 

Appendix C: Demographics A-2 

12300 Range of Issues Identified through Public Scoping (General; Comments 

specific to resource areas go to AFFEC)

12400 Issues and Concerns Considered Outside the Scope of This Analysis 

12500 Permits and Agency Approvals Required 

12600 Guiding Policy for Public Lands (General land management philosophies)

ALTER - Alternatives - Chapter 2 

13000 Alternatives (Comments that simply vote, without rationale) 

13100 Alternative A: Current Management (General comments not specific to a 

resource; Assumptions made in the analysis)

13200 Alternative B: Proposed Action 

13300 Alternative C 

13400 Formulating Alternatives (Issues used, Design criteria, Development, etc.)

13500 Features common to all Alternatives 

13600 Features common to Action Alternatives only (B & C) 

13700 Alternatives Considered But Not Given Detailed Study (Same as eliminated 

alternatives)

13800 Range/Comparison of Alternatives (General comments, adequacy of range; I 

like A &C better than B)

13900 New Alternatives (Support for or recommendation for a new one)

13910 Alternative Matrices (Including Map comments and references) 

AFFEC - Affected Environment - Chapter 3, and 

Environmental Consequences - Chapter 4 

14000 Physical, Biological, and Socio-Economic Resources (general 

Climate comments, extensive lists) 

15000 Geology/Topography 

15100 Analysis of Existing Conditions and Need for Further Analysis 

15200 General Management Direction (including other Management Impacts on this 

Resource)

15300 Cumulative Impacts 

15400 Mitigation and Monitoring 

16000 Soils 

16100 Analysis of Existing Conditions and Need for Further Analysis 

16200 General Management Direction (including other Management Impacts on this 

Resource) 

16300 Cumulative Impacts 

16400 Mitigation and Monitoring 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November, 2003 

Appendix C: Demographics A-3 

17000 Hydrology 

17100 Analysis of Existing Conditions and Need for Further Analysis 

17200 General Management Direction (including other Management Impacts on this 

Resource) 

17300 Cumulative Impacts 

17400 Mitigation and Monitoring 

18000 Air Quality 

18100 Analysis of Existing Conditions and Need for Further Analysis 

18200 General Management Direction (including other Management Impacts on this 

Resource)

18300 Cumulative Impacts 

18400 Mitigation and Monitoring 

19000 Water Quality 

19100 Analysis of Existing Conditions and Need for Further Analysis 

19200 General Management Direction (including other Management Impacts on this 

Resource)

19300 Cumulative Impacts 

19400 Mitigation and Monitoring 

20000 Vegetation and Habitat Types 

20100 Analysis of Existing Conditions and Need for Further Analysis 

20200 General Management Direction (including other Management Impacts on this 

Resource)

20300 Forested and Shrub Dominated Wetlands 

20400 Vernal Pools and Ponds 

20500 Bordering Communities (Uplands, Marshes, Swamps) 

20600 Invasive or Overabundant Species 

20700 Cumulative Impacts 

20800 Mitigation and Monitoring 

21000 Wildlife and Fisheries 

21100 Analysis of Existing Conditions and Need for Further Analysis 

(Fencing) 

21200 General Management Direction (including other Management Impacts on this 

Resource; general habitat comments. 

21300 Migratory Birds 

21400 Mammals 

21500 Reptiles and Amphibians 

21600 Fisheries 

21700 Invertebrates 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November, 2003 

Appendix C: Demographics A-4 

21800 Cumulative Impacts 

21900 Mitigation and Monitoring 

22000 Cultural Resources and Special Designations (focus areas) 

22100 Analysis of Existing Conditions and Need for Further Analysis 

22200 General Management Direction (including other Management Impacts on this 

Resource)

22210 Land Acquisitions 

22300 Refuge Buildings and Facilities 

22400 Refuge Administration and Staffing 

22410 Volunteers 

22420 Enforcement 

22500 Wild & Scenic River Plan / Designation 

22600 Cumulative Impacts 

22700 Mitigation and Monitoring 

23000 Priority Public Uses 

23100 Analysis of Existing Conditions and Need for Further Analysis 

23200 General Management Direction (including other Management Impacts on this 

Resource)

23210 Access 

23220 Fees 

23230 Passes and Permits 

23240 Visitor Safety 

23241 Hunting 

23242 Dog Walking 

23300 Hunting (If safety concern, code to 23241)

23310 Big and Upland Game Hunting 

23320 Migratory Bird Hunting 

23400 Fishing 

23500 Wildlife Observation and Photography 

23600 Environmental Education and Interpretation 

23610 Natural and Cultural History Tours 

23620 Outreach for Public Awareness 

23700 Cumulative Impacts 

23800 Mitigation and Monitoring 

24000 Recreation and Other Opportunities 

24100 Analysis of Existing Conditions and Need for Further Analysis 

24200 General Management Direction (including other Management Impacts on this 

Resource) 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November, 2003 

Appendix C: Demographics A-5 

24300 Motorized Recreation 

24310 Snowmobiling 

24400 Non-Motorized Recreation 

24410 Snowshoeing / X-Country Skiing 

24420 Walking/Jogging 

24430 Picnicking 

24440 Biking 

24450 Horseback Riding 

24460 Dog-Walking, general (if safety concern, code to 23242)

24470 Bird Watching 

24500 Cumulative Impacts 

24600 Mitigation and Monitoring 

25000 Socio-Economic Resources 

25100 Analysis of Existing Conditions and Need for Further Analysis 

25200 General Management Direction (including other Management Impacts on this 

Resource)

25300 Population and Demographic Conditions 

25400 Schools 

25500 Neighboring Communities 

25510 Infrastructure (Roads, Plazas, Utility Corridors, etc.) 

25520 Revenue Sharing 

25600 Cumulative Impacts 

25700 Mitigation and Monitoring 

26000 Appendices (General Comments and Technical/Editorial)

ATTMT – Attachments 

27000 [Attachment No., Title, Author’s name] 

Site Specific 1 

The Site Specific 1 code is an up to four digit alpha/numeric comment specific code. For this 

project, the alpha-code is used to indicate which refuge the comment addresses. 

A Assabet River NWR 

G Great Meadows NWR 

O Oxbow NWR 

X Multiple NWRs/Null 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November, 2003 

Appendix C: Demographics B-6 

Appendix B 

Demographics

Demographic coding allows managers to form an overall picture of who is submitting 

comments, where they live, their general affiliation with various organizations or government 

agencies, and the manner in which they respond. The database can be used to isolate specific 

combinations of information about public comment. For example, a report can include public 

comment only from people in Massachusetts or a report can identify specific types of land 

users such as recreational groups, agricultural organizations, or businesses. Demographic 

coding allows managers to focus on specific areas of concern linked to respondent categories, 

geographic areas, and response types. 

Although demographic information is captured and tracked, it is important to note that the 

consideration of public comment is not a vote-counting process. Every comment and 

suggestion has value, whether expressed by one or a thousand respondents. All input is 

considered, and the analysis team attempts to capture all relevant public concerns in the 

analysis process. The Content Analysis Team processed 1,907 responses. Because 28 

responses are duplicates, the team entered 1,882 responses into the database representing 

1,959 signatures, for the Draft CCP/EA. 

In the tables displayed below, please note that demographic figures are given for number of 

responses, respondents, and signatures. For the purposes of this analysis, the following 

definitions apply: “response” refers to a discrete piece of correspondence; “respondent” 

refers to each individual or organization to whom a mail identification number is assigned 

(e.g., a single response may represent several organizations without one primary author); and 

“signature” simply refers to each individual who adds his or her name to a response, 

endorsing the view of the primary respondent(s). 

Geographic Representation 

Geographic representation is tracked for each response during the course of content analysis. 

Letters and emails were received from 49 of the United States, the District of Columbia, and 

one foreign country. The response format did not reveal geographic origin for 102 

respondents. 

Table C1 - Geographic Representation of Respondents by Country and State 

Country State Number of 

Respondents 

Number of 

Signatures 

Costa Rica 1 1 

United States Alabama 9 9 

 Alaska 2 2 

 Arizona 22 22 

 Arkansas 6 6 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November, 2003 

Appendix C: Demographics B-7 

Country State Number of 

Respondents 

Number of 

Signatures 

 California 201 208 

 Colorado 16 16 

 Connecticut 19 19 

 Delaware 1 1 

 District of Columbia 4 6 

 Florida 63 65 

 Georgia 16 16 

 Hawaii 4 4 

 Idaho 2 2 

 Illinois 45 45 

 Indiana 16 16 

 Iowa 3 3 

 Kansas 10 10 

 Kentucky 4 4 

 Lousiana 7 7 

 Maine 8 9 

 Maryland 36 39 

 Massachusetts 710 752 

 Michigan 30 32 

 Minnesota 21 21 

 Mississippi 2 2 

 Missouri 17 17 

 Montana 2 2 

 Nebraska 2 3 

 Nevada 12 12 

 New Hampshire 16 16 

 New Jersey 35 38 

 New Mexico 6 6 

 New York 110 111 

 North Carolina 28 29 

 Ohio 30 31 

 Oklahoma 6 6 

 Oregon 14 14 

 Pennsylvania 58 60 

 Rhode Island 10 10 

 South Carolina 13 14 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November, 2003 

Appendix C: Demographics B-8 

Country State Number of 

Respondents 

Number of 

Signatures 

 South Dakota 1 1 

 Tennessee 8 8 

 Texas 68 69 

 Utah 6 6 

 Vermont 6 6 

 Virginia 19 20 

 Washington 29 29 

 West Virginia 5 5 

 Wisconsin 21 21 

 Wyoming 2 2 

 Unidentified 102 106 

 Total 1,884 1,959 

Organizational Affiliation 

Responses were received from various organizations and unaffiliated individuals. 

Respondents include conservation organizations, wood products associations, as well as 

unaffiliated individuals and others. Organization types were tracked for each response. 

Table C2 - Number of Respondents/Signatures by Organizational Affiliation 

Organization 

Field 

Organization Type Number of 

Respondents 

Number of 

Signatures 

AR Animal Rights 5 7 

B Business 1 1 

D Place-Based Group 6 6 

F Federal Agency/Elected Official 2 2 

HT Hunting/Trapping Organization 8 8 

I Unaffiliated Individual or Unidentifiable Respondent 1,820 1,885 

J Civic Organization 2 2 

P Preservation/Conservation Organization 14 14 

RB Recreational – Mechanized 1 1 

RC Recreational – Conservation Organization 2 2 

RM Recreational - Motorized 2 2 

RN Recreational – Non-motorized/Non-mechanized 2 2 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November, 2003 

Appendix C: Demographics B-9 

Organization 

Field 

Organization Type Number of 

Respondents 

Number of 

Signatures 

S State Government Agency 6 6 

SC Schools 1 1 

T Town/City Government Agency/Elected Official 12 20 

Total 1,884 1,959 

Response Type 

Response types were tracked for each response received on the project. Responses were 

received as letters and public meeting transcripts. 

Table C3 - Number of Responses/Signatures by Response Type 

Response Type # Response Type Number of 

Responses 

Number of Signatures 

1 Letter 497 543 

2 Form 1,334 1,365 

5 Transcript 51 51 

Total 1,882 1,959 

Delivery Type 

Delivery types were tracked for each response received on the project. Responses were 

received as email, fax, hand-delivered, standard mail, and one telephone call. Delivery type 

was not revealed for 11 responses. 

Table C4 - Number of Responses/Signatures by Delivery Type 

Delivery Type Code Delivery Type Number of 

Responses 

Number of Signatures 

E Email 1,630 1,677 

F Fax 1 1 

H Hand-delivered 67 67 

M Mail or commercial carrier 172 202 

T Telephone 1 1 

U Unknown 11 11 

Total 1,882 1,959 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November, 2003 

Appendix C: Demographics B-10 

User Type 

User type was tracked for each response received on the project. User types include anglers, 

bikers, area residents, dog walkers, photographers and others. 

Table C5 - Number of Responses/Signatures by User Type 

User Type Code User Type Number of 

Responses 

Number of Signatures 

A Area Residents 202 220 

B Businesses and Services 1 2 

D Dog Walkers 14 15 

E Environmental Education 2 2 

F Anglers 2 2 

H Hikers 19 23 

K Bikers 7 7 

M Motorized Recreation 3 3 

P Photographers 2 2 

S Horseback Riding 25 26 

T Hunters 39 39 

W Non-motorized Recreation 8 8 

X No Identifiable Type 1,558 1,610 

Total 1,882 1,959 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November, 2003 

Appendix D: Early Attention Letters C-1 

Appendix C 

Early Attention Letters

The early attention designation is attached to public responses in the content analysis 

database for a variety of reasons. Our intent is to identify responses that fall into certain key 

categories, such as threats of litigation or comments from government officials, etc. These 

designations alert the project team members to public concerns or inquiries that may require 

an agency response or may necessitate detailed project team review for policy, political, or 

legal reasons. 

The early attention designated responses are primarily intended for an internal audience. The 

categories of responses selected are designed to meet project team needs. This report is not 

intended to, nor should it be construed to, obviate the need to review all responses. 

CAT identified seven early attention categories. The relevant designations are outlined below 

and followed by report tables. 

1 Threat of harm – Any response that threatens physical harm to administration, 

agency, or project personnel. 

2 Notice of appeal or litigation – Any response that describes the respondents' intent 

to appeal an action or bring legal suit against the agency. 

3 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests – Any response that officially 

requests information and documentation under the FOIA. 

4 Provides proposals for new alternatives – Any response that suggests a new 

alternative to the proposed action. These do not include critiques of alternatives or 

partial changes of existing alternatives. 

5 Requires detailed review – Any response that requires detailed review. These 

responses may include detailed scientific or technical analysis, or significant 

enclosures. 

5A Provides extensive technical edits – includes extensive use of lined out text, 

suggestions to delete text, and/or replace text. 

5M Provides maps – Any response that includes map enclosures. 

6 Government entities – Any response from an elected official, writing in his/her 

official capacity, representing a Federal, State, county, or municipal government. 

Also includes official correspondence from any government agency. 

6A Request for cooperating agency status from a government entity. 

7 Public hearing – Any response that requests a public hearing. 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November, 2003 

Appendix D: Early Attention Letters C-2 

Table D1 – (4) Proposes a New Alternative 

Letter 

Number 

Name and 

Address 

Remarks 

41 Bette Stallman, Wildlife Scientist 

Linda Huebner, Program Coordinator 

Humane Society of the United States 

New England Regional Office 

2100 L St. NW 

Washington, DC 20037 

Respondent requests that the USFWS prohibit hunting 

and trapping in wildlife refuges. Respondent requests 

the inclusion of an alternative that emphasizes nonconsumptive land uses. 

Table D2 – (6) Government Entities 

Letter 

Number 

Name and 

Address 

Remarks 

97 Brenda Kelly 

Conservation Commission 

Chair 

10 Mudge Way 

Bedford, MA 01730-2144 

Respondent expresses concern for resident safety with 

regard to nearby hunting and asks the USFWS to 

address this issue. 

98 Tricia Smith 

Carlisle Conservation Commission 

Chair 

P.O. Box 827 

66 Westford Street 

Carlisle, MA 01741 

Respondent expresses concern for public safety from 

proposed hunting on USFWS land. Also, respondent 

expresses concern regarding access for hunters across 

private land. 

99 Ann Thompson 

Maynard Board of Selectmen 

Chair 

Municipal Building 

195 Main Street 

Maynard, MA 01754 

Respondent requests additional allowed uses of the 

refuge and encourages consistency with local planning 

processes. 

100 Maureen Valente 

Town Manager 

288 Old Sudbury Road 

Sudbury, MA 10776-1843 

Respondent encourages increased refuge use for passive 

recreation activities; no hunting with firearms; and 

additional law enforcement. 

101 Brian Monahan 

Wayland Conservation Commission 

Conservation Administrator 

Town Building 

41 Cochituate Road 

Wayland MA 01778 

Respondent requests no, or strictly regulated hunting in 

the refuge. Respondent also encourages the USFWS to 

increase its number of staff. 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November, 2003 

Appendix D: Early Attention Letters C-3 

Letter 

Number 

Name and 

Address 

Remarks 

102 John Dwyer 

Maynard Conservation Commission 

4 Durant Ave 

Maynard, MA 01754 

Respondent expresses concern regarding hunting 

impacts on public safety, wildlife populations, and other 

recreation activities. 

103 Pamela Resor 

Massachusetts Senate 

State Senator 

District Office 

P.O. Box 1110 

Marlborough, MA 01752 

Respondent discourages hunting and trapping in the 

refuge. 

104 Susan Pope 

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

House of Representatives 

State Representative 

State House, Boston 02133-1020 

Respondent requests that hunting not be allowed in the 

refuge for safety and environmental reasons. Also, 

respondent discourages the USFWS from charging user 

fees. 

106 Kathleen Farrell 

Board of Selectmen 

Chair 

380 Great Road 

Stow, MA 01775 

Respondent requests expansion of the proposed refuge 

acquisition boundary. Respondent also requests 

limitations on hunting as well as increased law 

enforcement for hunting activities. 

108 Priscilla Ryder 

Conservation Commission 

Conservation Officer 

140 Main Street 

Marlborough, MA 01752 

Respondent encourages expansion of the proposed 

refuge acquisition boundary, increased law enforcement 

for unauthorized land use, and public education 

regarding the proposed introduction of hunting to the 

refuge. 

109 William Galvin 

Massachusetts Historical Commission 

Secretary of the Commonwealth 

Massachusetts Archives Building 

220 Morrissey Boulevard 

Boston, MA 02125 

Respondent commends the proposed Draft CCP’s 

compliance with Section 6 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966. 

110 Wayne MacCallum 

Division of Fisheries and Wildlife 

Director 

Respondent expresses concern for rare, threatened, and 

endangered species in the refuge, and encourages the 

USFWS to update species information. 

111 Anne Gagnon 

Conservation Commission 

Conservation Administrator 

Respondent encourages expansion of the proposed 

refuge acquisition boundary, and increased staffing to 

decrease user conflicts. 

105 Charlie Gorss 

Conservation Commission 

Chair 

Respondent supports proposed Alternative B. 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November, 2003 

Appendix D: Early Attention Letters C-4 

Letter 

Number 

Name and 

Address 

Remarks 

407 Patricia Perry 

Conservation Commission 

Administrative Assistant 

380 Great Road 

Stow, MA 01775 

Respondent encourages expansion of the proposed 

refuge acquisition boundary, discourages hunting within 

the refuge, and encourages coordination of refuge 

management with local communities. 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November, 2003 

Appendix E: Information Requests D-1 

Appendix D 

Information Requests

Requests for additional information, excluding Freedom of Information Act requests, are 

presented in this appendix. CAT identified five information request categories. The relevant 

designations are outlined below and followed by report tables. In addition, requests for 

extension of the comment period are displayed below. 

A Mailing List Only/Nothing to Code 

B Request to be Removed from the Mailing List 

C Request for Copy of Federal Register Notice 

D General Request for Other Information 

E Request for Confirmation of Receipt of Letter 

Table E1 – (D) General Requests for Information 

Letter 

Number 

Name and 

Address 

Remarks 

4 Kate Wheeler 

Maynard Open Space Planning Committee 

Chair 

31 Harrison St 

Maynard, MA 01754 

Respondent requests specific agency response to the 

Committee’s concerns and notification of the final 

documents release. 

18 Bonnie and John Chandler 

183 Prospect Hill Road 

Harvard, MA 01451 

Respondents request information on leasing part of the 

cow field across from their house for sheep and goat 

grazing. 

117 Daniel Cassidy 

danc@arguscl.com 

Respondent requests a copy of the Draft CCP and EA, 

and would like to be notified of any public hearings on 

the subject. 

132 Edmund Schofield 

P.O. Box 598 

Boylston, MA 01505-0598 

Respondent requests hard copy of the Draft CCP and 

EA. 

200 John Dwyer 

mjohn.dwyer@verizon.net 

Respondent requests Lindsay Krey’s email address. 

307 Jason Hetherington 

hetherjw@yahoo.com 

Respondent requests online links to information 

regarding the proposed project. 

342 David Stepp 

69 Peabody Dr. 

Stow, MA 01775 

Respondent requests information regarding proposed 

types of hunting and seasons for the refuge. 

353 Sally Hewitt 

Sarah.Hewitt@Simonandschuster.com 

Respondent requests notification regarding meetings or 

plans about bicycling in the Assabet River NWR. 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November, 2003 

Appendix E: Information Requests D-2 

Table E2 – (E) Request for Confirmation of Receipt 

Letter 

Number 

Name and 

Address 

Remarks 

374 Steve Parker 

109 Moore Road 

Sudbury, MA 01776 

Respondent requests confirmation of receipt 

of letter. 

Table E3 – Requests for Comment Period Extension 

Letter 

Number 

Name and 

Address 

Remarks 

13 Michael Ojemann 

Great Meadows Neighborhood Association 

153 Monsen Road 

Concord, MA 01742 

Respondent requests extension of comment 

period, no specific length of time specified. 

69 Hope Luder 

5 Edgehill Road 

Billercia, MA 01862 

Respondent requests extension of comment 

period, no specific length of time specified. 

138 Kathleen Farrell 

267 Sudbury Road 

Stow, MA 01775 

Respondent requests extension of comment 

period, no specific length of time specified. 

121 Louise Berliner 

Strongwhitepine@aol.com 

Respondent requests extension of comment 

period, no specific length of time specified. 

232 Rob Aldape 

Joropab1@mac.com 

Respondent requests extension of comment 

period, no specific length of time specified. 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November, 2003 

Appendix F: Organized Response Report E-1 

Appendix E 

Organized Response Report

Organized response campaigns (forms) represent 70 percent (1,334 of 1,907) of the total 

responses received during the public comment period for the proposal. 

Forms are defined as five or more responses, received separately, but containing nearly 

identical text. Once a form is identified, a “form master” is entered into the database with all 

of the content information. All responses with matching text are then linked to this master 

form within the database with a designated “form number.” If a response does not contain all 

of the text presented in a given form, it is entered as an individual letter. Duplicate responses 

from four or fewer respondents are also entered as individual letters. 

Table F1 – Description and Number of Signatures for Each Form 

Number of 

Form 

Number of 

Signatures 

Description of Form 

1 11 FWS should reconsider the determination that horseback riding is not 

compatible with the purpose of the refuge. Opposes acquisition boundaries 

expansion. 

2 1,104 FWS should not increase hunting/trapping in Oxbow National Wildlife 

Refuge, and prohibit hunting/trapping in the Assabet River and Great 

Meadows National Wildlife Refuges. 

3 250 FWS should not increase hunting/trapping in Oxbow National Wildlife 

Refuge, and prohibit hunting/trapping in the Assabet River and Great 

Meadows National Wildlife Refuges. FWS should focus on habitat 

improvement and non-lethal methods of wildlife management. 

Total: 1,365 
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November, 2003 

Appendix G: List of Preparers F-1 

Appendix F 

List of Preparers

Content Analysis Team 

Project Coordination 

Shari Kappel, Team Leader 

John Adams, Assistant Team Leader 

Program Coordination 

Jody Sutton, Coordinator 

James MacMillen, Contracting 

Content Analysts 

John Adams, Editor/Analyst 

Angela Concepcion, Writer/Analyst 

Theodore Hughes, Writer/Analyst 

Anne Jensen, Writer/Analyst 

Holly Schneider, Writer/Analyst 

Karl Vester, Coder/Analyst

Database Administration 

Buell Whitehead, Technical Support 

Information Systems 

Lori Warnell, Project Lead/Response Processing/Data Technician 

Julie Easton, Data Technician 

Kay Flink, Data Technician 

Jon Hardes, Data Technician 

Geraldine Hill, Data Technician 

Linda Kenaston, Data Technician 

Shanna Robison, Data Technician 

Barbie Gibson, CD Production 
Appendix B: U.S. Forest Service Content Analysis Team Summary Report

(This page intentionally left blank)

- 166 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appendix C: Response to Substantive Comments 

Appendix C: Responses to substantive comments 

Planning Process 

Length of comment period

Some commentors were unhappy with the timing and length of the comment period. 

The comment period was 45 days long, which is a standard period for a document such as a 

CCP. Unfortunately, the timing of the draft CCP release came during the summer 

months. We knew that there were many people eagerly anticipating its release and 

focused on releasing the plan to the public as quickly as we could. While, there were 

requests to extend the comment period, they came at the very end of the comment period. 

The notification process to ensure that all individuals and groups were aware of an 

extension could not have been completed before the scheduled end of the comment period. 

Despite the concerns of some commentors, we did receive nearly 2,000 comments and we 

feel confident that we heard from all viewpoints. 

Public Involvement

Many respondents feel satisfied with the FWS’s level of public involvement and 

education; they praise the agencies past efforts and eagerly anticipate additional 

opportunities for interest groups and communities to stay involved in the refuge’s

management. Civic and conservation organizations express interest in collaborating

with the FWS on management issues. 

We look forward to continued involvement and collaboration as we implement the 

provisions of the CCP, continue day-to-day operations, and develop necessary step-down 

plans. 

Planning Vision 

Relationship to Regional Planning Efforts and Legislation

Some respondents ask for clarification of the CCP’s compatibility with other regional

management efforts and role in an ecosystem context. 

We realize that we are one of several conservation partners in a regional ecosystem. 

Where appropriate, we have worked with surrounding landowners and communities to 

ensure management that complements adjacent lands. Unfortunately, the missions of 

adjacent landowners do not always match the mission and purposes of the refuge. Because 

of these differences, there will be times when activities that are allowed in one area are 

prohibited in another, or vice versa. 

We look forward to continuing to work with our various conservation partners. Our 

management actions are focused on the NWRs by design. Our jurisdiction and planning 

efforts include only these lands. We will continue to consider the effects our management 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 165 -
Appendix C: Responses to Substantive Comments

actions have on the surrounding landscape. The patchwork of lands that create these 

refuges creates unique challenges and partnerships. The Service mission and refuge 

purposes must be our first priority. We understand that this priority does not always

mesh with adjacent landowners’ wishes and concerns. We are a part of the larger Refuge 

System and must consider not only our role in the surrounding ecosystem, but our role in 

the Refuge System, as well. 

Priority Public Uses

Hunting – General

Hunting was the issue most frequently addressed in comments on the draft CCP. General 

hunting comments include advocates for hunting on public lands and individuals that 

are opposed to hunting in any form. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Refuge Improvement

Act) lists hunting as one of six priority, wildlife-dependent public uses to receive enhanced 

and preferential consideration in refuge planning and management. In addition to hunting, 

other priority uses include fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental 

education and interpretation. Our mandate is to provide high-quality opportunities for 

these priority uses where they are compatible with respective refuge purposes, goals, and 

other management priorities. 

Regardless of individual opinions about the appropriateness of hunting on the refuges, the 

Refuge Improvement Act requires that we give preferential consideration to the six 

priority, wildlife-dependent uses. We are also concerned about the potential for hunting to 

impact other priority uses. There appears to have been some confusion about where we 

are proposing to allow hunting. We have outlined the areas where hunting is to be allowed 

on the maps that are included as a part of the CCP. 

We have included some of the additional details in regard to hunting in the Final CCPs. In 

order to open the refuges to additional hunting opportunities, Federal regulations will 

need to be changed. There will be an additional public comment period when proposed

hunting regulations are released in the Federal Register. This will likely occur during the 

winter/spring of 2005. 

Additionally, we will be developing a Hunt Management Plan for each Refuge that will 

outline all of the details for each specific hunting program.

Each plan will be completed in cooperation with the Massachusetts Department of Fish 

and Game (MA DFG), Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Refuge areas that meet certain 

criteria have been evaluated to determine tracts of land that have the ability to support a 

high quality public hunt. We have determined that certain areas are appropriate for

certain types of hunting and not others. The criteria used included: 1) an area of sufficient 

size to insure public safety; 2) an area more than 500 feet from occupied dwellings

(Massachusetts state law); and 3) an area that provides reasonable opportunities for a 

successful hunt. An additional consideration that was considered in some instances is 

whether hunting of an area of the refuge is consistent with or complements other hunted 

- 166 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appendix C: Response to Substantive Comments 

areas in surrounding towns. 

Hunting – Safety and Conflicts with Other Users

There were a large number of individuals that expressed concerns about safety and 

hunting. Some individuals expressed concerns about safety while using the refuge

during hunting season and the assertion that the non-hunting public will not participate 

in other wildlife dependent activities during the hunting seasons. Other people indicated 

their concerns about the proximity to the refuge boundary of homes, schools, and 

conservation areas. Additionally, individuals raised the possibility of hunters accessing 

non-refuge lands or misguided arrows, shotgun slugs, or pellets injuring someone not on 

the refuge. 

There will be areas on the refuges where no hunting will be allowed. In some cases, these 

are highly used areas, such as the Concord Impoundments at Great Meadows NWR. In 

others, we have restricted hunting because of the mandated safety zones. We realize that 

there may be people that will not visit the refuges during specific seasons. As mentioned 

previously, we have a responsibility to facilitate all forms of wildlife-dependent public use 

on the refuges, when possible, and there may be days when people engaged in hunting will 

have preferential access to parts of the refuges. National policy encourages refuges to 

follow state hunting regulations, but we do have the authority to set our own dates and 

times if needed and we can limit the number of hunting permits issued. We will evaluate 

these options in the development of the Hunt Management Plan for each refuge, but do 

not anticipate a need to include such restrictions at this time. 

We strive to achieve a balance between consumptive and non-consumptive uses on the 

refuges. Because Massachusetts does not allow hunting on Sunday, at a minimum nonhunters will be free to enjoy our nature trails with no concern about possible hunting 

conflicts on those days during the hunting seasons. In addition, experience managing 

hunts both at Oxbow Refuge and at other refuges within the system shows that many 

areas can safely support both hunting and non-consumptive uses, such as wildlife 

observation, at the same time. We are confident that we can develop a hunting program 

that will safely provide opportunities for wildlife-dependent public use to a majority of our 

refuge visitors. 

We contacted the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife to obtain hunting 

accident statistics. We considered investigating such statistics in other states, but decided 

that Massachusetts has a higher population density than the majority of other states with 

readily available accident statistics such as Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Texas. 

According to Massachusetts Law, any person involved in a hunting accident or any person 

with knowledge of a hunting accident must file a report with the state or local police, who, 

in turn, must file a report with the Division of Law Enforcement. The Massachusetts 

Environmental Police, Hunter Education Program reports hunting accidents in the 

Hunting Accident Report: 1995 – 2002. During the reporting period, there were 38

hunting accidents. None of the accidents were fatal and none involved any individuals who 

were not hunting at the time of the accident. According to the 2001 National Survey of

Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, there were 1.58 million days of

hunting that occurred in Massachusetts in 2001. During that year there were 3 hunting 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 167 -
Appendix C: Responses to Substantive Comments

accidents, the corresponding accident rate is extremely low. 

Specific areas were mentioned by local residents as being of concern. Some commentors 

indicated distances that bullets travel when fired from a rifle (effective range). The areas 

that were mentioned by commentors as being potential safety areas were: 

Great Meadows NWR

Concord Impoundments 

O’Rourke, Greenough, and Foss Properties in Carlisle 

Dudley Road area in Bedford 

Area along the Concord River in Billerica 

Areas adjacent to Wayland Conservation Property

Heard Pond 

Assabet River NWR

Stearns Lane and Hudson Road in Sudbury 

The Maynard School Complex 

Firecut Lane area in Sudbury 

Based upon the concerns expressed in response to the draft, we reviewed the most up-todate aerial photographs available. We analyzed the locations of the 500-foot safety zones 

around existing homes to determine whether or not a reasonable hunting area could be 

provided given the constraints associated with the safety zones. In addition to the aerial 

photo analysis, we went to the refuges to determine how visible the homes near the refuge 

are from inside the refuge. We would like to remind individuals that by state regulation

there is a 500 foot zone around any inhabited structure. Hunting, whether by gun or bow, 

is not allowed in this area unless the hunter received permission from the owner of the 

building. It is the hunter’s responsibility to ensure that he/she is more than 500 feet from

any such buildings. There are times in which the safety zone extends into the refuge. 

Hunting will not be allowed within these areas. 

However, the Service will assist hunters in delineating any areas where there may be

confusion as to the actual location of the safety zone. The information that we gathered

enabled us to make informed decisions about the appropriateness of areas for different 

hunting activities. We will require hunters to obtain an annual hunting permit. We may 

prepare maps showing the hunt areas in detail. Areas with adjacent homes can be 

depicted on the maps as a further guide to inform hunters of safety zones adjacent or 

within the refuge. 

Also, there is some confusion as to whether or not hunting is being proposed in certain 

locations. We would like to clarify our original proposal and highlight the following 

changes: 

o Hunting is not proposed for the Concord Impoundments. 

o The waterfowl hunting area on the Concord River and associated wetlands starts 

at the Route 225 Bridge and extends upstream to the area where refuge ownership 

ends on the west side of the Concord River in the town of Carlisle. This is the area

- 168 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appendix C: Response to Substantive Comments 

at the northern end of the O’Rourke property. The area along the Concord River in 

Billerica has been removed from consideration for waterfowl hunting. The entire 

river in that area is within the 500 foot safety zone required by state hunting 

regulations. Hunting on the river in that area is illegal. 

o We understand the concern regarding hunting on the Greenough property. We 

will ensure that the boundary is clearly marked. The deer hunting opportunities 

on the property will be limited to archery only. 

o The area adjacent to private and conservation property in the vicinity of Dudley 

Road in Bedford is proposed as archery only for deer hunting. 

o In the Sudbury Division of the refuge, the proposed waterfowl hunting area south 

to Route 20 has been reduced. The waterfowl hunting opportunities adjacent to 

refuge lands ou to the center line of the Sudbury River south of Route 20 have bee 

reduced from 193 acres to 77. Additionally, no waterfowl hunting will be allowed

between Route 20 and the Wayland School Complex. Waterfowl hunting will be

allowed in a limited area upstream of the school along the Sudbury River south of 

Heard Pond. The revised hunting area will be a minimum of 1,000 feet from the 

school playing fields. Please see the maps in the Great Meadows NWR CCP for a 

depiction of this area. 

o In the South section of the Assabet River NWR, we have changed the designation 

to Archery Only. 

o Based upon the comments that we received regarding Hudson Road and Stearns 

Lane, we made a revision to the hunting areas on the North section of the Assabet 

River NWR. The area outside of the entire Patrol Road has been designated 

Archery Only. 

Hunting – Various Species

Commentors indicated that it was necessary for the Service to conduct detailed surveys of 

wildlife populations before implementing a hunt program. 

The hunting of migratory bird species is managed from a national point of view. The 

Service monitors the population status of all migratory bird game species and works with 

the States to set season lengths and harvest limits. Hunting is managed in a way that does 

not contribute to a decline in waterfowl and other migratory game bird populations. 

The hunting of resident species, such as deer, rabbits, and squirrels, falls within the 

responsibility of state fish and wildlife agencies, which also monitor and manage

populations to ensure healthy ecosystems, sustainable populations, and a certain level of 

hunter success. We work in partnership with the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and 

Wildlife and rely on their knowledge and expertise to determine the appropriateness of 

hunting seasons. Any decisions we make to limit or prevent the harvest of resident species 

on any refuge is based on other management concerns and not on a concern about the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 169 -
Appendix C: Responses to Substantive Comments

population of a given species. State fish and wildlife agencies have an excellent record of

sound, professional wildlife management, and this is true in Massachusetts as well. 

Fishing

Most fishing comments are directed toward the proposal to allow fishing at Puffer Pond

on the Assabet River NWR. There is considerable support for fishing on Puffer Pond. 

There are also a number of respondents who request that fishing be prohibited on Puffer 

Pond. These individuals argue that anglers will disturb nesting birds, erode the shoreline, 

trample vegetation, contribute to the spread of invasives, and drag boats through the 

refuge.

Fishing is one of the priority wildlife dependent uses for national wildlife refuges, where 

compatible. As such, the staff has determined that fishing is compatible with refuge 

purposes. Staff from Assabet River NWR will finalize the details of fishing on Puffer Pond 

as a part of the Fishing Management Plan. Staff will ensure that impacts to the resources 

in and surrounding the pond are minimized. This is evidenced by the stipulations already 

included in the draft plan. No motorized boats will be allowed, greatly reducing the 

likelihood of invasive species being brought to the pond. Public use in general causes some 

disturbance of vegetation and wildlife. We will manage all public uses, including fishing, to 

minimize the disturbance and ensure that the level of disturbance does not materially 

interfere with the purposes of the refuges. We share the concern about the potential 

introduction of invasive species, as well as other types of disturbance. We will continue to 

monitor disturbance caused by public uses of the refuges and take any action that we deem 

necessary or appropriate.

Environmental Education

A majority of commentors who chose to address environmental education support the 

efforts and facilities proposed in Alternative B, advocating more environmental 

education for people of all ages. Several respondents encourage completion of the 

proposed Sudbury River interpretive canoe trail. Some of the commentors encourage the 

FWS to think bigger, and develop its educational plan in concert with other regional 

entities and efforts. 

Environmental education is one of the priority wildlife dependent uses for national wildlife 

refuges. As such, the staff has determined that it is compatible with refuge purposes and 

will continue to work to provide these opportunities. The staff is encouraged by the 

support that individuals and groups have shown for environmental education. We look 

forward to continuing and expanding educational opportunities associated with the 

refuges. 

Wildlife Observation Trails

Some of the organizations and towns that commented on the CCP included requests for 

trails to be developed in specific areas that would connect to adjacent trail systems. In 

some cases, the requests are for formalizing trails that have been created by individuals 

for unauthorized access. In other cases, the requests are for new trails that would provide 

- 170 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appendix C: Response to Substantive Comments 

access to new areas.

Refuge staff will develop a system for evaluating such requests. This review system will

provide refuge staff with the necessary tools to evaluate the need for and effects of 

recommended trails. 

Non-wildlife Dependent Public Uses

Dog Walking

A large number of commentors assert that given the popularity and demand for areas to 

walk dogs, and the fact that parts of the refuge have been used responsibly for decades by 

dog-walkers, FWS should continue to allow dog walking and should authorize it at

Assabet River NWR. Some commentors express support for a ban of dogs from the refuge; 

they cited safety concerns, conflicts between dog walkers and bird watchers, and owners

that do not clean up after their dogs. 

All of the refuges in the Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex were 

created with purposes related to protecting, managing, and conserving native wildlife. The 

1997 Refuge Improvement Act establishes the mission of the Refuge System as “to 

preserve a national network of lands and waters for the conservation and management of 

fish, wildlife, and plant resources of the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations.” The Refuge Improvement Act further stipulates that all activities occurring 

on refuges must be compatible with wildlife conservation and the specific purposes for 

which a refuge was established. This is an important distinction from other public lands 

and recreation areas; refuges have a narrow management focus and are not multi-purpose 

lands. Six public uses were identified by the Refuge Improvement Act as the priorities for 

receiving enhanced consideration on refuges. Dog walking is not one of the six priority 

public uses, nor are dogs (except hunting, seeing or hearing dogs) necessary to support the 

safe, practical, and effective conduct of the priority public use programs we would be

implementing on the refuge. 

Dogs running off leash and piles of dog waste left on trails or tossed in the bushes are 

consistent problems, not isolated incidences. Several circumstances prompted the 

elimination of this activity on the refuges, including 

• Dogs can intimidate other refuge visitors, and deprive them of the peace that 

refuges provide. Visitation to the National Wildlife Refuges is expanding, 

potentially aggravating user conflicts; 

• Dog feces left on trails are an unhealthy and unsightly nuisance to refuge visitors 

and impact refuge vegetation. The presence of dog feces on public trails is one of 

the most common complaints we receive; 

• Dogs, whether leashed or unleashed, conflict with refuge efforts to provide 

recreational opportunities for a diversity of visitors, including those limited to 

handicapped accessible trails, and the many school groups which visit the refuges 

for environmental education; 

• Dog walking has resulted in user conflicts with persons engaged in priority public 

uses (bird watching, photography, see below); 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 171 -
Appendix C: Responses to Substantive Comments

• Instinctively, dogs want to chase wildlife. Unleashed dogs commonly chase nesting 

wildlife, which can result in destruction of ground nests and young. Dogs may step 

on nests or young chicks, as they “freeze” in response to danger; 

• Many dog owners consistently remove their dogs from leashes when they are away

from the parking lots and believe they are unlikely to be observed by a refuge 

ranger; 

• Wildlife can’t distinguish between dogs on leashes and unleashed dogs. In the 

presence of a dog, many species will abandon their nests or young, leaving them 

vulnerable to be killed by predators, or die from starvation or exposure. 

We realize that many dog owners are responsible owners and have a strong emotional

connection to the refuge and to walking their dog on the refuge. We realize that many 

people will not be happy with this decision. Nevertheless, we firmly believe that the

overall adverse impacts from dog walking on wildlife and other visitors engaged in wildlifedependent public use justify this prohibition. Our decision is also consistent with land 

managers throughout the State who manage lands specifically for wildlife. Massachusetts 

Audubon Society and State of Massachusetts wildlife sanctuary lands also do not allow 

pets. 

Horseback Riding

A large number of commentors are opposed to a prohibition on horseback riding on any 

of the refuges. They are concerned that not allowing horseback riding in the refuge will 

compromise access to other conservation/state/local forest trails immediately 

surrounding the refuge. In addition, they point to the economic benefits of horseback 

riding. 

We have decided to maintain our prohibition of horseback riding on refuge trails. This 

activity does not promote wildlife conservation, is not one of our six priority public uses, 

nor is it necessary to support the safe, practical, and effective conduct of a priority public 

use on the refuges. 

While we appreciate the desire for horseback riding opportunities on Assabet River, Great 

Meadows, and Oxbow National Wildlife Refuges, we do not believe that these relatively

small refuges are appropriate places for horseback riding. Existing refuge trails are not 

designed to accommodate horses. Most of our trails are not wide enough for riders and 

walkers to avoid each other, nor are trails designed to withstand the impact of horses. 

This is especially true in wetter areas. Another issue with horse use is the waste left on

trails. It is well-documented that horse waste introduces seeds from non-native and 

invasive vegetation. Further, the horse waste is unsightly and detracts from other visitors’ 

experiences when they have to watch for and avoid stepping in it. We are supporting an 

appropriate level and type of public use on our refuges by maintaining our focus on 

wildlife-dependent public uses. 

Jogging

Joggers view the refuge as a safe, peaceful place to pursue their activity, and would like

more information as to why jogging would be banned. 

- 172 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appendix C: Response to Substantive Comments 

As indicated in the draft CCP/EA, we will be investigating the impacts of jogging to 

determine whether or not this is an appropriate use and a compatible use. Jogging is not a 

priority public use nor is it necessary to support one of the six priority public uses. 

Currently, there are a relatively high number of individuals that participate in jogging on 

the refuges. Other refuges have documented impacts to wildlife caused by jogging. We

have issued a compatibility determination that indicates that, based on our current 

knowledge, jogging is compatible with refuge purposes. If we gather information to the 

contrary, we will issue a new compatibility determination with appropriate public comment 

opportunities. 

Picnicking

Some respondents view picnicking as a harmless past time that allows people to enjoy the 

refuge’s beauty. 

We would like to take this opportunity to clarify our position on picnicking. We believe

that the draft CCP/EA conveyed a change that we did not intent. We do not intend to

prohibit a refuge visitor from sitting on a bench or under a tree and eating a snack or

drinking a beverage. However, we will not issue permits for large events, such as family

reunions, where a meal is a normal part of the event to occur on the refuges, nor will we 

provide picnic tables or specific locations for picnicking. 

Bicycling

Similar to jogging, a number of commentors assert that the refuge offers a safe, trafficfree environment for bicycling. By not allowing bicycling on the refuges, it is asserted that 

the FWS will be creating a gap in the local trail systems. Some cyclists are willing to be 

flexible as to when and where they can pursue their sport. Some of the commentors 

suggest allowing cycling on paved roads only. Of greatest interest to many of the

commentors are the Patrol Road on Assabet River NWR and the Tank Road on Oxbow 

NWR. 

Bicycling is not compatible with the refuge purposes for each of the 3 refuges. Bicycles 

frighten wildlife and cause changes in behavior that have potential adverse impacts to

species. While there are places where bicycling can enhance wildlife dependent 

opportunities, in general the intention of a visitor on a bicycle is to engage in the act of 

cycling or transportation, not to observe wildlife. The refuges are small enough that

bicycling is not needed to facilitate a wildlife-dependent public use. Additionally, while 

there may be some existing roads on the refuges (particularly Assabet River NWR) which 

seem to lend themselves to cycling, our long term plans for the refuges will include some 

road removal and return to a natural state. 

Snowmobiling

Snowmobilers describe themselves as law-abiding recreationists that are respectful of

others and wildlife. One local snowmobile club would like to establish a trail through the 

refuge, maintained by the club, for the club’s enjoyment.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 173 -
Appendix C: Responses to Substantive Comments

Snowmobiling is not a wildlife-dependent use of the refuges. Snowmobiles tend to frighten 

wildlife and can adversely impact wintering species. The refuges are small enough that 

non-motorized use (such as cross-country skiing or snowshoeing) would be the preferred 

method of travel for facilitation of wildlife dependent uses of the refuges during winter 

months. 

Gathering

One respondent requested permission to collect mushrooms and suggested a daily limit 

for individuals that would like to collect them. 

The picking of fruit, plants, and mushrooms is not allowed on the refuges. These plants

and fungi are components of the natural ecosystem and can provide food for refuge 

wildlife. With the large volumes of refuge visitors, there could be significant depletion of 

certain plants and mushrooms as well as unauthorized access off-trail to collect these 

specimens if this were allowed. Our intention in managing these refuges is to allow natural 

processes to occur as much as possible, with specific land management techniques to 

maintain or restore specific habitat types for wildlife. Gathering of plants, mushrooms and 

other refuge resources (such as rocks found on stone walls) is not appropriate. 

Fees

Commentors provided a number of arguments for and against fees. Additionally, some 

commentors questioned the viability of a fee system for the refuges. Some of the concerns

raised include the appropriateness of fees on Federal land, a potential deterrence of 

visitors from low-income families or neighborhoods, and the costs of enforcement. Others 

point out the need to support local lands that are under-funded by Federal budgets.

In response to concerns expressed about the cost of a pass, we have lowered the annual 

pass fee from $20 in our original proposal to $12. Additional detail about the fees has been 

added to the final CCPs for each of the refuges. 

Fees will be used to support local projects on the refuges. The only way the Service will be 

able to achieve, maintain and provide a high quality of visitor service in the future is with 

additional funds. Unfortunately, our budget is insufficient to meet our visitor services 

needs. Failure to receive additional revenues will have a significant impact on our ability 

to provide quality opportunities for visitors to engage in wildlife-dependent public uses. 

Fees are fair because they are paid by refuge users. 

Land Acquisition 

A large number of commentors expressed concern over the lack of additional lands within 

the proposed acquisition boundary. Some individuals specifically mentioned the Devens 

South Post land that has been identified as part of the Base Closure and Realignment Act 

as land to be transferred to Oxbow NWR. Other individuals expressed concern that some 

town conservation lands adjacent to the existing refuges were within the acquisition 

- 174 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appendix C: Response to Substantive Comments 

boundary. These individuals expressed a preference that the land remains in town

control. 

Assabet River, Great Meadows, and Oxbow NWRs are a part of the much larger Refuge 

System. The Service is developing a plan for strategic growth of the Refuge System. This 

plan will allow the Service to prioritize land acquisition and boundary expansions for the 

System as a whole. The process for changing land acquisition boundaries is long and 

complex and takes a great deal of staff time. The plan for strategic growth will also allow 

Refuge System staff to focus boundary expansion efforts to those areas that are of 

greatest value to the System as a whole. Certainly, the refuges encompassed in the draft 

CCP/EA contribute a great deal to fulfilling the Refuge System mission. Any boundary 

expansion must also be shown to have a necessary contribution. Staff will continue to work 

toward boundary expansions within Service policy and guidelines. 

Expansion of the boundaries at locations that provide important habitats is still possible. 

Staff will need to pursue these acquisition boundary issues as a separate process. 

Congress has specifically identified the Devens South Post land as appropriate for transfer 

to the Service. The transfer would not be hindered by the lack of an acquisition boundary 

around that land. 

We would like to point out that the acquisition boundary identifies natural areas that are 

important to the purposes of the refuges. However, the Service does not plan to condemn 

land that is being protected by other entities. In the event that a group or individual, such 

as a town conservation commission, is attempting to sell some of this land, the Service 

would be interested in acquiring the land rather than allowing it to be developed. 

Buildings and Facilities 

Respondents voiced a myriad of opinions regarding what kinds of buildings and facilities 

should be provided at the refuge. Citing the importance of public education, many people 

ask the FWS to locate kiosks at strategic locations throughout the refuge. Comments 

regarding refuge parking focus on lot location with a number of people discouraging 

parking at Heard Pond. These respondents contend that there has been too much garbage 

dumping and vandalism at the Heard Pond site to make it a desirable parking place. 

We are sensitive to the fact that there are a wide variety of opinions regarding 

development of buildings, restroom facilities, and parking areas at the refuges. We will 

work to ensure that buildings are sited to provide the greatest benefit to the groups that 

will use them, while at the same time reducing any associated impacts. Where 

appropriate, we will site and build kiosks to provide educational and informational 

opportunities. We understand the concern over past activities at Heard Pond. The 

proposed parking lot will be located along the road and not set back like the previous lot. 

We have proposed a limited expansion of no more than 6 cars depending on available area 

that will allow more visitors to enjoy the area. 

NHESP suggested working cooperatively with the Service for review of impacts to statelisted species when construction or demolition projects are proposed.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 175 -
Appendix C: Responses to Substantive Comments

The Service will continue to include NHESP in review of appropriate projects. 

Staffing 

Most commentors feel that adequate refuge staffing is essential. While many people

assert that Alternative B will meet desired staffing levels, a number of other respondents 

contend that proposed staffing levels are too low. These people cite anticipated user 

conflicts, present refuge hazards, and the current downsizing trend in government as

reasons to increase proposed staffing levels. Some respondents suggest utilizing

community groups and/or to form partnerships with volunteer organizations to

supplement staffing needs. 

We appreciate the support for increased staffing levels. We have proposed the level of

staffing that we feel is appropriate to implement the programs outlined in the CCP. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The one concern regarding wild and scenic river designation expressed by several 

respondents is that hunting is incompatible with this designation and should be 

prohibited within these areas. 

The Wild & Scenic Rivers Act (WSR) does not prohibit hunting, nor does it indicate that 

hunting is incompatible with the intent of the WSR designation. 

Enforcement 

Respondents who comment on enforcement indicate that the level of enforcement on the 

refuge needs to increase. The key areas identified by respondents as needing increased 

policing efforts are off-highway vehicle trespass, poaching, dumping, trespass, and 

vandalism. 

We are aware of a number of violations that occur on refuge lands. Our law enforcement 

staff is working to correct these violations and are bringing in outside help when 

necessary. The number of violation notices issued during the past year is a testament to

our focused law enforcement efforts. We look forward to implementation of the CCP and 

the opportunity to expand our law enforcement presence through the potential addition of 

staff, agreements with local law enforcement agencies, and continued cooperation with 

State environmental police officers. 

Invasives

Many respondents support efforts to eliminate invasive non-native species. Several 

respondents raise concerns about invasives at Puffer Pond, given new fishing access. 

Concerns about targeted species are raised in two cases: one respondent argues that

cattails are native, and should not be removed; a number of respondents argue that mute 

swans are harmless. 

- 176 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appendix C: Response to Substantive Comments 

We will develop specific strategies to deal with control and elimination of invasive species 

as a part of the Habitat Management Plan. We are aware of the problem with invasives at

nearby lakes and ponds. We have proposed to allow only non-motorized boats on Puffer 

Pond to help ensure that new invasive species are not introduced to the pond. 

State Listed Species

The Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NEHSP) 

provided changes and edits to the Species Lists for each of the refuges, especially 

concerning the state listed species.

We have reviewed the suggestions and incorporated them into the species lists. 

Wildlife Surveys

NEHSP suggested that we complete surveys to determine areas that should be closed to

public use and prior to opening roads or trails for use.

Staff will continue to use survey information, along with local knowledge and known 

locations of sensitive species to determine whether there is a need to close areas of the 

refuge that are open or before opening areas to new public access opportunities. 

Literature Cited

An individual suggested inclusion of a comprehensive bibliography of biodiversity for the 

Great Meadows NWR area that has been published.

We have included a reference to this bibliography in the Great Meadows NWR CCP. 

Editorial/Corrections 

A number of commentors made suggestions that were editorial or that offered corrections 

to place names, geography, or history. 

We have made the corrections where appropriate.

Alternatives

The Humane Society of the Unites States expressed concern that the CCP/EA did not 

consider a reasonable range of alternatives. HSUS urged the Service to “give full

consideration to an alternative that would emphasize non-consumptive uses, non-lethal 

approaches to conflicts with wildlife, aggressive acquisition of land that could provide 

important habitat for refuge wildlife, and removal of invasive plant species.

We worked hard to ensure consideration of the reasonable range of alternatives that were 

presented in the draft CCP/EA. Each of the items mentioned was considered and the 

majority are included in the final CCP. We analyzed the effects of continuing no-hunting 

on Assabet River and Great Meadows NWR, along with maintaining the existing level of 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 177 -
Appendix C: Responses to Substantive Comments

hunting on Oxbow NWR as a part of Alternative A. Our current management plan is a 

balance of consumptive and non-consumptive uses with a focus on non-consumptive uses 

only for the majority of the year. All of our alternatives emphasize non-lethal approaches 

to wildlife conflicts with lethal control only utilized when our managers and biologists have 

determined that non-lethal controls have not been effective. Similarly, we will continue to 

acquire land as dictated by Service policy and as outlined under the “land acquisition” 

heading earlier in this section. Finally, removal of non-native invasive plant species is 

included in our final CCP and will be outlined further in our Habitat Management Plan. 

Support for each alternative [No response required] 

A number of commentors expressed support for all or portions of specific alternatives 

without citing specific reasons for doing so. The greatest number of such respondents

indicated support for Alternative B or variations of Alternative B.

- 178 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appendix D: Species Lists 

Appendix D: Species Lists 

Table D-1: Birds of Great Meadows NWR 

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Status

Gaviidae (Loons) 

Gavia immer common loon SC 

 

Podicipedidae (Grebes) 

Podiceps auritus horned grebe 

Podilymbus podiceps pied-billed grebe E 

 

Phalacrocoracidae (Cormorants)

Phalacrocorax auritus double-crested cormorant

 

Ardeidae (Herons, Egrets, and Bitterns)

Botaurus lentiginosus American bittern E 

Ixobrychus exilis least bittern E 

Ardea herodias great blue heron 

Ardea alba great egret 

Egretta thula snowy egret 

Egretta caerulea little blue heron 

Bubulcus ibis cattle egret 

Butorides virescens green heron 

Nyeticorax nycticorax black-crowned night-heron 

 

Threskiornithidae (Ibises and Spoonbills)

Plegadis falcinellus glossy ibis

 

Anatidae (Ducks, Geese, and Swans)

Cygnus olor mute swan

Chen caerulescens snow goose

Branta canadensis Canada goose 

Aix sponsa wood duck 

Anas crecca green-winged teal 

Anas rubripes American black duck

Anas platyrhynchos mallard 

Anas acuta northern pintail 

Anas discors blue-winged teal 

Anas clypeata northern shoveler

Anas strepera gadwall 

Anas penelope Eurasian wigeon 

Anas americana American wigeon 

Aythya valisineria canvasback 

Aythya americana redhead 

Aythya collaris ring-necked duck 

Aythya marila greater scaup

Aythya affinis lesser scaup

Bucephala albeola bufflehead 

Bucephala clangula common goldeneye 

Lophodytes cucullatus hooded merganser

Mergus merganser common merganser 

Mergus serrator red-breasted merganser

Oxyura jamaicensis ruddy duck

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 179 -
Appendix D: Species Lists

 

Cathartidae (New World Vultures)

Cathartes aura turkey vulture 

 

Accipitridae (Hawks, Eagles, Kites, Etc.)

Pandion haliaetus osprey 

Halieaetus leucocephalus bald eagle E 

Circus cyaneus northern harrier T 

Accipiter striatus sharp-shinned hawk SC 

Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk 

Accipiter gentilis northern goshawk 

Buteo lineatus red-shouldered hawk 

Buteo platypterus broad-winged hawk 

Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk

Buteo lagopus rough-legged hawk 

 

Falconidae (Falcons and Caracaras)

Falco sparverius American kestrel 

Falco columbarius merlin 

Falco peregrinus peregrine falcon

 

Phasianidae (Grouse, Partridges, Pheasants, Turkeys and Quail)

Phasianus colchicus ring-necked pheasant 

Bonasa umbellus ruffed grouse

Odontophoridae (Quail and Northern Bobolink) 

Colinus virginianus northern bobwhite 

 

Rallidae (Rails, Gallinules and Coots)

Coturnicops 

noveboracensis yellow rail

Rallus elegans king rail 

Rallus limicola Virginia rail 

Porzana carolina sora 

Gallinula chloropus common moorhen 

Fulica americana American coot 

 

Charadriidae (Plovers and Lapwings)

Pluvialis squatarola black-bellied Plover

Pluvialis dominica American golden plover

Charadrius 

semipalmatus semi-palmated plover

Charadrius vociferus killdeer 

Scolopacidae (Sandpipers)

Tringa melanoleuca greater yellowlegs 

Tringa flavipes lesser yellowlegs 

Tringa solitaria solitary sandpiper

Actitis macularia spotted sandpiper 

Limosa haemastica Hudsonian godwit 

Calidris alba sanderling 

Calidris pusilla semi-palmated sandpiper 

Calidris mauri Western sandpiper

Calidris minutilla least sandpiper

Calidris fuscicollis white-rumped sandpiper 

Calidris bairdii Baird’s sandpiper 

Calidris melanotos pectoral sandpiper

- 180 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appendix D: Species Lists 

Calidris alpina dunlin 

Calidris himantopus stilt sandpiper

Limnodromus griseus short-billed dowitcher 

Limnodromus scolopaceus long-billed dowitcher 

Gallinago gallinago common snipe

Scolopax minor American woodcock 

Phalaropus tricolor Wilson’s phalarope 

Phalaropus lobatus red-necked phalarope

Phalaropus fulicaria red phalarope 

 

Laridae (Gulls, Terns and Allies)

Larus delawarensis ring-billed gull 

Larus argentatus herring gull 

Larus glaucoides Iceland gull

Larus hyperboreus glaucous gull 

Larus marinus great black-backed gull 

Sterna hirundo common tern

Chlidonias niger black tern 

Sterna antillarum least tern 

 

Columbidae (Pigeons and Doves)

Columba livia rock dove

Zenaida macroura mourning dove

 

Cuculidae (Cuckoos and Allies)

Coccyzus erythropthalmus black-billed cuckoo 

Coccyzus americanus yellow-billed cuckoo 

 

Strigidae (Typical Owls)

Otus asio Eastern screech-owl 

Bubo virginianus great horned owl 

Strix varia barred owl

Asio flammeus short-eared owl

 

Caprimulgidae (Goatsuckers)

Chordeiles minor common nighthawk 

Caprimulgus vociferus whip-poor-will 

 

Apodidae (Swifts) 

Chaetura pelagica chimney swift 

 

Trochilidae (Hummingbirds)

Archilochus colubris ruby-throated hummingbird

 

Alcedinidae (Kingfishers)

Ceryle alcyon belted kingfisher 

 

Picidae (Woodpeckers)

Melanerpes erythrocephalus red-headed woodpecker 

Sphyrapicus varius yellow-bellied sapsucker 

Picoides pubescens downy woodpecker 

Picoides villosus hairy woodpecker 

Colaptes auratus Northern flicker 

Dryocopus pileatus pileated woodpecker 

 

Tyrannidae (Tyrant Flycatchers)

Contopus cooperi olive-sided flycatcher 

Contopus virens Eastern wood-pewee 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 181 -
Appendix D: Species Lists

Empidonax flaviventris yellow-bellied flycatcher 

Empidonax alnorum alder flycatcher 

Empidonax traillii willow flycatcher 

Sayornis phoebe Eastern phoebe 

Myarchus crinitus great crested flycatcher 

Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern kingbird

 

Laniidae (Shrikes)

Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike 

Lanius excubitor Northern shrike 

 

Vireonidae (Vireos)

Vireo griseus white-eyed vireo 

Vireo flavifrons yellow-throated vireo

Vireo solitarius blue-headed vireo 

Vireo gilvus warbling vireo

Vireo olivaceus red-eyed vireo

 

Corvidae (Jays, Magpies, and Crows)

Cyanocitta cristata blue jay

Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow 

Corvus ossifragus fish crow

Alaudidae (Larks) 

Eremophila alpestris horned lark 

Hirundinidae (Swallows) 

Progne subis purple martin

Tachycineta bicolor tree swallow

Stelgidopteryx serripennis Northern rough-winged swallow 

Riparia riparia bank swallow 

Petrochelidon pyrrhonota cliff swallow

Hirundo rustica barn swallow

 

Paridae (Titmice and Chickadees) 

Poecile atricapilla black-capped chickadee

Baeolophus bicolor tufted titmouse 

 

Sittidae (Nuthatches) 

Sitta canadensis red-breasted nuthatch

Sitta carolinensis white-breasted nuthatch 

Certhiidae (Creepers) 

Certhia americana brown creeper

 

Troglodytidae (Wrens) 

Troglodytes aedon house wren 

Troglodytes troglodytes winter wren 

Cistothorus platensis sedge wren 

Cistothorus palustris marsh wren

 

Regulidae (Kinglets) 

Regulus satrapa golden-crowned kinglet 

Regulus calendula ruby-crowned kinglet 

 

Silviidae (Gnatcatchers) 

Polioptila caerulea blue-gray gnatcatcher 

Sialia sialias Eastern bluebird 

- 182 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appendix D: Species Lists 

Turdidae (Thrushes) 

Catharus fuscescens veery

Catharus minimus gray-cheeked thrush 

Catharus ustulatus Swainson’s thrush 

Catharus guttatus hermit thrush

Hylocichla mustelina wood thrush 

Turdus migratorius American robin 

Mimidae (Mimic Thrushes) 

Dumetella carolinensis gray catbird 

Mimus polyglottos Northern mockingbird 

Toxostoma rufum brown thrasher 

 

Sturnidae (Starlings) 

Sturnus vulgaris European starling 

 

Motacillidae (Wagtails and Pipits) 

Anthus rubescens American pipit 

 

Bombycillidae (Waxwings) 

Bombycilla cedrorum cedar waxwing 

 

Parulidae (Wood-warblers) 

Vermivora pinus blue-winged warbler

Vermivora chrysoptera golden-winged warbler 

Vermivora peregrina Tennessee warbler 

Vermivora ruficapilla Nashville warbler 

Parula americana Northern parula 

Dendroica petechia yellow arbler

Dendroica pensylvanica chestnut-sided warbler

Dendroica magnolia magnolia warbler 

Dendroica tigrina Cape May warbler

Dendroica caerulescens black-throated blue warbler

Dendroica coronata yellow-rumped warbler 

Dendroica virens black-throated green warbler

Dendroica fusca blackburnian warbler Dendroica pinus pine warbler

Dendroica discolor prairie warbler

Dendroica palmarum palm warbler

Dendroica castanea bay-breasted warbler

Dendroica striata blackpoll warbler 

Mniotilta varia black-and-white warbler 

Setophaga ruticilla American redstart 

Seiurus aurocapillus ovenbird 

Seiurus noveboracensis Northern waterthrush

Oporornis philadelphia mourning warbler

Geothlypis trichas common yellowthroat 

Wilsonia pusilla Wilson’ s warbler 

Wilsonia canadensis Canada warbler 

Icteria virens yellow-breasted chat 

 

Thraupidae (Tanagers) 

Piranga olivacea scarlet tanager 

 

Emberizidae (Warblers and Sparrows) 

Pipilo erythrophthalmus Eastern towhee 

Spizella arborea American tree sparrow

Spizella passerina chipping sparrow 

Spizella pusilla field sparrow 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 183 -
Appendix D: Species Lists

Pooecetes gramineus vesper sparrow

Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah sparrow 

Ammodramus caudacutus saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrow 

Passerella iliaca fox sparrow

Melospiza melodia song sparrow

Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln’s sparrow 

Melospiza georgiana swamp sparrow

Zonotrichia albicollis white-throated sparrow

Zonotrichia leucophrys white-crowned sparrow

Junco hyemalis dark-eyed junco 

Plectrophenax nivalis snow bunting 

 

Cardinalidae (Cardinals and Allies) 

Cardinalis cardinalis northern cardinal 

Pheucticus ludovicianus rose-breasted Grosbeak 

Passerina cyanea indigo bunting

Spiza americana dicksissel

 

Icteridae (Blackbirds, Orioles and Allies) 

Dolichonyx oryzivorus bobolink 

Agelaius phoeniceus red-winged Blackbird 

Sturnella magna eastern meadowlark 

Euphagus carolinus rusty blackbird

Quiscalus quiscula common grackle 

Molothrus ater brown-headed cowbird

Icterus spurius orchard oriole

Icterus galbula Baltimore oriole

Fringillidae (Finches) 

Pinicola enucleator pine grosbeak

Carpodacus purpureus purple finch 

Carpodacus mexicanus house finch 

Carduelis flammea common redpoll 

Carduelis pinus pine siskin

Carduelis tristis American goldfinch

Coccothraustes vespertinus evening grosbeak 

 

Passeridae (Old World Sparrows) 

Passer domesticus house sparrow 

 

This list follows the format of the Checklist of the Birds of Massachusetts, compiled by Bradford G. Blodget,

Massachusetts State Ornithologist. The state list follows, with modifications, the rules used by Bull (The Birds 

of the New York Area, Harper and Row, New York, 1964) in establishing a list of the birds of the New York 

City area. According to these rules as modified, a species is considered to be authentic for Massachusetts if at 

least one of the following three prerequisites is satisfied: 1) a specimen is collected; 2) a recognizable and 

definitive photograph or videotape taken, examined by at least three qualified observers and documented in

the literature; or 3) an unambiguous sight record of an easily identifiable species corroborated by three or 

more observers with extensive field experience in Massachusetts and documented in the literature. 

- 184 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appendix D: Species Lists 

 

Codes Used in Species List 

E - State endangered. Native species in imminent danger of extirpation from 

Massachusetts.

T - State threatened. Native species which are likely to become state endangered in the 

future if current trends in habitat loss or other detrimental factors remain unchanged.

SC - State concern. Native species which do not apply under the above categories but are 

additionally listed due to various factors or rarity and/or vulnerability.

Table D-2: Butterflies of Great Meadows NWR

Scientific Name Common Name(s)

Papilionidae (True Butterflies)

Papilio polyxenes black swallowtail 

Papilio glaucus Eastern tiger swallowtail 

Papilio canadensis Canadian tiger swallowtail 

Papilio troilus spicebush swallowtail 

 

Pieridae

Pieris rapae cabbage white 

Colias philodice clouded sulphur 

Colias eurytheme orange sulphur 

 

Lycaenidae

Fineseca tarquinius harvester 

Lycaena hyllus bronze copper 

Lycaena epixanthe bog copper 

Satyrium titus coral hairstreak

Satyrium acadium Acadian hairstreak 

Satyrium edwardsii Edward’s hairstreak 

Satyrium calanus banded hairstreak 

Satyrium caryaevorum hickory hairstreak 

Satyrium liparops striped hairstreak 

Callophrys grineus juniper hairstreak 

Callophrys augustinus brown elfin 

Callophrys irus frosted elfin 

Callophrys henrici Henry’s elfin 

Callophrys niphon Eastern pine elfin 

Strymon melinus gray hairstreak 

Everes comyntas Eastern tailed-blue 

Celastrina argiolus spring azure 

Glaucopsyche lygdamus silvery blue 

 

Nymphalidae

Speyeria cybele great spangled fritillary 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 185 -
Appendix D: Species Lists

Speyeria aphrodite Aphrodite fritillary 

Boloria selene silver-bordered fritillary 

Chlosyne harrisii Harris’ checkerspot 

Phycoides tharos pearl crescent 

Euphydryas phaeton Baltimore checkerspot 

Polygonia interrogationis

Polygonia comma Eastern comma 

Nymphalis vau-album Compton tortoiseshell 

Nymphalis antiopa mourning cloak 

Nymphalis milberti Milbert’s tortoiseshell 

Vanessa atalanta red admiral 

Vanessa virginiensis American lady 

Vanessa cardui painted lady 

Junonia coenia common buckeye 

Limenitis archippus viceroy 

Satyrodes eurydice eyed brown 

Satyrodes appalachia Appalachian brown 

Megisto cymela little wood-satyr 

Coenonympha tullia common ringlet 

Cercyonis pegala common wood-nymph

Danaus plexippus monarch 

 

Hesperiidae

Epargyreus clarus silver-spotted skipper 

Thorybes bathyllus southern cloudywing 

Thorybes pylades northern cloudywing 

Erynnis icelus dreamy duskywing 

Erynnis brizo sleppy duskywing 

Erynnis juvenalis Juvenal’s duskywing 

Erynnis horatius Horace’s duskywing 

Erynnis baptisiae wild indigo duskywing

Pholisora catullus common sooty-wing 

Carterocephalus palaemon arctic skipper 

Ancyloxypha numitor least skipper

Thymelicus lineola European skipper

Hesperia leonardus Leonard’s skipper

Hesperia metea cobweb skipper

Hesperia sassaacus Indian skipper 

Polites peckius Peck’s skipper

Polites themistocles tawny-edged skipper

Polites origenes crossline skipper 

Polites mystic long dash 

Wallengrenia egeremet Northern broken-dash 

Pompeius verna little glassywing 

Anatrytone logan Delaware skipper 

Poanes massasoit mulberry wing

Poanes hobomok Hobomok skipper 

Poanes viator broad-winged skipper

Euphyes conspicuus black dash 

Euphyes vestris dun skipper 

Artytonopsis hianna dusted skipper

Amblyscirtes hegon pepper and salt skipper 

- 186 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appendix D: Species Lists 

Table D-3: Fish of Great Meadows NWR 

Scientific Name Common Name(s)

OSTEICHTHYES (Bony fishes)

 

Salmonidae (trouts, whitefishes and graylings)

Salmo gairdneri rainbow trout 

Salvelinus fontinalis brook trout 

Esocidae (pikes)

Esox americanus 

americanus redfin pickerel

Esox niger chain pickerel 

Esox lucius northern pike 

Cyprinidae (minnows and carps)

Cyprinus carpio common carp 

Catostomidae (suckers)

Catostomus 

commersoni white sucker 

Erimyson oblongus creek chubsucker 

Ictaluridae (freshwater catfishes)

Ictalurus nebulosus brown bullhead 

Ictalurus punctatus channel catfish 

 

Anguillidae (freshwater eels)

Anguilla rostrata American eel 

 

Centrarchidae (sunfishes)

Enneacanthus obesus banded sunfish

Lepomis gibbosus pumpkinseed 

Lepomis macrochirus bluegill 

Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass 

Pomoxis nigromaculatus black crappie 

 

Percidae (perches)

Morone americana white perch 

Notemigonus crysoleucas golden shiner 

Perca flavescens yellow perch 

Table D-4: Reptiles of Great Meadows NWR 

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Status

Testudines 

Chelydridae (Snapping Turtles) 

Chelydra serpentina common snapping turtle

 

Emydidae (Pond Turtles) 

Chrysemys picta painted turtle

Clemmys guttata spotted turtle SC 

Emydoidea blandingii Blanding’s turtle T 

Terrapene carolina eastern box turtle SC 

 

Serpentes 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 187 -
Appendix D: Species Lists

Colubridae (Harmless Snakes) 

Nerodia sipedon northern water snake 

Thamnophis sirtalis common garter snake 

Table D-5: Amphibians of Great Meadows NWR 

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Status

CAUDATA 

Ambystomatidae (Mole Salamanders) 

Ambystoma laterale blue-spotted salamander SC 

Ambystoma maculatum spotted salamander 

Ambystoma opacum marbled salamander T 

 

Salamandridae (Newts) 

Notophthlamus viridescens eastern newt 

 

Plethodontidae (Lungless Salamanders)

Desmognathus fuscus

fuscus northern dusky salamander

Plethodon cinereus northern redback salamander 

Hemidactylium scutatum four-toed salamander SC 

Eurycea bislineata northern two-lined salamander

ANURA 

Pelobatidae (Spadefoot Toads) 

Scaphiopus holbrookii eastern spadefoot T 

 

Bufonidae (True Toads)

Bufo americanus American toad 

 

Hylidae (True Tree Frogs)

Pseudacccris crucifer spring peeper

Hyla versicolor gray treefrog

 

Ranidae (True Frogs)

Rana catesbeiana bullfrog 

Rana clamitans green frog

Rana palustris pickerel frog

Rana pipiens northern leopard frog 

Rana sylvatica wood frog 

 

Table D-6: Mammals of Great Meadows NWR 

 

Scientific Name Common Name(s) 

Didelphidae (New World Opossums) 

Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum 

 

Soricidae (Shrews) 

Sorex cinereus masked shrew

Blarina brevicauda Northern short-tailed shrew 

Talpidae (Moles and Shrew-Moles) 

Parascalops breweri hairy-tailed mole 

Scalopus aquaticus Eastern mole

Condylura cristata star-nosed mole

- 188 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appendix D: Species Lists 

 

Vespertilionidae (Vesper Bats) 

Eptisicus fuscus big brown bat 

Myotis lucifugus little brown bat 

 

Leporidae (Hares and Rabbits) 

Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern cottontail 

Sylvilagus transitionalis New England cottontail 

Sciuridae (Tree Squirrels and Marmots) 

Marmota monax woodchuck 

Tamias striatus Eastern chipmunk

Sciurus carolinensis Eastern gray squirrel 

Tamiasciurus hudsonicus red Squirrel 

Glaucomys sabrinus Northern flying squirrel

Glaucomys volans Southern flying squirrel

Castoridae (Beavers) 

Castor canadensis American beaver 

 

Muridae (Mice, Rats, Voles, and Lemmings) 

Clethrionomys gapperi boreal redback vole

Microtus pennsylvanicus meadow vole

Ondatra zibethicus muskrat

Peromyscus leucopus white-footed mouse

 

Canidae (Dogs, Foxes, and Wolves) 

Canis latrans coyote 

Urocyon cinereoargenteus gray fox 

Vulpes vulpes red fox

 

Ursidae (Bears) 

Ursus americanus black bear 

 

Procyonidae (Raccoons, Coatis, and Ringtails) 

Procyon lotor raccoon 

 

Mustelidae (Weasels, Minks, Martens, and Otters) 

Mustela erminea short-tailed weasel or ermine 

Mustela frenata long-tailed weasel

Martes pennanti fisher

Mustela vison American mink 

 

Mephitidae (Skunks) 

Mephitis mephitis striped skunk 

 

Cervidae (Deer, Elk, and Moose) 

Odocoileus virginianus white-tailed Deer 

Alces alces moose 

 

Other mammals possibly present: 

 

Vespertilionidae (Vesper Bats) 

Pipistrellus subflavus eastern pipistrelle 

 

Muridae (Mice, Rats, Voles, and Lemmings) 

Peromyscus maniculatus deer mouse

Rattus rattus black rat 

 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 189 -
Appendix D: Species Lists

Zaporidae (Jumping Mice) 

Napaeozapus insignis woodland jumping mouse

Zapus hudsonicus meadow jumping mouse 

Erethizontidae (New World Porcupines) 

Erethizon dorsatum common porcupine 

 

Mustelidae (Weasels, Minks, Martens, and Otters) 

Lontra canadensis Northern river otter 

Nomenclature follows Jones, C. et al. (Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 1997. 

Occ. Pap. Mus. Texas Tech. Univ. 173:1-21, 1997).

Table D-7: Plants of Great Meadows NWR 

Scientific Name Common Name(s)

PTERIDOPHYTES (Fern and Fern Allies) 

 

 Dennstaedtiaceae 

Pteridium aqualinum bracken fern 

 

 Dryopteridaceae 

Onoclea sensibilis sensitive fern 

 

 Lycopodiaceae

Lycopodium spp. clubmoss 

 

 Osmundaceae 

Osmunda cinnamomea cinnamon fern

Osmunda regalis royal fern

 

 Thelypteridaceae 

Thelypteris novaboracensis New York fern

Thelypteris palustris marsh fern

 

GYMNOSPERMS (Cone-bearing Plants) 

 

 Pinaceae 

Pinus strobus white pine

 

 ANGIOSPERMS 

 

Dicotyledons (Flowering Plants) 

 

 Aceraceae 

Acer rubrum red maple

Acer saccharinum silver maple

 

 Anacardiaceae

Toxicodendron radicans poison ivy

 

 Apiaceae 

Peucedanum palustre milk parsley

 

 Aquifoliaceae 

Ilex verticilatta common winterberry

 

 Asclepiadaceae 

- 190 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appendix D: Species Lists 

Asclepias incarnata swamp milkweed 

 

 Asteraceae 

Achillea millefolium yarrow

Ambrosia artemisifolia ragweed 

Artemisia vulgaris common mugwort 

Aster acuminatus whorled aster 

Aster vimineus small white aster 

Aster puniceus purple-stemmed aster 

Bidens cernua nodding bur marigold 

Bidens frondosa sticktights 

Erichtites hieracifolia pilewort

Erigeron annus daisy-fleabane or whitetop 

Erigeron canadensis horseweed

Eupatorium dubium eastern Joe-pye weed 

Euthania graminifolia grass-leaved goldenrod 

Prenathes trifoliata fall rattlesnake-root 

Solidago rugosa rough-leaved goldenrod 

 

Balsaminaceae 

Impatiens capensis orange jewelweed 

Berberis thunbergii Japanese barberry

 

 Betulaceae 

Alnus incana var americana speckled alder

Betula papyrifera white birch 

Betula populifolia gray birch 

Carpinus caroliniana ironwood 

Corylus cornuta beaked hazelnut 

Cardamine pratensis cuckoo flower

 

 Brassicaceae

Rorippa palustris var islandica marsh yellowcress 

 

 Campanulaceae 

Lobelia cardinalis cardinal flower 

 

 Caprifoliaceae

Lonicera morrowi morrow honeysuckle 

Sambucus canadensis common elderberry

Viburnum dentatum var lucidumnorthern or smotth arrowood 

Celastraceae 

Celastrus orbiculata Oriental bittersweet 

Euonymus alatus winged euonymus 

 

 Chenopodiaceae 

Chenopodium albus pigweed 

 

 Clethraceae 

Clethra alnifolia sweet pepperbush 

 

 Convovulaceae

Calystegia sepia hedge bindweed

 

 Cornaceae 

Cornus amomum swamp dogwood 

 

 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 191 -
Appendix D: Species Lists

Cuscutaceae 

Cuscuta gronovii swamp dodder 

 

 Ericaceae 

Kalmia angustifolia sheep laurel

Rhododendron viscosum swamp azalea

Vaccinium angustifolia low-bush blueberry

Vaccinium corymbosum high-bush blueberry

 

 Fabaceae 

Desmodium paniculatum panicled tick-trefoil

Trifolium arvense rabbit’s foot clover

Trifolium pratense red clover

Trifolium repens white clover

 

 Fagaceae 

Castanea dentata American chestnut 

Quercus alba white oak 

Quercus bicolor swamp white oak 

Quercus rubra red oak 

 Grossulariaceae 

Ribes sativum garden red currant

 

 Juglandaceae

Carya spp. hickory 

 

 Lamiaceae

Lycopus virginicus bugleweed 

 

 Lythraceae 

Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife 

 

 Myricaceae 

Myrica gale sweet gale

 

 Nelumbonaceae 

Nelumbo lutea American lotus 

 

 Nyssaceae

Nyssa sylvatica tupelo 

 

 Onagraceae 

Oenothera biennis evening primrose

 

 Oxalidaceae

Oxalis stricta common yellow wood-sorrel

 Papaveraceae

Chelidonium majus celandine

 

 Phytolaccaaceae 

 Phytolacca americana pokeweed 

 

 Plantaginaceae

Plantago major common plantain

 

 Polygonaceae 

Polygonum arifolium halberd-leaf tearthumb 

Polygonum hydropiper water pepper

- 192 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appendix D: Species Lists 

Polygonum persicaria lady’s thumb 

Polygonum sagittatum arrow-leaved tearthumb 

Polygonum scandens climbing false buckwheat

Rumex acetosella sheep- or red laurel 

Rumex crispus curly dock 

 

 Primulaceae

Lysimachia terestris swamp candles

Trientalis borealis starflower

 

 Pryrolaceae

Chimaphila maculata striped pipissewa 

 

 Ranunculaceae

Anemone quinquefolia wood-anemone 

Thalictrum pubescens tall meadow-rue 

 

 Rhamnaceae

Rhamnus alnifolia glossy buckthorn

 

 Rosaceae 

Fragaria virginiana wild strawberry 

Geum spp. avens 

Malus sieboldii Toringo crabapple 

Malus spp. crabapple

Potentilla norvegica rough cinquefoil 

Prunus serotina black cherry 

Rosa multiflora multiflora rose

Rubus allegheniensis common blackberry

Rubus hispidus swamp dewberry 

Rubus occidentalis black raspberry 

Sorbus aucuparia European mountain-ash 

Spiraea alba var latifolia meadowsweet

 

 Rubiaceae 

Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush 

Galium palustre marsh bedstraw

 

 Salicaceae 

Populus deltoides cottonwood 

Populus grandidentata bigtooth aspen 

Populus tremuloides quaking aspen 

Salix spp. willow

 

 Scrophulariaceae 

Agalinus tenuifolia slender gerardia

 

 Trapaceae

Trapa natans water chestnut

 

 Ulmaceae

Ulmus americana American elm 

 

 Urticaceae

Boehmeria cylindrica false nettle 

 

 Verbenaceae 

Verbena hastata blue vervain

 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 193 -
Appendix D: Species Lists

 Violaceae 

Viola brittoniana Britton’s voilet

 

 Vitaceae 

Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia creeper or woodbine

Vitis labrusca fox grape

 

MONOCTYLEDONS (Flowering Plants) 

 

 Acoraceae 

Acorus americanus sweet flag

 

 Alismataceae 

Sagittaria latifolia common arrowhead 

 

 Araceae 

Peltandra virginica arrow arum

Symplocarpus foetidus skunk cabbage

 

 Cyperaceae

Carex crinata awned or fringed sedge 

Carex scoparia broom-sedge 

Carex stricta tussock-sedge

Cyperus strigosus big straw-colored flatsedge Scirpus fluviatalis river-bullsedge or -bulrush

 Lemnaceae 

Lemna sp. duckweed 

Wolffia spp. wolffia

 

 Liliaceae 

Maianthemum canadense Canada mayflower 

Medeola virginaina Indian cucumber root

Uvularia sessifolia wild oats 

 

 Poaceae

Phragmites australis common reed

Spartina pectinata freshwater cord-grass 

Zizania aquatica wild rice 

 

 Pontedariaceae 

Pontedaria cordata pickerel-weed 

 

 Smilacaceae 

Smilax rotundifolia common greenbriar

 

 Sparganiaceae 

Sparganium eurycarpum giant or broad-fruited 

 bur-reed 

 

 Typhaceae 

Typha angustifolia narrow-leaved cattail 

Typha latifolia broad-leaved cattail 

- 194 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appendix E: RONS and MMS 

Appendix E: RONS and MMS 

The Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS) lists refuge projects over $20,000. The 

Management Maintenance System (MMS) identifies maintenace needs on refuges. 

Projects on both lists are prioritized and initated as funding becomes available. Funding is 

allocated through the Service’s Northeast Regional Office and is based on Congressional 

appropriation to the service. 

Project: this list includes projects currently in the RONS database and projects proposed 

in the CCP. 

FTE: full time staffing equivalent. One fte equals one person working full time for one 

whole year; seasonal employees are considered 0.5 fte. (note: staff are often “shared” by 

multiple rons projects) 

Cost, year 1: estimated costs incurred during the first year of a project - typically higher

than recurring costs, due to construction, equipment purchase, or other start-up expenses. 

Cost, recurring: estimated average annual project cost for subsequent years; includes 

recurring salary and maintenance costs. 

Project duration: estimated length of time for each project. Since this CCP will be revised 

in 15 years, the “maximum project duration” is 15 years, even though some projects may 

continue into the next planning cycle 

Table E-1: Projects currently in the RONS database and proposed projects to be

included for Great Meadows NWR

Project FTE Starup

Cost

x 1,000 

Recurring 

Cost

x 1,000 

Duration 

(Years) 

Refuge oversight and partnership 

development

GS 12 

Manager 

145 80 15

Water chestnut control 72 20 15 

Restore drained wetlands 88 5 15 

Manage habitat (planning, 

monitoring, and inventory) 

GS 1 Biol., GS

5 Biotech 

(seasonal) 

150 80 15

Effects of low flying airplanes 70 5 5 

Survey of mussels on a Wild and 

Scenic River 

48 8 4

Implement sound wildlife 

management practices 

58 8 3

Restoring native plants and wildlife 73 8 10 

Conduct reptile, invertebrate, and 

amphibian surveys on the Wild and 

Scenic River 

55 10 3

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 195 -
Appendix E: RONS and MMS

Project FTE Starup

Cost

x 1,000 

Recurring 

Cost

x 1,000 

Duration 

(Years) 

Grassland/Old field restoration and 

management 

98 8 15

Collect baseline data and develop 

inventory plans 

GS 7 Biotech 114 49 15 

Implement an urban environmental 

education program 

55 15 15

Provide accessible wildlifedependent recreation opportunities 

& interpretation 

86 5 15

Improve public use infrastructure 

including trails system, construction 

of observation platforms & photo

blinds 

WG 8 Maint. 

Worker

118 53 15

Develop wildlife demonstration and 

educational curriculum 

GS 9 

Interpreter

123 58 15

Improve refuge pamphlets, trail 

guides, species checklists, viewing 

guides, & other literature

10 10 15

Enhance public service capabilities – 

provide planning and data 

management in support of visitor 

services 

GS 5 Office 

assistant 

107 42 15

Maintenance at new Visitor Contact 

Station at highest public use area 

(Concord) 

WG 3 Maint. 

Worker

110 45 15

Increase biological & public 

outreach through expanded 

volunteer program 

0 7 15

Enhance Volunteer Program 

Coordination

GS 11 

Volunteer 

Coordinator 

133 68 15

Develop Boston Airport Outreach 

Materials 

92 13 15

Conduct public use impact study 92 5 10 

Interpret Wild & Scenic River 

through brochures, kiosk, and new 

programs 

70 15 15

Conduct cultural resources 

investigation

40 5 3

Protect museum artifacts 77 5 15 

Educate MA residents – Equip and 

operate new visitor center 

GS 11 

Educator 

GS 7 & GS 5 

Interpreter 

WG 6 

459 209 15

- 196 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appendix E: RONS and MMS 

Project FTE Starup

Cost

x 1,000 

Recurring 

Cost

x 1,000 

Duration 

(Years) 

Maintenance 

Enhance protection of refuge 

property 

44 3 15

Manage public use GS 7 (LE) 

Park Ranger

114 49 15

Boundary identification and 

protection 

45 5 15

Total 2,746 893

Table E-2: Projects currently backlogged in the MMS for Great Meadows NWR

Project # 

(SAMMS) 

Project Name Cost

Estimate 

($1,000) 

99124632 Headquarters elevator 313

02120843 Replace Concord shop 125

02120864 Rehab Headquarters shop 131

03126424 Replace O’Rourke Barn 398

98104380 Rehab Concord dike 1’ 211

98104390 Replace Concord gates 31

93104381 VCS Exhibits I 158

03126442 Replace O’Rourke shed 104

99104376 VCS Exhibits II 165

00104410 HQ doors 43

98104392 Replace Concord observation blind 31

00104408 Repair Strand dike 50

98104400 Sudbury kiosks 26

99120871 Rehab HQ II 350

99124630 Rehab HQ III 210

04130509 HQ carpet 49

04130510 HQ windows 55

04133018 HQ deck and ramp 89

11014413 Replace grader 181

00104414 Replace 2640 tractor 71

00104411 Replace 550 bulldozer 186

00105216 Replace lowboy trailer 78

01113923 Replace tractor loader 75

00104416 Replace tractor trailer 78

99104365 Replace 8’ mower 9

01111815 Replace 97 Caravan 29

01111827 Replace 96 Ford Ranger 22

01111819 Replace 98 Ford Explorer 29

01111818 Replace 98 Taurus Wagon 28

01111821 Replace 99 Dodge Pickup 28

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 197 -
Appendix E: RONS and MMS

Project # 

(SAMMS) 

Project Name Cost

Estimate 

($1,000) 

01111829 Replace 99 Ranger Pickup 22

01111824 Replace 00 3⁄4 ton Dodge Pickup 27

01113945 Replace 18’ Jon Boat 9

01113064 Replace woodchipper 20

98110307 Concord Visitor contact station 1,357

98 Two automatic gates 50

98 Construct accessible fishing pier 95

02120850 Replace quarters I 750

00104420 Ditch cleaning 383

Total 6,066

Table E-3: Projects currently backlogged in the MMS for the Eastern 

Massachusetts Refuge Complex 

Project # 

(SAMMS) 

Project Name Cost

Estimate 

($1,000) 

01113926 Replace 1979 tractor trailer 55

99104362 Replace 1992 S-10 32

99104364 Replace 1991 Suburban 37

00104409 Replace 17’ aluminum boat 27

00104417 Replace 23’ Sea Ox 42

00104412 Replace Boston Whaler 26

01111811 Replace 00 Suburban 40

01111813 Replace 00 Durango 37

02120884 Replace 01 1-ton pickup 42

02120936 Replace 19’ Carolina skiff 29

02120939 Replace 02 crew cab pickup 28

02120942 Replace 01 1⁄2 ton pickup 25

00110311 Visitor center phase I 522

00110344 Visitor center phase II 908

00110539 Visitor center phase III 5,386

Total 7,026

- 198 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appendix E: RONS and MMS 

(This page intentionally left blank)

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 199 -
Appendix F: Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex Staffing Charts

Appendix F: Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Staffing Chart 

- 200 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appendix F: Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex Staffing Carts 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 201 -
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Assabet River, Great Meadows, and Oxbow National Wildlife Refuges 

Proposed Staffing Chart 

Deputy Project 

Leader

GS-13

Refuge Planner

GS-12 

Administrative

Officer 

GS-9

Biotech 

GS-5/7 

* Great Meadows 

Refuge Manager 

GS-12

Maintenance 

Mechanic

WG-9

Maintenance 

Worker

WG-7/8

*Laborer 

WG-3 

Office Assistant 

GS-6 

Biologist 

GS-11 

Park Ranger 

GS-5/7 

Park Ranger 

GS-5/7 

Education Specialist

GS-11 

Maintenance Worker 

WG-5/7 

Outreach Spec./

Volunteer Coord 

GS-11

Park Ranger 

GS-5/7 

*Administrative

Support Asst. 

GS-5

Biologist

GS-11 

Wildlife 

Biologist 

GS-12

Oxbow/Assabet 

Refuge Manager 

GS-12

*Oxbow Refuge

Operations Specialist 

GS-11

*Maintenance

Worker

WG-9

*Admin Support 

Asst 

GS-6

*Outdoor Recreation 

Planner 

GS-9

*Assabet Refuge

Operations Specialist 

GS-11

*Biologist

GS-7 

*Park Ranger

GS-9 

*Maintenance

Worker

WG-8

*Outdoor Recreation 

Planner 

GS-9

*Maintenance

Worker

WG-5

*Park Ranger

GS-5/7 

Forester (Complex)

GS-7/9/11 Admin Tech

GS-3/5 

Biotech

GS-9 

Equipment 

Operator 

WG-5

Park Ranger

(LE) 

GS-7/9/11

Project Leader

GS-14 

Highlighted boxes show proposed positions. This chart does not depict additional staff for Mashpee, Massasoit, Monomoy, Nomans Land Island, and Nantucket NWRs

* Positions that are currently vacant. 

-20

2-
Appedix F: Staffing Charts 

(This page intentionally left blank)

Great Meadows NWR - 203 -
Appendix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

Appendix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

- 204 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appedix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

Compatibility Determination 

Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Refuge Name: Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuges 

Establishing Authority: Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established May 

3,1944 under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 715d) and Refuge 

Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1)

Great Meadows purposes: 

• “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” (16 U.S.C. § 715d), 

• “... suitable for -- incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development,” (16

U.S.C. § 460k-1), 

• “the protection of natural resources,” (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1), 

• “and the conservation of threatened or endangered species...” (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: To administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 

Description of Use: Environmental education includes activities which seek to increase public 

knowledge and understanding of wildlife and the importance of habitat protection and 

management. Typical activities include teacher or staff-guided on-site field trips, off-site programs

in classrooms, and nature study, such as teacher and student workshops and curriculumstructured instruction, and interpretation of wildlife resources. The refuge also supports an Urban 

Education program which offers these programs to students from the Boston and Worcester 

schools. 

Interpretation includes those activities and supporting infrastructure that explain management 

activities, fish and wildlife resources, ecological processes, and cultural history among other topics 

to public users. Programs and activities may be developed, sponsored and supervised by

volunteers. 

Access to the refuge for these activities is achieved through walking, snowshoeing or crosscountry skiing. 

On and off site environmental education programs and interpretive programs, assistance with 

teacher workshops, and informational kiosks would be offered at Great Meadows NWR. The 

proposed action also includes interpretive materials on the trails. A visitor contact station would 

be built to support refuge programs. 

Availability of Resources: Environmental education and interpretation occur through the use of 

existing staff, resources, and facilities. Existing resources include staff, interpretive kiosks and 

displays, environmental education programs carried out through extensive help of volunteers, 

displays, and trails. The amount and character of environmental and interpretive programming 

will be a direct reflection of the refuge’s staff and funding levels. The following components of an 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 205 -
Appendix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

environmental education and interpretation program will need to be developed to fully implement 

the program outlined in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Additional components may be 

added at later dates. Specific costs will be determined as implementation of specific programs 

occurs. 

 

• Expand Urban Education 

• Develop wildlife demonstration and educational curriculum 

• Interpretive brochures (trail guides, pamphlets, species lists, etc.) 

• Staff new visitor contact station at Concord 

• Visitor center for Complex- equipment and operation of the new center 

• Interpret Wild and Scenic River through brochures, kiosks and new programs 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: On-site activities by teachers and students using trails and 

environmental education sites may impose low-level impacts such as trampling of vegetation, 

removing vegetation, littering and temporary disturbance to wildlife. In the event of persistent 

disturbance to habitat or wildlife the activity will be restricted or discontinued. 

Placement of kiosks may impact small areas of vegetation. Kiosks will be placed where minimal 

disturbance will occur. 

Providing additional interpretive and educational brochures and materials may result in increased 

knowledge of the refuge and its resources. This awareness and knowledge may improve the 

willingness of the public to support refuge programs, resources, and compliance with regulations. 

There will be impacts from building a new visitor contact station. These impacts will be analyzed

in an appropriate NEPA compliant environmental document after the sites for the buildings are 

determined. 

Public Review and Comment: The compatibility determination was included in the Draft 

CCP/EA. The Draft CCP/EA was available for comment from July 20 through September 3, 2003.

Refuge staff held four public meetings to collect public comments, written and verbal, on the draft 

CCP/EA, including all compatibility determinations. 

Determination:

Use is not compatible ___. 

Use is Compatible with the following stipulations _X_. 

The following stipulations are required to ensure compatibility: Activities will be held in areas

where minimal impact will occur. Periodic evaluation of sites and programs will be conducted to

assess if objectives are being met and to prevent site degradation. If evidence of unacceptable 

adverse impacts appear, the location(s) of activities will be rotated with secondary sites, curtailed 

or discontinued. The known presence of a threatened or endangered species will preclude the use 

of an area until the Refuge Manager determines otherwise. 

Special use permits will be issued to organizations conducting environmental education or 

interpretive tours or activities. A fee may be charged for the special use permit. The areas used by

such tours will be closely monitored to evaluate the impacts on the resource; if adverse impacts 

appear, the activity will be moved to secondary locations or curtailed or discontinued. Specific 

- 206 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appedix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

conditions may apply depending upon the requested activity and will be addressed through the 

special use permit. 

Guidelines to ensure the safety of all participants will be issued in writing to the teacher or group 

leader responsible for the activities and will be reviewed before the activity begins. 

Law enforcement patrol of public use areas should continue to minimize the above-mentioned 

types of violations. The current “Refuge open 1⁄2 hour before sunrise to 1⁄2 hour after sunset” 

regulation restricts entry after daylight hours, and should be maintained along with “Public Use 

Restricted to Trails Only”. 

Justification: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57) 

identifies six legitimate and appropriate uses of wildlife refuges; environmental education, 

interpretation, hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and wildlife photography. These priority 

public uses are dependent upon healthy wildlife populations. Where these uses are determined to 

be compatible, they are to receive enhanced consideration over other uses in planning and 

management. 

Environmental education and interpretation activities generally support Refuge purposes and 

impacts can largely be minimized (Goff et al., 1988). The minor resource impacts attributed to

these activities are generally outweighed by the benefits gained by educating present and future 

generations about refuge resources. Environmental education is a public use management tool 

used to develop a resource protection ethic within society. While it targets school age children, it is

not limited to this group. This tool allows us to educate refuge visitors about endangered and 

threatened species management, wildlife management and ecological principles and communities. 

A secondary benefit of environmental education is that it instills an ‘ownership’ or ‘stewardship’ 

ethic in visitors and most likely reduces vandalism, littering and poaching; it also strengthens 

Service visibility in the local community. Environmental education (outdoor classroom) is listed in 

the Refuge Manual (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1985) as the highest priority visitor use 

activity throughout the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

These activities will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the refuge was established. 

Signature - Refuge Manager: /s/ Elizabeth A. Herland 12/21/2004

 (Signature and Date)

Concurrence - Regional Chief: /s/ Anthony D. Léger 12/27/2004

(Signature and Date) 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: December 27, 2019 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 207 -
Appendix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

Compatibility Determination 

Use: Fishing 

Refuge Name: Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing Authority: Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established May 

3,1944 under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 715d) and Refuge 

Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1).

Refuge Purposes: Great Meadows purposes are 

• “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” (16 U.S.C. § 715d), 

• “... suitable for -- incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development,” (16

U.S.C. § 460k-1), 

• “the protection of natural resources,” (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1), 

• “and the conservation of threatened or endangered species...” (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: To administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 

Description of Use: Fishing activities include: shore or bank fishing, and fishing from a boat or 

canoe. Access to the refuge for this activity is achieved through walking, snowshoeing, crosscountry skiing, or by canoe. Fishing opportunities at Great Meadows Refuge include both shore 

and bank fishing. Refuge pools are not open to fishing. Any applicable State fishing licenses are

required. This use is a priority public use 

Availability of Resources: Costs for this activity are small. Costs which may occur include 

maintenance costs to trails and access roads as well as law enforcement personnel costs. The 

proposed action includes hiring additional law enforcement staff that would be assisting with 

monitoring these programs. 

Costs which may occur include maintenance costs to trails and access roads as well as law 

enforcement personnel costs. The Proposed Action includes hiring a law enforcement officer 

support wildlife dependent recreation. Additionally the urban education program includes fishing 

opportunities which also requires interpretive staff time and assistance 

Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Purpose: The designated areas for fishing may need

stabilization to prevent erosion before being opened and or to curb erosion after use of these areas 

has begun. Potential and actual refuge impacts include trampling vegetation, creation of 

unauthorized trails and subsequent erosion or over-harvesting. Some disturbance of roosting and 

feeding birds will probably occur (Burger, 1981) but is considered minimal. Discarded fishing line 

and other fishing litter can entangle migratory birds and cause injury and death (Gregory, 1991). 

Additionally, litter impacts the visual experience of refuge visitors (Marion and Lime, 1986). 

Anticipated law enforcement issues include illegal taking of fish, littering, illegal fires at night, 

fishing without a license, and disorderly conduct. 

- 208 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appedix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

Public Review and Comment: The compatibility determination was included in the Draft 

CCP/EA. The Draft CCP/EA was available for comment from July 20 through September 3, 2003.

Refuge staff held four public meetings to collect public comments, written and verbal, on the draft 

CCP/EA, including all compatibility determinations. 

Determination: 

Use is not compatible ___. 

Use is Compatible with the following stipulations _X_. 

The following stipulations are required to ensure compatibility: 

The designated areas for fishing may need stabilization to prevent erosion before being opened 

and or to curb erosion after use of these areas has begun. Adequate funding to provide seasonal

law enforcement presence at night will be required during the peak fishing season (April through 

October). 

Enforcement will help to curb illegal fires, disorderly conduct and littering. Enforcement will also 

help to ensure that fishing regulations are observed, reduce creation of unauthorized trails and 

serve as a direct contact to the fishing public. Public meetings with local fishing clubs and 

interested parties will also be required to reinforce refuge regulations. If these measures do not 

curb unauthorized activities, other measures will be implemented to control activities and 

fishermen. Law enforcement patrol of public use areas should minimize the above-mentioned 

types of violations. The current “Refuge open 1⁄2 hour before sunrise to 1⁄2 hour after sunset” 

regulation restricts entry after daylight hours, and should be maintained along with “Public Use 

Restricted to Trails Only”. 

Justification: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57) 

identifies six legitimate and appropriate uses of wildlife refuges; fishing, environmental education, 

interpretation, hunting, wildlife observation and wildlife photography. These priority public uses 

are dependent upon healthy wildlife populations. Where these uses are determined to be

compatible, they are to receive enhanced consideration over other uses in planning and 

management. 

Fishing is a wildlife-oriented activity that provides substantial recreational opportunities to the 

public (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1992 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1997). Fishing is a

traditional form of outdoor recreation. 

These activities will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the refuge was established. 

Signature - Refuge Manager: /s/ Elizabeth A. Herland 12/21/2004

 (Signature and Date)

Concurrence - Regional Chief: /s/ Anthony D. Léger 12/27/2004

(Signature and Date) 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: December 27, 2019 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 209 -
Appendix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

Compatibility Determination 

Use: Hunting - White-tailed Deer Hunting , Waterfowl Hunting 

Refuge Name: Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuges 

Establishing Authority: Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established May 

3,1944 under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 715d) and Refuge 

Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1)

Refuge Purposes: Great Meadows NWR purposes: 

• “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” (16 U.S.C. § 715d), 

• “... suitable for -- incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development,” (16

U.S.C. § 460k-1), 

• “the protection of natural resources,” (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1), 

• “and the conservation of threatened or endangered species...” (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: To administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 

Description of Use:

White-tail deer 

Archery would be the only acceptable means of taking deer on Great Meadows NWR. Only 

portable stands are allowed and no tree spiking is allowed. Open seasons will adhere to

Massachusetts State deer hunting regulations. Access to the refuge for this activity is achieved 

through walking, snowshoeing or cross-country skiing. 

Waterfowl Hunting 

Waterfowl hunting involves the use of calls and decoys to bring in waterfowl. Dogs and canoes 

may be used in areas to retrieve downed birds. No permanent blinds are allowed. Waterfowl 

hunting activities will be conducted according to State regulations and restrictions. 

Several areas of Great Meadows Refuge will be opened to hunting of waterfowl, including areas on 

the Sudbury and Concord Rivers and associated wetlands. 

All applicable Federal (50 CFR Part 32) and State hunting regulations will be in force on the 

refuge, including the discharge of firearms or arrows across or within 150 feet of any highway and 

the possession or discharge of any firearm or arrow within 500 feet of any dwelling or building in 

use. The use or possession of alcoholic beverages while hunting will be strictly prohibited. 

Hunting will occur within designated State seasons but could be restricted by time or day if 

determined necessary by the Refuge Manager to address resource or visitor use issues. All 

hunters will be required to obtain a permit from the refuge prior to scouting or hunting. The 

- 210 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appedix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

permit could contain both refuge-specific information, maps, and/or additional refuge 

requirements for hunter compliance. This may be modified on an annual basis if necessary. A fee 

will be charged for the permit. 

Access to the refuge for all hunt seasons is through walking or snowshoeing. Cutting of vegetation

is prohibited. 

Limited special seasons will be provided for physically handicapped hunters. Selected roads on 

the refuge will remain open for restricted vehicle traffic. Some of these roads will allow us to 

provide handicapped accessible hunting opportunities. 

Availability of Resources: See Appendix F of the Final CCP for recurring cost estimates and 

duration of the proposed projects. 

The costs involved in offering this wildlife dependent activity are minimal. Hunting on the refuge 

will be by annual permit. The refuge will be collecting an annual fee of $20 for all hunting seasons

on the refuge. One fee is valid for Assabet River, Great Meadows, and Oxbow NWRs for the 

seasons that each type of hunting is allowed. Fee money collected will help recover costs for 

funding the program. 

Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Purpose: The impacts of allowing hunting may include 

disturbance of non-target species in the course of tracking deer, trampling of vegetation, possible 

creation of unauthorized trails by hunters, littering and possible vandalism and subsequent 

erosion. 

White-tailed deer number about 90,000 in Massachusetts. In some areas, deer density is as high as 

25-30 deer per square mile. Many landowners suffer landscape damage due to deer on a regular 

basis, transmission of Lyme disease becomes a significant issue with large numbers of deer, 

starvation is a possibility when deer numbers are high as food supplies dwindle in bad weather 

and deer-vehicle collisions become more common and problematic. 

Public Review and Comment: The compatibility determination was included in the Draft 

CCP/EA. The Draft CCP/EA was available for comment from July 20 through September 3, 2003.

Refuge staff held four public meetings to collect public comments, written and verbal, on the draft 

CCP/EA, including all compatibility determinations. 

Determination: 

Use is not compatible ___. 

Use is Compatible with the following stipulations _X_. 

The following stipulations are required to ensure compatibility: 

 All hunters must obtain all necessary State, Federal, and refuge permits.

 Hunters must abide by all applicable refuge, State, and Federal regulations. 

 Refuge staff will develop a Hunt Plan and amend the Code of Federal Regulations before 

permitting hunting on the refuge. 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 211 -
Appendix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

 Staff will monitor hunting activities to determine any adverse impacts to refuge resources and 

adjust the hunt program as necessary. 

 Waterfowl hunting is permitted from motorized and non-motorized boats (boat must not be 

under power) on the Sudbury River and from the banks of the River over River waters. 

Enforcement will be necessary to ensure compliance with refuge and State regulations 

regarding hunting of waterfowl. Cutting of vegetation is prohibited. The use of unleashed dogs 

is permitted only while under the control of individuals actively engaged in hunting. 

Justification: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57) 

identifies six legitimate and appropriate uses of wildlife refuges; hunting, environmental 

education, interpretation, fishing, wildlife observation and wildlife photography. These priority 

public uses are dependent upon healthy wildlife populations. Where these uses are determined to 

be compatible, they are to receive enhanced consideration over other uses in planning and 

management. 

Hunting of white-tailed deer and waterfowl on Great Meadows NWR is justified within refuge 

objectives by providing wildlife-oriented recreation and promoting appreciation of wildlife and the 

outdoors. Recreational hunting is also a valid means of population control and can serve to keep 

wildlife populations in check. 

These activities will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the refuge was established. 

Signature - Refuge Manager: /s/ Elizabeth A. Herland 12/21/2004

 (Signature and Date)

Concurrence - Regional Chief: /s/ Anthony D. Léger 12/27/2004

(Signature and Date) 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: December 27, 2019 

- 212 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appedix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

Compatibility Determination 

Use: Jogging/Running 

Refuge Name: Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing Authority: Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established May 

3, 1944 under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 715d) and Refuge 

Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1).

Refuge Purposes: 

• “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” (16 U.S.C. § 715d), 

• “... suitable for -- incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development,” (16

U.S.C. § 460k-1), 

• “the protection of natural resources,” (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1), 

• “and the conservation of threatened or endangered species...” (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: To administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 

Description of Use: Jogging or running on refuge trails. Maps showing these trail systems are 

included in Refuge Brochures for Great Meadows NWR. Jogging occurs year-round on the 

refuges with the majority of use from April through October along the Dike Trail at the Concord 

impoundments. Occasionally, joggers stop at the informational kiosk to obtain refuge or wildlife 

viewing information. Use is heaviest during the summer months and occurs more frequently early 

in the morning and in the evening when individuals jog before and after work and while the 

weather is more pleasant. Visual observations indicate that total use is moderate to heavy, but 

exact numbers are currently not available. The activity is primarily athletic in nature. It is likely

that some joggers observe wildlife while they are jogging on the refuge. However, such 

observation tends to be incidental to the primary activity of jogging. At Great Meadows NWR, 

joggers include individuals and couples as well as larger groups such as track teams from local 

schools and a local running club. Track teams tend to jog in the afternoons and local clubs run on 

weekend mornings. 

Availability of Resources: Maintenance of the trails and facilities include costs. These costs are

not directly related to jogging or running. Jogging and running may cause incremental needs for 

additional trail maintenance activities. The major portion of the funds needed to support this 

activity is in the form of salaries to maintain the trails and to provide protection and monitoring; 

additional funds are needed for maintenance materials and other supplies. The prorated portion 

of cost to maintain the trails is estimated to be $5,000 and the prorated portion of the cost for law 

enforcement, resource protection and monitoring is approximately $3,000. 

Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Purpose: Jogging or running as conducted on Great Meadows 

NWR has not been studied in a rigorous fashion. Jogging has the potential of impacting 

shorebird, waterfowl, marshbirds and other migratory bird populations feeding and resting near 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 213 -
Appendix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

the trails during certain times of the year. Dense foraging habitat often is concentrated along the 

edges of the impoundments where water levels are lower, and therefore attracts large numbers of 

foraging ducks and shorebirds during migration. Use of upland trails is more likely to impact 

songbirds than other migratory birds. Human disturbance to migratory birds has been

documented in many studies in different locations. 

Conflicts arise when migratory birds and humans are present in the same areas (Boyle and 

Samson 1985). Response of wildlife to human activities includes: departure from site (Owen 1973, 

Burger 1981, Korschgen et al 1985, Henson and Grant 1991, Kahl 1991, Klein 1993), use of suboptimal habitat (Erwin 1980, Williams and Forbes 1980), altered behavior (Burger 1981, Korschen 

et al. 1985, Morton et al. 1989, Ward and Stehn 1989, Havera et al. 1992, Klein 1993), and increase

in energy expenditure ( Morton et al. 1989, Belanger and Bedard 1990). McNeil et al. (1992) found 

that many waterfowl species avoid disturbance by feeding at night instead of during the day. The 

location of recreational activities impacts species in different ways. Miller et al. (1998) found that

nesting success was lower near recreational trails, where human activity was common, than at

greater distances from the trails. A number of species have shown greater reactions when 

pedestrian use occurred off trail (Miller, 1998). In addition, Burger (1981) found that wading birds 

were extremely sensitive to disturbance in the northeastern U.S. In regard to waterfowl, Klein 

(1989) found migratory dabbling ducks to be the most sensitive to disturbance and migrant ducks 

to be more sensitive when they first arrived, in the late fall, than later in winter. She also found 

gulls and sandpipers to be apparently insensitive to human disturbance, with Burger (1981) 

finding the same to be true for various gull species. 

For songbirds, Gutzwiller et. al. (1997) found that singing behavior of some species was altered by

low levels of human intrusion. Jogging can impact normal behavioral activities, including feeding, 

reproductive, and social behavior. Studies have shown that ducks and shorebirds are sensitive to 

jogging activity (Burger 1981, 1986). Resident waterbirds tend to be less sensitive to human 

disturbance than migrants, and migrant ducks are particularly sensitive when they first arrive 

(Klein 1993). In areas where human activity is common, birds tolerated closer approaches than in 

areas receiving less activity. 

Public Review and Comment: The public review and comment period was announced on refuge 

kiosks, in a planning update sent to all of the individuals on the CCP mailing list, and on the refuge

website. The comment period was from June 21, 2004 to July 20, 2004. We received no comments 

on this compatibility determination. 

Determination: 

Use is not compatible ___. 

Use is Compatible with the following stipulations _X_. 

The following stipulations are required to ensure compatibility: Joggers and runners will

utilize only established trails and other areas open to the public and not venture into closed areas. 

The current “refuge open 1⁄2 hour before sunrise to 1⁄2 hour after sunset” regulation restricts entry 

after daylight hours, and should be maintained along with “Public Use Restricted to Trails Only”. 

We will be undertaking research to examine whether or not there are site specific impacts on the 

refuges. We will examine impacts to wildlife and impacts to other recreationists participating in 

wildlife dependent recreational activities. We will reexamine the compatibility of jogging and

- 214 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appedix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

running after this research is completed. 

Justification: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57) 

identifies six legitimate and appropriate uses of wildlife refuges; environmental education, 

interpretation, hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and wildlife photography. These priority 

public uses are dependent upon healthy wildlife populations. Where these uses are determined to 

be compatible, they are to receive enhanced consideration over other uses in planning and 

management. 

Jogging and running are to be used only as a means to facilitate the priority public uses identified 

above. 

These activities will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the refuge was established. 

Literature Cited:

Belanger, L., and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow

geese. Journal of Wildlife Management. 54:36- 

Boyle, S. A., F. B. Samson. 1985. Effects of nonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: A review. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:110- 

Burger, J. 1981. The effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biological Conservation. 

21:231-241. 

Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern 

United States. Environmental Conservation. 13:123-130. 

Erwin, R. M. 1980. Breeding habitat by colonially nesting water birds in 2 mid-Atlantic U.S. 

regions under different regimes of human disturbance. Biological Conservation. 18:39-51. 

Gutzwiller, K.J., R.T. Wiedenmann, K.L. Clements, 1997. Does human intrusion alter the 

seasonal timing of avian song during breeding periods? Auk 114:55-65.

Havera, S. P., L. R. Boens, M. M. Georgi, and R. T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of 

waterfowl on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 20:290-298.

Henson, P. T., and A. Grant. 1991. The effects of human disturbance on trumpeter swan breeding 

behavior. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 19:248-257. 

Kahl, R. 1991. Boating disturbance of canvasbacks during migration at Lake Poygan, Wisconsin. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin. 19:242-248. 

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin. 21:31-39. 

Korschen, C. E., L. S. George, and W. L. Green. 1985. Disturbance of diving ducks by boaters on

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 215 -
Appendix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

a migrational staging area. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 13:290-296. 

McNeil, Raymond; Pierre Drapeau; John D. Goss-Custard. 1992. The occurrence and adaptive

significance of nocturnal habitats in waterfowl. Biological Review. 67: 381-419 

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

communities. Ecological Applications. 8(1) 162-169. 

Morton, J. M., A. C. Fowler, and R. L. Kirkpatrick. 1989. Time and energy budgets of American

black ducks in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management. 53:401-410. 

Owen, M. 1973. The management of grassland areas for wintering geese. Wildfowl. 24:123-130. 

Ward, D. H., and R. A. Stehn. 1989. Response of Brant and other geese to aircraft disturbance at 

Izembek Lagoon, Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Fish and Wildlife Research 

Center. Final report to the Minerals Management Service. Anchorage, Alaska. 193 pp.

Williams, G. J., and E. Forbes. 1980. The habitat and dietary preferences of dark-bellied Brant 

geese and widgeon in relation to agricultural management. Wildfowl. 31:151-157. 

Signature - Refuge Manager: /s/ Elizabeth A. Herland 12/21/2004

 (Signature and Date)

Concurrence - Regional Chief: /s/ Anthony D. Léger 12/27/2004

(Signature and Date) 

Mandatory 5-year Reevaluation Date: December 27, 2009 

- 216 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appedix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

Compatibility Determination 

Use: Motorized Boating 

Refuge Name: Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing Authority: Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established May 

3, 1944 under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 715d) and Refuge 

Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1).

Refuge Purposes: 

• “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” (16 U.S.C. § 715d), 

• “... suitable for — incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development,” 

• (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1), 

• “the protection of natural resources,” (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1), 

• “and the conservation of threatened or endangered species...” (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: To administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 

Description of Use: 

(a) What is the use? Is the use a priority public use? 

The use is motorized boats on certain refuge waters. Use of motorized boats is not a priority 

public use, but would be utilized in support of the priority public uses of fishing, waterfowl 

hunting, and wildlife observation and photography. Motorized boats does not include jet skis. 

(b) Where would the use be conducted? 

Motorboating would occur only on the Concord and Sudbury Rivers within and adjacent to the 

refuge boundary. Motorboating will not be allowed in refuge pools or wetlands. 

(c) When would the use be conducted?

Use of motorized boats will occur primarily during the spring, summer, and fall. Use of motorized 

boats will be precluded during times when the river is frozen. 

(d) How would the use be conducted? 

Individuals will launch boats from a variety of formal and informal locations along the river. They

will travel up and down the river on and off of refuge waters to participate in wildlife dependent 

activities. 

(e) Why is this use being proposed? 

Use of motorized boats at Great Meadows NWR will facilitate wildlife observation, waterfowl 

hunting, photography, and fishing. 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 217 -
Appendix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

Availability of Resources: The costs of facilities associated with facilitating motorized boating 

are discussed under the compatibility determinations for the respective wildlife dependent public 

uses. These costs are also included in Appendix E of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) 

for Great Meadows NWR. Facilities at Great Meadows NWR would not be used. 

Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Purpose: 

Use of motorized boats at Great Meadows NWR will be monitored to ensure the activity will not 

have adverse impact on wildlife habitat, or the management of migratory birds and other wildlife 

species. There is potential for wildlife disturbance due to noise of boat motors, proximity of boats

to wildlife, speed of boats, and time of operation. This activity will facilitate wildlife-dependent 

recreation. 

Public Review and Comment: The public review and comment period was announced on refuge 

kiosks, in a planning update sent to all of the individuals on the CCP mailing list, and on the refuge

website. The comment period was from June 21, 2004 to July 20, 2004. 

Determination: 

Use is not compatible ___. 

Use is Compatible with the following stipulations _X_. 

The following stipulations are required to ensure compatibility: The Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) allows refuge managers to authorize the use of boats in national wildlife 

refuges. The use of motorized boats could adversely impact waterfowl and resident wildlife if 

guidelines are not in place to ensure operation to minimize such impacts. 

Historically, use of motorized boats has occurred up and down the Concord and Sudbury Rivers

and the refuge is just one of the many landowners along the rivers. We have the responsibility of 

ensuring that all of the activities that take place within the refuge occur in a manner that is 

consistent with the purposes of the refuge. As such, we will review all of the areas of the rivers 

within and adjacent to the refuge and determine the maximum allowable speed. In no case will 

the speed limit exceed 25 miles per hour. We will review additional speed restrictions imposed by

the towns that border or encompass the rivers and will respect any speed limits that are in place. 

All of the provisions of 50 CFR §27.31 and 27.32 will be imposed as well. Included in this section is 

the requirement that “No operator or person in charge of any boat shall operate or knowingly 

permit any other person to operate a boat in a reckless manner, or in a manner so as to endanger

or be likely to endanger any person, property or wildlife.” 

Boaters will utilize only areas open to the public and not venture into closed areas. We do not 

provide areas for boat landing and access to the refuge lands from the river. Boaters are not 

allowed to tie off to shoreline vegetation or pull onto refuge lands to access trails. 

Justification: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57) 

identifies six legitimate and appropriate uses of wildlife refuges; environmental education, 

interpretation, hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and wildlife photography. These priority 

public uses are dependent upon healthy wildlife populations. Where these uses are determined to 

- 218 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appedix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

be compatible, they are to receive enhanced consideration over other uses in planning and 

management. 

Use of motorized boats is to be used as a means to facilitate the priority public uses identified 

above. 

These activities will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the refuge was established. 

Signature - Refuge Manager: /s/ Elizabeth A. Herland 12/27/2004

 (Signature and Date)

Concurrence - Regional Chief: /s/ Anthony D. Léger 12/28/2004

(Signature and Date) 

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: December 28, 2014 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 219 -
Appendix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

Compatibility Determination 

Use: Natural History Tours 

Refuge Names: Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing Authority: Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established May 

3,1944 under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 715d) and Refuge 

Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1). 

Refuge Purposes: Great Meadows purposes are 

• “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” (16 U.S.C. § 715d), 

• “... suitable for -- incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development,” (16

U.S.C. § 460k-1), 

• “the protection of natural resources,” (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1), 

• “and the conservation of threatened or endangered species...” (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: To administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 

Description of Use: 

(a) What is the use? Is the use a priority public use? 

This activity consists of a group of people with a leader or guide walking or driving on refuge 

property to learn a bout plant and wildlife species, natural processes and wetlands. Natural 

history tours will facilitate wildlife observation and photography, and environmental 

interpretation and education, which are priority uses of the refuge. 

(b) Where would the use be conducted? 

Natural history tours would occur only on established refuge trails or roads. 

(c) When would the use be conducted?

Natural history tours would be conducted only during hours when the refuge is open, generally 1⁄2 

hour before sunrise to 1⁄2 hour after sunset. 

(d) How would the use be conducted? 

Natural history tours would occur either by foot or motor vehicle. 

(e) Why is this use being proposed? 

Natural history tours offer an opportunity to expose visitors to the Refuge purposes and Refuge

System Mission. Some of the tours may also be birding trips. Participants gain an extra 

understanding and appreciation for the Refuge and the environment. 

Availability of Resources: Before groups may conduct tours on the refuge they must obtain a 

special use permit. The cost of preparing the special use permits Natural History Tours will be 

minimal. Maintenance of the trails and facilities will also include costs. 

- 220 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appedix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Purpose: The impacts associated with this activity are trampling

of vegetation, littering, possible vandalism and temporary disturbance to wildlife in the area of the 

group. These impacts are minor in light of the appreciation and knowledge gained by participants 

in these activities. The known presence of a threatened or endangered species will preclude the 

use of an area until the Refuge Manager determines otherwise. 

Public Review and Comment: The compatibility determination was included in the Draft 

CCP/EA. The Draft CCP/EA was available for comment from July 20 through September 3, 2003.

Refuge staff held four public meetings to collect public comments, written and verbal, on the draft 

CCP/EA, including all compatibility determinations. 

Determination: 

Use is not compatible ___. 

Use is Compatible with the following stipulations _X_. 

The following stipulations are required to ensure compatibility: Special use permits will be 

issued to the organization conducting the tours. A fee may be charged for the special use permit. 

The areas used by such tours will be closely monitored to evaluate the impacts on the resource; if 

adverse impacts appear, the activity will be moved to secondary locations or curtailed entirely. 

Specific conditions may apply depending upon the requested activity and will be addressed 

through the special use permit. 

Law enforcement patrol of public use areas should minimize the above-mentioned types of 

violations. The current “Refuge open 1⁄2 hour before sunrise to 1⁄2 hour after sunset” regulation 

restricts entry after daylight hours, and should be maintained along with “Public Use Restricted 

to Trails Only”. 

Justification: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57) 

identifies six legitimate and appropriate uses of wildlife refuges; environmental education, 

interpretation, hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and wildlife photography. These priority 

public uses are dependent upon healthy wildlife populations. Where these uses are determined to 

be compatible, they are to receive enhanced consideration over other uses in planning and 

management. 

Natural history activities generally support refuge purposes and impacts can largely be

minimized. The minor resource impacts attributed to these activities are generally outweighed by 

the benefits gained by educating present and future generations about refuge resources. Natural 

history activities are a public use management tool used to develop a resource protection ethic 

within society. This tool allows us to educate Refuge visitors about endangered and threatened 

species management, wildlife management and ecological principles and communities. A 

secondary benefit of natural history activities is that it instills an ‘ownership’ or ‘stewardship’ ethic

in visitors and most likely reduces vandalism, littering and poaching; it also strengthens Service 

visibility in the local community. Environmental education through natural history activities is 

listed in the Refuge Manual (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1985) as the highest priority visitor 

activity throughout the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

These activities will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 221 -
Appendix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the refuge was established. 

Signature - Refuge Manager: /s/ Elizabeth A. Herland 12/21/2004

 (Signature and Date)

Concurrence - Regional Chief: /s/ Anthony D. Léger 12/27/2004

(Signature and Date) 

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: December 27, 2014 

- 222 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appedix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

Compatibility Determination 

Use: Non-motorized Boating 

Refuge Name: Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing Authority: Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established May 

3, 1944 under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 715d) and Refuge 

Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1).

Refuge Purposes: 

• “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” (16 U.S.C. § 715d), 

• “... suitable for — incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development,” 

• (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1), 

• “the protection of natural resources,” (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1), 

• “and the conservation of threatened or endangered species...” (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: To administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 

Description of Use: 

(a) What is the use? Is the use a priority public use? 

Non-motorized boating consists of the use of canoes, kayaks, row boats or other human powered 

watercraft across open water. The use is not a priority public use, but would facilitate

participation in a variety of priority wildlife-dependent activities, including fishing, hunting, 

wildlife observation and wildlife photography. 

(b) Where would the use be conducted? 

Non-motorized boating would be conducted only on the Sudbury and Concord rivers, not in refuge 

wetland pools or other ponds. 

(c) When would the use be conducted?

Non-motorized boating would occur during times when the refuge is open. 

(d) How would the use be conducted? 

Access to the refuge is at specific points on and off the refuge. 

(e) Why is this use being proposed? 

Non-motorized boating will facilitate participation in priority wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Availability of Resources: The costs of infrastructure associated with facilitating non-motorized 

boating are discussed in the compatibility determinations for the respective wildlife dependent 

public uses. These costs are also included in Appendix E of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(CCP) for Great Meadows NWR. Existing facilities at Great Meadows NWR would be used. 

Minor improvements and maintenance would be accomplished by refuge staff and volunteers 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 223 -
Appendix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Purpose: Non-motorized boating at Great Meadows NWR will

be monitored to ensure the activity will not have adverse impact on wildlife habitat, or the 

management of migratory birds and other wildlife species. This activity will facilitate wildlifedependent recreation. 

Public Review and Comment: The compatibility determination was included in the Draft 

CCP/EA. The Draft CCP/EA was available for comment from July 20 through September 3, 2003.

Refuge staff held four public meetings to collect public comments, written and verbal, on the draft 

CCP/EA, including all compatibility determinations. 

Determination: 

Use is not compatible ___. 

Use is Compatible with the following stipulations _X_. 

The following stipulations are required to ensure compatibility: Boaters will utilize only 

established trails and other areas open to the public and not venture into closed areas. The current 

“refuge open 1⁄2 hour before sunrise to 1⁄2 hour after sunset” regulation restricts entry after 

daylight hours, and should be maintained along with “Public Use Restricted to Trails Only”. 

Justification: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57) 

identifies six legitimate and appropriate uses of wildlife refuges; environmental education, 

interpretation, hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and wildlife photography. These priority 

public uses are dependent upon healthy wildlife populations. Where these uses are determined to 

be compatible, they are to receive enhanced consideration over other uses in planning and 

management. 

Non-motorized boating is to be used only as a means to facilitate the priority public uses identified 

above. 

These activities will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the refuge was established. 

Signature - Refuge Manager: /s/ Elizabeth A. Herland 12/21/2004

 (Signature and Date)

Concurrence - Regional Chief: /s/ Anthony D. Léger 12/27/2004

(Signature and Date) 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: December 27, 2014 

- 224 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appedix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

Compatibility Determination 

Use: Scientific Research 

Refuge Name: Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuges 

Establishing Authority: Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established May 

3, 1944 under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 715d) and Refuge 

Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1).

Refuge Purposes: 

• “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” (16 U.S.C. § 715d), 

• “... suitable for -- incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development,” (16

U.S.C. § 460k-1), 

• “the protection of natural resources,” (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1), 

• “and the conservation of threatened or endangered species...” (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: To administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 

Description of Use:

(a) What is the use? Is the use a priority public use? 

The use is research conducted by non-Service personnel. The purposes of research conducted on 

the refuge are to further the understanding of the natural resources and to improve the 

management of such resources on the refuge or within the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(Refuge System). Priority will be given to research which is applicable to wildlife, habitat, or 

public use management on and near the refuge. Research conducted by non-Service personnel is 

not a priority public use of the Refuge System. 

(b) Where would the use be conducted? 

The location of the research will vary depending on the individual research project that is being 

conducted. The entire refuge may be made available for specific scientific research projects. 

However, an individual research project is usually limited to a particular habitat type, plant or 

wildlife species. On occasion research projects may encompass an assemblage of habitat types,

plants or wildlife. The research location will be limited to only those areas of the refuge that are 

necessary to conduct any specific, approved research project. 

(c) When would the use be conducted?

The timing of the research will depend on the individual research project that is being conducted. 

Scientific research may be allowed to occur on the refuge throughout the year. An individual 

research project could be short-term in design, requiring one or two visits over the course of a few 

days. Other research projects could be multiple-year studies that require daily visits to the study 

site. The timing of each individual research project will be limited to the minimum required to

complete the project. If a research project occurs during a refuge hunting season, special 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 225 -
Appendix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

precautions or limitations may be required to ensure the safety of researchers or staff. 

(d) How would the use be conducted? 

The methods of a research project will depend on the individual project that is being conducted. 

The methods of each research project will be evaluated before it will be allowed to occur on the 

refuge. No research project will be allowed to occur if it does not have a study plan approved by

the refuge manager, or if the refuge manager determines the project may adversely affect 

wildlife, wildlife habitat, on-going or planned refuge management activities, previously approved

research programs, approved priority public uses, or public health and safety. 

(e) Why is this use being proposed? 

Research by non-Service personnel is conducted by colleges, universities, Federal, State, and local

agencies, non-governmental organizations, and qualified members of the general public. The 

purposes of research conducted on the refuge are to further the understanding of the natural 

resources and to improve the management of such resources on the refuge or within the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. Priority will be given to research which is applicable to wildlife, habitat, 

or public use management on and near the refuge. 

Most research projects on the refuges comprising the Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex 

examine management of avian resources, various public uses, and rare, threatened or endangered

species. Currently, research by non-Refuge staff is concentrated on 5 of the Refuges in Eastern 

Massachusetts NWR Complex: Great Meadows, Assabet River, Oxbow, Monomoy, and 

Massasoit. Much of the research is focused on management of migratory birds, or resident

herptiles and mammals, but other more specific research projects have also been implemented. In 

addition, much of the research conducted at the Refuges is part of larger, landscape based 

projects. At Great Meadows NWR, Special Use Permits have been issued for research which has 

included: investigating deer populations and movements, particularly in the winter months; 

investigating Blanding's turtle populations, movements, and habitat occupancy during the nonnesting season; mapping the spread of West Nile Virus; and evaluating mercury contamination in 

the Sudbury and Concord Rivers. At Assabet River and Oxbow NWRs, research activities have 

included establishing presence, documenting habitat use, and monitoring impacts to productivity 

of Blanding's Turtles, Spotted Turtles, Box Turtles, and Wood Turtles. At Monomoy NWR, 

research has covered the breadth of biological resources including: neurological studies involving 

horseshoe crabs; movement patterns and use of the Refuge by grey and harbor seals; and tern 

phenology, behavior, and productivity on Monomoy (a control site for oil spill studies occurring in 

Buzzards Bay). At Massasoit NWR, research has focused on the natural history of the federally 

listed Northern red-bellied cooter. Although no Special Use Permits have been issued to date for 

biological research on Nomans Land Island, Mashpee, and Nantucket NWRs, it is likely that 

research will occur on these sites in the future.

The Service will encourage and support research and management studies on refuge lands that 

improve and strengthen natural resource management decisions. The refuge manager will 

encourage and seek research relative to approved refuge objectives that clearly improves land 

management and promotes adaptive management. Information that enables better management 

of the Nation’s biological resources and is generally considered important to agencies of the 

Department of Interior, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the Refuge System; and 

State Fish and Game Agencies, and that addresses important management issues or demonstrate 

techniques for management of species and/or habitats will be the priority. 

- 226 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appedix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

The refuge may also consider research for other purposes which may not be directly related to 

refuge-specific objectives, but would contribute to the broader enhancement, protection, use, 

preservation and management of populations of fish, wildlife and plants, and their natural 

diversity within the region or flyway. These proposals must comply with the Service’s 

compatibility policy. 

The refuge may develop a list of research needs that will be provided to prospective researchers 

or organizations upon request. Refuge support of research directly related to refuge objectives 

may take the form of funding, in-kind services such as housing or use of other facilities, direct staff 

assistance with the project in the form of data collection, provision of historical records,

conducting of management treatments, or other assistance as appropriate.

Availability of Resources: The bulk of the cost for research is incurred in staff time to review 

research proposals, coordinate with researchers, write Special Use Permits, and review the 

research results. In some cases, a research project may only require one day of staff time to write 

a Special Use Permit. In other cases, a research project may require weeks of staff time. 

Currently, a senior refuge biologist spends an average of seven weeks a year working full time on 

research projects conducted by outside researchers. At an hourly wage of approximately $30 (for

a GS-12), this adds up to about $8,500 annually for resources spent on outside research.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Disturbance to wildlife and vegetation by researchers could 

occur through observation, a variety of wildlife capture techniques, banding, and accessing the 

study area by foot or vehicle. It is possible that direct or indirect mortality could result as a byproduct of research activities. Mist-netting or other wildlife capture techniques, for example, can 

cause mortality directly through the capture method or in-trap predation, and indirectly through 

capture injury or stress caused to the organism. 

Overall, however, allowing well designed and properly reviewed research to be conducted by nonService personnel is likely to have very little impact on refuge wildlife populations. If the research 

project is conducted with professionalism and integrity, potential adverse impacts are likely to be 

outweighed by the knowledge gained about an entire species, habitat or public use. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination has been made available for 

public review by posting on the refuge bulletin board for a period of thirty days, including 

information about the release of the compatibility determination in a planning update that was

sent to all of the individuals on the comprehensive conservation plan mailing list, and posted on 

the refuge website. The comment period was from June 21, 2004 to July 20, 2004.

Determination (check one below):

___ Use is Not Compatible 

_X_ Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: All researchers will be required to submit a 

detailed research proposal following Service Policy (FWS Refuge Manual Chapter 4 Section 6, as 

may be amended). The refuge must be given at least 45 days to review proposals before initiation 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 227 -
Appendix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

of research. If collection of wildlife is involved, the refuge must be given 60 days to review the 

proposal. Proposals will be prioritized and approved based on need, benefit, compatibility, and 

funding required. 

Special Use Permits (SUP) will be issued for all research conducted by non-Service personnel. 

The SUP will list the conditions that the refuge manager determines to be necessary to ensure 

compatibility. The Special Use Permits will also identify a schedule for progress reports and the 

submittal of a final report or scientific paper. 

Regional refuge biologists, other Service Divisions, State agencies or non-governmental 

organizations and biologists may be asked to provide additional review and comment on any 

research proposal. 

All researchers will be required to obtain appropriate State and Federal permits. 

All research related Special Use Permits will contain a statement regarding the Service’s policy 

regarding disposition of biotic specimen. The current Service policy language in this regard 

(USFWS, 1999) is, “You may use specimens collected under this permit, any components of any 

specimens (including natural organisms, enzymes, genetic material or seeds), and research 

results derived from collected specimens for scientific or educational purposes only, and not for 

commercial purposes unless you have entered into a Cooperative Research and Development 

Agreement (CRADA) with us. We prohibit the sale of collected research specimens or other 

transfers to third parties. Breach of any of the terms of this permit will be grounds for revocation 

of this permit and denial of future permits. Furthermore, if you sell or otherwise transfer 

collected specimens, any components thereof, or any products or any research results developed 

from such specimens or their components without a CRADA, you will pay us a royalty rate of 20 

percent of gross revenue from such sales. In addition to such royalty, we may seek other 

damages and injunctive relief against you.”

Any research project may be terminated at any time for non-compliance with the SUP conditions, 

or modified, redesigned, relocated or terminated, upon a determination by the refuge manager 

that the project is causing unanticipated adverse impacts to wildlife, wildlife habitat, approved 

priority public uses, or other refuge management activities. 

Justification: The Service encourages approved research to further understanding of refuge 

natural resources. Research by non- Service personnel adds greatly to the information base for 

refuge managers to make proper decisions. Research conducted by non-Service personnel will not 

materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or 

the purposes for which the refuge was established. 

Signature - Refuge Manager: /s/ Elizabeth A. Herland 12/21/2004

 (Signature and Date)

Concurrence - Regional Chief: /s/ Anthony D. Léger 12/27/2004

(Signature and Date) 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: December 27, 2014 

- 228 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appedix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

Literature Cited: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Refuge Manual. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government 

Printing Office.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Director’s Order No. 109: Use of Specimens Collected on 

Fish and Wildlife Lands. March 30, 1999. 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 229 -
Appendix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

Compatibility Determination 

Use: Snowshoeing and Cross-country Skiing 

Refuge Name: Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuges 

Establishing Authority: Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established May 

3, 1944 under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 715d) and Refuge 

Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1).

Refuge Purposes: 

• “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” (16 U.S.C. § 715d), 

• “... suitable for -- incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development,” (16

U.S.C. § 460k-1), 

• “the protection of natural resources,” (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1), 

• “and the conservation of threatened or endangered species..” (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: To administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 

Description of Proposed Use: This use would facilitate wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

and interpretive programs during winter months. The trail systems are not plowed because of the 

cost and because of the habitat disturbance plowing would entail. The use simply involves foottravel over the surface of the snow with the use of snowshoes and cross country skis on the refuge 

trail systems. Maps showing the trails are included in the refuge brochures for Great Meadows 

NWR. 

Availability of Resources: The cost of trail and facilities maintenance are not directly related to

showshoeing or cross country skiing. Costs for activities that are facilitated by these methods of 

locomotion are discussed under their respective compatibility determinations. 

Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Purpose: Snowshoeing and cross country skiing will have no 

adverse impact on the management of migratory birds or other wildlife species. These activities 

will only be done in coordination with wildlife-dependent recreation. These will likely create

similar disturbances as people walking on the trails. 

Public Review and Comment: The compatibility determination was included in the Draft 

CCP/EA. The Draft CCP/EA was available for comment from July 20 through September 3, 

2003. Refuge staff held four public meetings to collect public comments, written and verbal, on 

the draft CCP/EA, including all compatibility determinations. 

 

- 230 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appedix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

Determination: 

Use is not compatible ___. 

Use is Compatible with the following stipulations _X_. 

The following stipulations are required to ensure compatibility: Snowshoers and cross 

country skiers will utilize only established trails and other areas open to the public and not 

venture into closed areas. The current “refuge open 1⁄2 hour before sunrise to 1⁄2 hour after sunset” 

regulation restricts entry after daylight hours, and should be maintained along with “Public Use 

Restricted to Trails Only”. 

Justification: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57) 

identifies six legitimate and appropriate uses of wildlife refuges: environmental education, 

interpretation, hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and wildlife photography. These priority 

public uses are dependent upon healthy wildlife populations. Where these uses are determined to 

be compatible, they are to receive enhanced consideration over other uses in planning and 

management. 

Snowshoeing and cross country skiing are to be used only as a means to facilitate the priority 

public uses identified above. 

These activities will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the refuge was established. 

Signature - Refuge Manager: /s/ Elizabeth A. Herland 12/21/2004

 (Signature and Date)

Concurrence - Regional Chief: /s/ Anthony D. Léger 12/27/2004

(Signature and Date) 

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: December 27, 2014 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 231 -
Appendix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

Compatibility Determination 

Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Refuge Names: Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing Authority: Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established May 

3,1944 under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 715d) and Refuge 

Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1).

Refuge Purposes: Great Meadows purposes: 

• “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” (16 U.S.C. § 715d), 

• “... suitable for -- incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development,” (16

U.S.C. § 460k-1), 

• “the protection of natural resources,” (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1), 

• “and the conservation of threatened or endangered species...” (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1) 

 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: To administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 

Description of Use: Great Meadows NWR offers trails, an observation platform, and wildlife 

observation and photography opportunities. Access to the Refuge for this activity is achieved 

through walking, snowshoeing or cross-country skiing. Wildlife observation and photography 

include walking on open and established trails to observe and/or photograph the natural 

environment. 

A parking area at Heard Pond will be created, in addition we will be creating photo blinds at three

sites within the refuge, increasing directional signage to all public use areas, and creating habitat 

demonstration areas to explain management and observe wildlife. 

Availability of Resources: Wildlife observation and photography occur through the use of 

existing staff, resources, and facilities. Existing resources for wildlife observation include trails 

and an observation platform. The amount and character of these opportunities will be a direct 

reflection of the refuge’s staff and funding levels. The following components of a wildlife

observation and photography program will need to be developed to fully implement the program 

outlined in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Additional components may be developed at a 

later date. Specific costs will be determined as implementation of the program occurs. Some of 

these projects are either underway or have been completed. Projects completed in part or in 

whole by volunteers require less fiscal resources. 

• Improve public use infrastructure including: trails system, construction of observation 

platforms and photo blinds 

• Provide accessible wildlife dependent recreation opportunities & interpretation 

- 232 - Great Meadows NWR 
Appedix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Purpose: We predict that the impacts of wildlife observation and 

photography uses will be minimal. Possible impacts include disturbing wildlife, removing or 

trampling of plants, littering, vandalism and entrance into closed areas. We will not be creating 

new trails, rather improving existing trails. There will be some removal of vegetation to place the

observation platforms and photo blinds. In the event of persistent disturbance to habitat or

wildlife the activity will be restricted or discontinued. Little energy will be expended by wildlife 

leaving areas of disturbance. 

Public Review and Comment: The compatibility determination was included in the Draft 

CCP/EA. The Draft CCP/EA was available for comment from July 20 through September 3, 2003.

Refuge staff held four public meetings to collect public comments, written and verbal, on the draft 

CCP/EA, including all compatibility determinations. 

Determination:

Use is not compatible ___. 

Use is Compatible with the following stipulations _X_. 

The following stipulations are required to ensure compatibility:

Law enforcement patrol of public use areas should minimize the above-mentioned types of 

violations. The current “Refuge open 1⁄2 hour before sunrise to 1⁄2 hour after sunset” regulation 

restricts entry after daylight hours, and should be maintained along with “Public Use Restricted 

to Trails Only”. 

Special use permits are required for organizations conducting wildlife observation and 

photography activities on the refuge. A fee may be charged for the special use permit. The areas

used by such tours will be closely monitored to evaluate the impacts on the resource; if adverse 

impacts appear, the activity will be moved to secondary locations or curtailed entirely. Specific 

conditions may apply depending upon the requested activity and will be addressed through the 

special use permit. 

Commercial photography is subject to a special use permit and commercial photographers will be 

charged a fee. The fee is dependent on size, scope and impact of the proposed activitiy. 

Periodic evaluations will be done on trails to assess visitor impacts on the habitat. If evidence of 

unacceptable adverse impacts appear, these uses will be curtailed, relocated or discontinued. 

Refuge regulations will be posted and enforced. Closed areas will be established, posted and 

enforced. The known presence of any threatened or endangered species likely to be disturbed by

trail activity will preclude use of that site as a trail. 

All photographers must follow refuge regulations. Photographers in closed areas must follow the

conditions outlined in the special use permit which normally include notification of refuge 

personnel each time any activities occur in closed areas. Use of a closed area should be restricted 

to inside blinds to reduce disturbance to wildlife. No baits or scents may be used. At the end of 

each session, the blind must be removed. All litter will be removed daily. 

Justification: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57) 

identifies six legitimate and appropriate uses of wildlife refuges; wildlife observation and wildlife 

photography, environmental education, interpretation, hunting, and fishing. These priority public 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan - 233 -
Appendix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

uses are dependent upon healthy wildlife populations. Where these uses are determined to be

compatible, they are to receive enhanced consideration over other uses in planning and 

management. 

The majority of visitors to the refuge are there to view the wildlife and upland, wetland, and

grassland habitat areas. Some visit to develop an understanding of natural or cultural history. 

This visitation is in accordance with a wildlife-oriented activity and is an acceptable secondary use.

There will be some visitor impacts from this activity, such as trampling vegetation (Kuss and Hall, 

1991) and disturbance to wildlife near trails (Klein, 1989 and Burger, 1981), but the knowledge, 

appreciation and understanding of management gained by visitors will provide support for the 

Service. The long-term benefits gained through wildlife observation and photography activities 

outweigh the impacts listed above. 

These activities will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the refuge was established. 

Signature - Refuge Manager: /s/ Elizabeth A. Herland 12/21/2004

 (Signature and Date)

Concurrence - Regional Chief: /s/ Anthony D. Léger 12/27/2004

(Signature and Date) 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: December 27, 2019 

- 234 - Great Meadows NWR