U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Eastern Massachusetts

National Wildlife Refuge

Complex

Draft Comprehensive Conservation

Plan and Environmental Assessment

Executive Summary

Assabet River, Great Meadows and

Oxbow National Wildlife Refuges

April 2003

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal 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 94-million acre National Wildlife Refuge

System comprised of 540 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

nationally 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.

CCPs 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.

This goose, designed by J.N. “Ding”

Darling, has become a symbol of the

National Wildlife Refuge System

Cover photo: Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, USFWS Photo
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Eastern Massachusetts

National Wildlife Refuge

Complex

Draft Comprehensive Conservation

Plan and Environmental Assessment

Executive Summary

Vision Statement for the Complex

The Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge

Complex will contribute to the mission of the National

Wildlife 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 community– supported 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.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Northeast Regional Office

300 Westgate Center Drive

Hadley, MA 01035

April 2003

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Abstract

Type of Action: Administrative— Development of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Location: Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Massachusetts

Assabet River, Great Meadows and Oxbow National Wildlife Refuges

Lead Agency: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Responsible Official: Dr. Richard O. Bennett, Acting Regional Director

For Further Information: Libby Herland, Project Leader

 73 Weir Hill Rd

 Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776

 (978)443-4661

The Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (CCP/EA) describes

three alternatives for three of the refuges in the Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge

Complex (Complex): Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge, Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge

and Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge. Later, we will release a CCP/ Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) for Monomoy, Nomans Land Island and Nantucket national wildlife refuges, and CCP/EAs for

Massasoit and Mashpee national wildlife refuges. A brief description of the alternatives in this EA are

as follows:

Alternative A. This is the current management alternative required by the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA). The refuges continue programs they currently have in place. No new efforts are

undertaken, and land acquisition occurs only for those parcels already within the approved refuge

boundaries.

Alternative B. This alternative represents the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Proposed Action; that is,

the alternative we recommend for approval. Land acquisition occurs only within the refuge boundaries.

This alternative emphasizes inventorying and monitoring refuge resources. This alternative also offers

more wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation opportunities as

well as hunting and fishing on all three refuges.

Alternative C. Alternative C is similar to Alternative A, but places emphasis on a less intrusive

management style. Inventory and monitoring of refuge resources would occur, but would be limited.

The refuges would support similar programs as existing now, but not expand habitat management

programs as Alternative B does. This alternative is distinguished from others by the amount of

resources directed towards expanding all priority public use opportunities and active management

programs.

The draft CCP/EA also includes appendices that provide additional information supporting our analysis.
Reader’s Guide

This executive summary includes highlights from the draft CCP/EA for Assabet River, Great Meadows

and Oxbow National Wildlife Refuges. We have litterally lifted-out sections of Chapters 1, 2, 4, and 5 for

this executive summary, specifically, sections that describe the planning process and the alternatives.

This summary does not include Chapter 3, Affected Environment. You can obtain a copy of the full-text

version, which includes 500 pages of detailed descriptions, analysis, and supporting documentation for

the four alternatives by contacting the Complex headquarters in Sudbury or online at http://

northeast.fws.gov/planning.

This summary includes an overview of our planning process, describes the Proposed Action

(Alternative B,) and compares it to three other possible management alternatives. In addition, the major

benefits and consequences associated with each alternative are presented.

The Draft EA/ CCP provides NEPA compliance for the future management of three refuges in the

Complex: Assabet River, Great Meadows and Oxbow refuges. Following the release of our final NEPA

decision document and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) we will release a stand-alone CCP for

each refuge.

We have written Chapter 1 and Chapter 5 to apply to all three refuges. However, each refuge has a

separate part or section in the Affected Environment, Alternatives, and Environmental Consequences

chapters and in some appendices. In these chapters, Assabet River Refuge is Part 1, Great Meadows

Refuge is Part 2 and Oxbow Refuge is Part 3. The CCP will consist of information organized in the

following sections of this document:

• Chapter 1. The Purpose of and Need for Action, Issues and Concerns

• Chapter 2. Alternatives

• Chapter 3. Affected Environment

• Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences

• Chapter 5. Consultation with Others

• Appendices

Public involvement and NEPA compliance have been incorporated into the process at all appropriate

stages.

The final approved CCP will provide the vision and strategic direction for the refuges. When fully

implemented, each CCP will help achieve the refuge’s purpose, fulfill the National Wildlife Refuge

System (System) mission, maintain or restore the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental

health of the Complex, and meet other mandates. It will be adjusted to consider new and better

information, ensuring that refuge activities best serve the intended purpose and mission of the System.

The CCP will also guide management decisions and set goals, objectives, and strategies to accomplish

these ends. We also require step-down management plans to provide additional details about meeting

CCP goals and objectives and to describe strategies and implementation schedules. The CCP will be

based on the principles of sound fish and wildlife management, available science, legal mandates, and our

other policies, guidelines, and planning documents. It will, above all else, ensure that wildlife comes

first on the refuges.
 Chapter 1

Great Blue Heron at Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Photo by Sandy

Selesky

Introduction

• Introduction and Background

• Purpose and Need for a CCP

• Planning Areas

• Vision Statement for the Complex

• Goals for the Complex

• National and Regional Mandates and Plans Guiding this

Project

• The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process and

Public Involvement

• Wilderness Review

• Issues Identified Through Public Scoping

• Issues and Concerns Considered Outside the Scope of This

Analysis
1-2 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex

Chapter 1 Introduction

Introduction and Background

This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental

Assessment (CCP/EA) has been prepared for three of the eight

refuges of the Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge

Complex (Complex). These three refuges are Assabet River, Great

Meadows (Concord and Sudbury Units), and Oxbow national wildlife

refuges.

We will prepare a separate CCP and Environmental Impact

Statement (CCP/EIS) for Monomoy and Nomans Land Island

national wildlife refuges. CCP/EAs for Nantucket, Massasoit and

Mashpee national wildlife refuges will undergo the CCP process at a

later date.

Purpose and Need for a CCP

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

partners guidance and direction for each refuge over the next 15

years, thus achieving refuge purposes and contributing to the

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

refuges play, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife

conservation, in the protection, enhancement and restoration of trust

resources.

This plan is also needed to:

• provide a clear statement of desired future conditions for

habitat, wildlife, visitors and facilities;

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

understanding of the reasons for management actions;

• ensure management reflects the policies and goals of the

Refuge System and legal mandates;

• 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.

Currently, there is no management plan in place for Assabet River,

Great Meadows or Oxbow refuges that establishes priorities or

provides consistent direction for managing fish, wildlife, habitats, and

public uses on these refuges. This plan will help to resolve issues

related to control of nuisance and invasive species, public uses in

conflict with wildlife needs, lack of opportunities for wildlife

dependent recreation, and the needs of our Federal trust wildlife

species.

Yellow warbler. Photo by Bruce

Flaig

Marsh wren. Photo by Bruce Flaig
Draft CCP/EA Executive Summary April 2003 1-3

 Chapter 1

Decision to be Made

Based on the assessment described in this draft document, our

Regional Director will select a preferred alternative to fully develop

into CCPs for the refuges. The Regional Director’s selected

alternative could be the Proposed Action, the Current Management

Alternative, Alternative C or a combination of actions or alternatives

presented. Selection of the preferred alternative will be made based

on an evaluation of the Service’s mission, the purposes for which the

refuges were established, legal mandates, and responses to this

Draft CCP/EA. In accordance with NEPA, our Regional Director

must also determine whether the selected management alternative

will have a significant impact on the quality of the human

environment. If there is a significant impact, additional analysis will

be required in an EIS. If there is no impact, we will is issue a

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Once the Regional

Director has signed the FONSI and Decision Memorandum and we

have completed stand-alone CCPs for each refuge, we will notify the

public in the Federal Register and implement the plan.

Planning Areas

The Complex consists of eight refuges located in Massachusetts

(Map 1-1). This plan addresses Assabet River, Great Meadows and

Oxbow refuges.

• Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge, in the towns of

Maynard, Sudbury, Stow, and Hudson;

• Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (Concord and

Sudbury Units) in the towns of Concord, Sudbury, Bedford,

Billerica, Carlisle, Wayland, Framingham and Lincoln;

• Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge, in the towns of Shirley,

Harvard, Ayer and Lancaster.

We will discuss Massasoit, Mashpee, Monomoy, Nantucket, and

Nomans Land Island refuges in later NEPA documents.

Establishment and History of the Eastern Massachusetts Refuges

National Wildlife Refuge System lands are acquired under a variety

of legislative and administrative authorities. Refuges can be

established by Congress through special legislation, by the

President through Executive Orders, or administratively by the

Secretary of Interior who is authorized by Congress through a

number of different legislation including: Migratory Bird

Conservation Act of 1929, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of

1934, Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962,

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966,

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation

Purposes Act of 1972, Endangered Species Act of 1973, Emergency

Wetland Resources Act of 1986, and the North American and the

Wetland Conservation Act of 1989. Lands are also acquired through

military excess, bequests and donations.
1-4 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex

Chapter 1 Introduction
Draft CCP/EA Executive Summary April 2003 1-5

 Chapter 1

Oxbow Refuge entrance sign.

USFWS Photo

Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge

Formerly known as the Sudbury Training Annex, Assabet River

Refuge is the most recent addition to the Complex, created in the

Fall of 2000, when Fort Devens Army Base transferred 2,230 acres

to the Service. This transfer was made in accordance with the

Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, with the

purpose of having “particular value in carrying out the national

migratory bird management program.” All acres within the

boundary are acquired. The large wetland complex and the

contiguous forested areas are important feeding and breeding areas

for migratory birds. Under Army administration, the refuge was

not opened to general public use; however, hunting, fishing, and

interpretive opportunities remain a high priority for local

community members.

Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge

Established in 1944, the Concord impoundments became the first

tract of land in the Great Meadows Refuge. The refuge’s 3,629 acres

extend 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.”

The refuge is divided into two units: the Concord Unit (1,492 acres)

and the Sudbury Unit (2,137 acres). The Concord and Sudbury

units 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.

Great Meadows Refuge faces a growing problem with invasive

species, particularly purple loosestrife, water chestnut and common

reed. The refuge has implemented control methods for water

chestnut and purple loosestrife in an effort to reestablish a rich

diversity of native vegetation.

The visitor center, located at the Complex headquarters in Sudbury,

offers interpretive exhibits and educational and interpretive

programing for visitors. A walking trail offers visitors wildlife

observation and photography opportunities.

Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge

Oxbow Refuge was also formerly part of the Fort Devens base.

The two original transfers from the Army in 1973 totalled 711 acres.

All acres within the boundary are acquired. The refuge was

established for its “particular value in carrying out the national

migratory bird management program under an “Act Authorizing

the Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation

Purposes Act of May 1948.” In 1999, 836 additional acres along the

Canoers on the Concord River.

USFWS Photo
1-6 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex

Chapter 1 Introduction

Oxbow Refuge. USFWS Photo

Nashua River were transferred to the Service after the Fort

Devens base closed. Recent acquisitions complete the boundary

at 1,667 acres.

Oxbow Refuge protects forested upland, marsh and grassland

habitats. The upland habitat is important for migratory song

birds, turkey, white-tailed deer and small game mammals.

Marshes and ponds along the Nashua River are important habitat

for waterfowl and beaver.

A number of recreational activities occur at Oxbow Refuge.

Visitors canoe, view wildlife, cross-country ski, fish and in some

areas, hunt.

Other Areas Evaluated

Land protection in eastern Massachusetts is a high priority for

many communities. As part of the CCP process, we evaluated

lands which may be appropriate for Service management or

ownership to support refuge purposes. In addition to areas

immediately adjacent to the current refuge lands, we evaluated

focus areas containing significant and important habitats within

eastern Massachusetts. The Service worked intensively with

communities, conservation organizations and state agencies to

identify significant habitats in eastern Massachusetts for possible

protection. In the future, We may look to expand refuge

boundaries beyond what is currently protected to include these

areas.

Vision Statement for the Complex

The Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex

will contribute to the mission of the National Wildlife 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 community– supported

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, wildlifedependent 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.
Draft CCP/EA Executive Summary April 2003 1-7

 Chapter 1

Our vision and goals are for all the refuges in the Complex.

Goals for the Complex

The following goals of the Complex support the mission of the

Refuge System and the Gulf of Maine Ecosystem Priorities (see

section Regional Plans). These goals provide a general management

direction for the refuges and will aid in choosing the preferred

alternative for management in the final CCP.

1. Recover threatened

and endangered species of the

Complex.

2. Protect and enhance habitats

that support self-sustaining

populations of Federal trust

species and wildlife diversity.

3. Build a public that

understands, appreciates, and

supports refuge goals for

wildlife.

4. Adequately protect cultural

resources that occur in the

complex.

5. Maintain a well-trained,

diverse staff working

productively toward a shared

refuge vision.

Using these goals, we will develop a selected management approach

in the final CCP. Each goal is supported by objectives identified in

the following alternative section with specific strategies and tasks

needed to accomplish them. Objectives are intended to be

accomplished in a 10-to-15 year time frame. Actual implementation

will vary as a result of available funding.

National and Regional Mandates and Plans Guiding this

Project

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission

National Wildlife Refuges are managed by the 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 has primary responsibility for migratory birds,

endangered species, anadromous and interjurisdictional fish, and
1-8 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex

Chapter 1 Introduction

certain marine mammals. These are referred to as Federal trust

species. The Service also manages national fish hatcheries, 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.

The 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 538 national

wildlife refuges that provide important habitat for native plants and

many species of mammals, birds, fish, and threatened and

endangered species, encompassing over 93 million acres. Refuges

offer a wide variety of recreational opportunities, and many have

visitor centers, wildlife trails, and environmental education

programs. Nationwide, over 34 million visitors annually hunt, fish,

observe and photograph wildlife, or participate in interpretive

activities on national wildlife refuges.

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.

The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process and

Public Involvement

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

for each national wildlife refuge, the Complex began the planning

process in 1998. We started by forming a core planning team of

refuge staff and regional office planners. We placed a Notice of

Intent to prepare an EIS in the January 1999 Federal Register to

officially kick-off our planning effort. We assembled existing resource information and developed our vision and preliminary goals.

We have also made efforts to involve the public in each stage of our

planning process. During the scoping phase, we held open houses

and solicited comments through issues workbooks.

Wilderness Review

The planning team conducted a Wilderness Review, as required

under the Refuge Planning Policy, to determine if any lands and

waters in fee title ownership were suitable to be proposed for

designation as a Wilderness Area. During the inventory stage, we

determined that none of the three refuges studied in this document

fulfill the eligibility requirements for a Wilderness Study Area as

defined by the Wilderness Act. Therefore, suitability of the lands for

wilderness designation is not analyzed further in this document.

Our mission is:

The National Wildlife Refuge System.

“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.”
Draft CCP/EA Executive Summary April 2003 1-9

 Chapter 1

Issues Identified Through Public Scoping

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. In addition issues were also

identified by the Service. 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. For instance,

water quality is a concern that was raised by many people.

Proposed refuge management actions will work to improve water

quality on the refuge, yet many sources of water pollution originate

beyond refuge boundaries and are outside refuge staff ability to

affect or change. For this reason, general water quality off-refuge is

not analyzed in detail but is listed as a concern raised by the public.

We have considered all issues throughout our planning process, and

have developed alternative plans that attempt to address the

significant issues in different ways where possible.

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 the all refuges in the Complex. Our efforts

at these refuges will help us develop a Habitat Management Plan

which will provide a detailed description of our goals and objectives

for habitat management on these refuges.

There is a lot of interest in how we manage the freshwater

impoundments at Concord, Blanding’s turtles at Oxbow and

migratory birds and upland habitats on Assabet River, Oxbow and

Great Meadows. Additionally, interest was expressed in creating an

additional wildlife passage under Route 2 at Oxbow Refuge.

The public is concerned about what will happen with fencing that

currently surrounds Assabet River Refuge and how it impacts

wildlife movement. The fencing was not removed when the property

was transferred to the Service.

Control of invasive, injurious, and overabundant plant and animal species.

Invasive species, including water chestnut, common reed, and

purple loosestrife are a concern at Assabet River, Great Meadows

and Oxbow refuges. These species limit the productivity of wildlife

habitat. Management to control invasive species was mentioned as a

watershed-wide priority to some conservation associations.

The refuges continue their efforts to control known invasives on the

refuge. At Great Meadows Refuge, we are experimenting with

different control techniques.

Water chestnut harvesting. In the

past, Great Meadows Refuge has

harvested water chestnut to help

control the spread of this invasive

species. USFWS Photo
1-10 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex

Chapter 1 Introduction

Hunting

Requests were made at public meetings and through written

comments both to allow and not to allow deer hunting on the refuges.

We received a petition requesting consideration of bow hunting at

Assabet River Refuge. Currently, Oxbow Refuge is the only refuge

in the Complex where hunting is allowed. Poaching is a problem on

the Sudbury Unit of Great Meadows Refuge. There have been

suggestions to provide lawful hunting opportunities on the refuge to

control deer populations and deter poaching. Some would like to see

waterfowl hunting on the Concord Unit of the Great Meadows

Refuge. Cooperation with local towns and hunting groups was a

suggestion. Others oppose hunting of any kind on the refuge. Again,

there were suggestions both for and against hunting.

Management of public use and access.

The Eastern Massachusetts Refuge Complex Headquarters and

interpretive and environmental education center is located in

Sudbury, MA. Residents near Oxbow Refuge are anxious to have a

visitor center/ education center closer to their refuge. Many people

requested a visitor center at Fort

Devens in an effort not to build

on the refuge itself. Also, the

need for environmental

educational programs in local

schools as well as additional

interpretive opportunities where

the public can learn about the

refuges was also raised.

Both Great Meadows and Oxbow

refuges have high visitation

numbers. We estimate use at

Great Meadows Refuge to be

around 500,000 visitors per year,

with the majority of visitors at

the Concord impoundments.

Oxbow visitation is around

70,000 per year. These numbers

are estimates. We do not have a

consistent process for collecting

and documenting visitation at all

sites.

Several non-wildlife dependent recreational activities occur on the all

three refuges. Trespass is occurring at Assabet River Refuge.

Many visitors use trails at Oxbow and Great Meadows refuges for

dog walking, jogging and bike riding.

Public Use. Many identified the need for additional environmental

education opportunities on all three refuges. USFWS Photo
Draft CCP/EA Executive Summary April 2003 1-11

 Chapter 1

Resource protection and visitor safety

Many people voiced concern for additional protection for cultural

and historical resources, particularly at Assabet and Oxbow. Other

concerns included the need to control poaching, trespassing and

other refuge regulations violations. We need to address use of

structures, especially at Assabet River Refuge, where a number of

buildings need to be removed.

Infrastructure and Operations and Maintenance

We heard from some people that the Complex 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

Analysis

Some external threats to the refuges such as water quality and

contamination were identified by the public.

Poor water quality in the Concord, Sudbury and Assabet 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 watershedwide 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 refuges. The clean up of

Assabet River Refuge is being monitored by the Service. Some

cleanup efforts are the responsibility of other agencies, such as

contaminants cleanup from Otis/Edwards Air Force Base on the

Cape. Nutrient loading in Waquoit Bay, in Mashpee, is a larger area

problem created primarily from sewage management that is beyond

the ability of Service employees to solve. Refuge staff or Service

specialists are not often involved in such regional efforts.

Before the Army transferred the property to the Service, site

contamination surveys were completed. The surveyed areas of the

Fort Devens property that contained dangerous levels of arsenic

were found and cleaned. However, many people are still concerned

with possible contamination in bunkers and other sites on the refuge

that have not been surveyed and/or cleaned. Both refuge and Army

personnel are examining any possible impacts on the health of the

visiting public. The Army has responsibility for the clean-up should

additional measures be warranted.

Pickerel weed and tussock grass.

Photo by Marijke Holtrop
1-12 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex

Chapter 1 Introduction

Potential impacts to the local economy and quality of life due to Army

base closures.

Portions of two refuges, Oxbow and Assabet River, are lands

formerly under Army administration. In towns surrounding these

two refuges, people questioned if the surrounding towns would be

better off having a refuge as a neighbor or the continued presence of

the Army with its population of Fort Devens. There was concern

over the potential impact the Army’s departure will have on the local

community, including the economic effect on stores, restaurants, and

other community services. The decision to close Fort Devens has

already been made. As a redevelopment site, the population of the

Army base is slowly, but not completely, being replaced by

employees of the offices and businesses being established in the

Devens facilities.

Those lands now administered by the Service will generate revenue

sharing payments for the towns in which refuge land is located (see

Chapter 2: Introduction, Refuge Revenue Sharing). Under Army

administration, the lands comprising Assabet River Refuge were

closed to any public access. As a national wildlife refuge, the area

may be opened up in part to public access, as safety permits and if

compatible with wildlife needs.

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.

There is a proposal to expand 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 Refuge 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 Refuge. 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 isn’t analyzing in detail various alternatives for resolving

these issues with Hanscom Field, we support a restriction on

volume of air travel to and from Hanscom.

Wood duck. Photo by Bruce Flaig
Draft CCP/EA Executive Summary April 2003 1-13

 Chapter 1

Chemical control of mosquitoes on National Wildlife Refuges nationwide

is being evaluated by the Service.

The Service is in the process of developing an EIS for mosquito

control on refuges. In 2000, 2001, and 2002 mosquito spraying did

not take place on any refuges in the Complex. Great Meadows

Refuge is no longer involved in the East Middlesex Mosquito

Control Project . Any future Service policy will be applied to

Assabet River, Great Meadows and Oxbow refuges.

Jet Skis on the Concord River

Many residents and the National Park Service spoke against jet skis

on the Concord River, particularly with its Wild and Scenic River

status. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental

Management 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). The width of the rivers that flow through the refuges

are rarely, if ever, in excess of 150 feet. It is therefore illegal to

operate water craft, including jet skis, under State regulations, over

five miles per hour within refuge boundaries. Jet skis 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.

Concord impoundments and river.

USFWS Photo
 Chapter 2

Eastern bluebird. Photo by Bruce Flaig

Alternatives

• Formulating Alternatives

• Features Common to All Alternatives

• Features Common to All Action Alternatives (B & C)

• Alternatives or Actions Considered, but Eliminated From

Further Evaluation

Part 1: Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge

• Alternative A: Current Management

• Alternative B: Proposed Action

• Alternative C

• Alternative Matrix

Part 2: Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge

• Alternative A: Current Management

• Alternative B: Proposed Action

• Alternative C

• Alternative Matrix

Part 3: Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge

• Alternative A: Current Management

• Alternative B: Proposed Action

• Alternative C

• Alternative Matrix
 2-2 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Formulating Alternatives

Alternatives are packages of complementary management strategies

and specific actions for achieving the missions of the Refuge System

and the Service, the vision and goals of the Complex, and the

purpose for establishing each refuge. Primarily, they propose

different ways of responding to key issues, and secondarily,

different ways of dealing with the other issues, management

concerns, and opportunities identified during the planning process.

While those elements underlie every alternative, each is

distinguished by its intensity and timing in committing the resources

necessary to achieve desired future conditions.

One of our primary objectives is to clearly define the differences

among the alternatives. At the end of each part of this chapter, you

will find a matrix that compares and contrasts the alternatives by

their specific management actions and strategies in tabular format

(Tables 2-4, 2-6 and 2-8). We organized the matrix to associate

actions and strategies with their function in addressing key issues.

Features Common to All Alternatives for All Refuges

This chapter describes current management and two alternatives for

each issue identified in Chapter 1. We describe refuge specific

actions in Parts 1, 2 and 3 of this chapter. In order to be concise and

eliminate repetition, we have described actions that are common to

all alternatives, including the Current Management Alternative, for

all refuges in this beginning section. These issues are not

reevaluated in later sections of the document.

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, Assabet River,

and Oxbow refuges, 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 FMP provides a description of the purpose and need for the

project, a brief background, the features of each alternative, the

Refuge staff assist students with

environmental education project.

USFWS Photo
Draft CCP/EA Executive Summary April 2003 2-3

 Introduction Chapter 2

affected environment, and resulting effects and consequences of

each alternative. The selected alternative, “prescribed fire and

wildland fire suppression” is discussed in detail in the EA.

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 insure 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 Assabet River, Great

Meadows and Oxbow, 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.

In the future, we may look at wetland, upland and river systems

near Assabet River, Oxbow and Great Meadows refuges 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 Concord River

watershed are important for the health of fish and wildlife on the

refuge. We will continue to protect and acquire lands within the

present acquisition boundary at Great Meadows. All lands within

the Assabet River and Oxbow refuge acquisition boundaries are

already acquired.

Property Taxes, Refuge Revenue Sharing, Relocation, and Landowner

Rights

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.
 2-4 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Table 2-1. Revenue Sharing Payments for Towns Associated with Assabet River, 

Great Meadows and Oxbow National Wildlife Refuges

Assabet River Hudson Maynard Stow Sudbury

2001 $863 $15,395 $21,286 $10,179

2000 $846 $15,083 $20,854 $9,972

1999 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Great Meadows Bedford Billerica Carlisle Concord

2001 $10,181 $2,988 $10,839 $5,853

2000 $7,796 $1,743 $1,804 $11,283

1999 $8,887 $622 $2,056 $12,862

Lincoln Sudbury Wayland

2001 $174 $29,331 $26,806

2000 $134 $23,421 $18,196

1999 $153 $26,699 $20,641

Oxbow Ayer Harvard Lancaster Shirley

2001 $1,023 $17,328 $7 $833

2000 $1,002 $5,193 $7 $816

1999 $1,136 $5,939 N/A $927

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.

Protection and Management of Cultural Resources

The Service has a legal responsibility to consider the effects its

actions have on archeological and historic resources. Under all

alternatives, we will 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.

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.
Draft CCP/EA Executive Summary April 2003 2-5

 Introduction Chapter 2

Volunteer Opportunities and Educational Programs

As the Assabet River, Great Meadows and Oxbow refuges continue

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.

The volunteer program at the Complex has been growing steadily.

In 1990, volunteers provided more than 3,435 hours of assistance to

the Refuge Complex. In 2000, volunteers provided 20,675 hours of

service. The total for 2001 was 25,432. Six thousand of those hours

were at Assabet River, 5,870 at Oxbow and 2,641 at Great Meadows.

Much of this volunteer work was done by core volunteers and active

Friends Group members. In 2002, 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.

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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service; the National Wildlife 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.

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

Cattails at Assabet River Refuge.

Photo by Marijke Holtrop
 2-6 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex

Chapter 2 Alternatives

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.

Monitoring and Adaptive Management

The Final CCP will cover a 15-year period. Periodic review of the

CCP will be 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

would be implemented, focusing on issues involving public use

activities, and wildlife habitat and population management.

Features Common to All Action Alternatives (B and C) for All

Refuges

These are actions common to all action alternatives (B and C). While

some of these actions occur under current refuge management, we

have described additional steps or actions we would take under

Alternative B or C in this section.

The Compatibility Determination

Federal law and Service policy provide the direction and planning

framework to protect the System from incompatible or harmful

human activities, and to insure that Americans can enjoy Refuge

System lands and waters. The National Wildlife Refuge System

Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57), is the

key legislation regarding management of public uses and

compatibility. The compatibility requirements of the Refuge

Improvement Act were adopted in the Service’s Final Compatibility

Regulations and Final Compatibility Policy published October 18,

2000 (Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 202, pp 62458-62496). This

Compatibility Rule changed or modified Service Regulations

contained in Chapter 50, Parts 25, 26 and 29 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (USFWS 2000c). To view the policy and regulations

online, go to http://policy.fws.gov/library/00fr62483.pdf.

The Act and Regulations require that an affirmative finding be made

of an activity’s “compatibility” before such activity or use is allowed

on a national wildlife refuge. A compatible use is one, “...that will

not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the

mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge”

(Refuge Improvement Act). Six priority, wildlife-dependent uses

that are to be considered at each refuge are defined in the Act and

Regulation. These are: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and

photography, environmental education and interpretation. These

priority, wildlife-dependent uses may be authorized on a refuge

when they are compatible (as defined above), and not inconsistent
Draft CCP/EA Executive Summary April 2003 2-7

 Introduction Chapter 2

Table 2-2. Summary of Compatible Uses on Assabet River, Oxbow, and Great Meadows National

Wildlife Refuges.

Wildlife Dependent

Recreational Activities

and Other Compatible

Uses

Assabet River National

Wildlife Refuge

Great Meadows

National Wildlife

Refuge

Oxbow National Wildlife

Refuge

Existing

Activity

 Allowed

Under Alt. 

B

Existing

Activity

 Allowed

Under Alt. 

B

Existing

Activity

 Allowed

Under Alt. 

B

Wildlife Observation No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Wildlife Photography No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Environmental

Education

No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Environmental

Interpretation

No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Hunting- Small game

and upland birds

No Yes* No No Yes Yes*

Hunting - woodcock and

waterfowl

No Only after

surveys

No Yes* woodcock

only

Yes*

(waterfowl

on river

only)

Hunting-deer No Yes* No Yes*

(archery

only)

No Yes*

Fishing-pond No Yes* No No N/A N/A

Fishing -river N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes (from

boat &

bank)

Yes

Natural history tours Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Cultural history tours Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A

Snowshoeing and cross

country skiing (to

facilitate wildlife

dependent uses)

No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

canoeing (to facilitate

wildlife dependent uses)

No Yes Yes (on the

river only)

Yes (on the

river only)

Yes Yes

*Please refer to the maps for Alternative B for specific locations where these activities are proposed.
 2-8 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex

Chapter 2 Alternatives

with public safety. Not all uses that are determined compatible may

be allowed. The refuge has the discretion to allow or disallow any

use based on other considerations such as public safety, policy and

available funding. However, all uses that are allowed must be

determined compatible. Except for consideration of consistency

with State laws and regulations as provided for in subsection (m) of

the Act, 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).

We have also determined several modes of travel to be compatible.

These are: walking or hiking, snowshoeing, canoeing, and crosscountry skiing. All of these means of locomotion are subject to

compatibility determinations for these activities as part of this CCP.

The compatible uses for Assabet River, Great Meadows, and Oxbow

refuges are summarized in Table 2-1.

In addition, we have evaluated several other methods of locomotion

(specifically, use of motor-vehicles in general, all-terrain vehicles,

dirt bikes, gasoline-powered motor boats, snowmobiles, dogsleds,

bicycles, and horses). Each of these has been determined to be

incompatible with the purpose for which the refuges were

established (additional information regarding these uses is provided

in this chapter under section Alternatives or Actions Considered,

but Eliminated from Further Consideration).

Wildlife and Habitat Management

Assabet River, Great Meadows and Oxbow refuges are currently

managing their lands for wetland species, forest dwellers and those

species requiring grassland, wetland and old field habitat. However,

due to the relatively small land base we have, it is important for us to

consider how we can best contribute to the overall picture of trust

species of the Atlantic flyway. The Northeast Region of the Refuge

System is currently working on a region-wide strategic plan to

establish management goals for refuges which address landscape

concerns and needs. We are currently gathering data, as described

in Alternative A, to better understand the role these refuges for

these species and under Alternative B we propose additional

surveying, monitoring and researching of our lands. This

information is essential for determining our management focus.

Using this information and guidance from the regional strategic plan

we will draft a Habitat Management Plan for each refuge which

outlines the direction and details of refuge management. The

Habitat Management Plan will include information required under

the Service’s Biological Integrity, Diversity and Environmental

Health Policy, including discussion of historic conditions and

restoration of those conditions if possible (see http://policy.fws.gov/

601fw3.html to view this policy).
Draft CCP/EA Executive Summary April 2003 2-9

 Introduction Chapter 2

New Recreational Fees

Under Alternatives B and C, the Complex would charge an entrance

fee at Assabet River and Oxbow refuges and at the Concord

impoundments at Great Meadows Refuge, and a user fee for

hunting on the Complex. Our fee program would be established

under the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program, a program which

Congress initiated in 1997 to encourage Department of Interior

agencies who 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). The Program is authorized

through 2004 at which time Congress will evaluate its success and

either make it a permanent part of the Recreation Fee Program on

our National lands or revise the Program. The 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. Great Meadows Refuge 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 would 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. For more information on the

Recreation Fee Demonstration Program visit http://www.ios.doi.gov/

nrl/Recfees/RECFEE.HTM.

The following fee program would be initiated at Great Meadows and

Oxbow refuges and at Assabet River Refuge after it is opened.

• A one day access fee will be charged by 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

$20.

• All entrance fees will be collected by refuge staff stationed

on site or at self-service fee collection stations.

• An annual fee of $10 for small game and upland game bird

hunting, $15 for deer hunting or a combined $20 fee for all

hunting seasons open on the refuge would be charged. One

permit would be valid for any of the refuges in the

Complex that are open to hunting. Hunting fees will be paid

when the permit is issued. A hunter, with a valid hunt

permit, would not have to pay an entrance fee.

We may adjust fees over the 15 year period addressed in this plan to

reflect changes in administrative costs or management goals.

Proposed trail at Assabet River NWR.

USFWS Photo
 2-10 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Hunting and Fishing

The following discussion is applicable to all alternatives proposing

hunting. For the description of the proposed hunting areas, see

Parts 1, 2, and 3 of this chapter.

A Hunt Plan will be completed following the final NEPA decision

and approval of this CCP. NEPA compliance will be met with this

document, however any necessary, refuge-specific regulations or

restrictions will be described in the Hunting or Fishing Plan,

disseminated through refuge hunting brochures, news releases, and

on-refuge informational signing and published in the Federal

Register for additional comment and review.

The refuge weighs a number of factors in opening an area to hunting

or fishing, including visitor safety considerations. Under the

Proposed Action and Alternative C, the Refuge Manager may, upon

annual review of the hunting program, impose further restrictions

on hunting and fishing activity, recommend that the refuge be closed

to hunting or fishing, or further liberalize hunting or fishing

regulations within the limits of State law. Restrictions would occur

if hunting or fishing becomes inconsistent with other higher priority

refuge programs or endangers refuge resources or public safety.

Annual permits would be required for hunting on the refuge. The

permits will facilitate managing numbers of hunters and harvest.

Fees charged for these permits would offset costs associated with

managing hunting programs. For additional information on the fee

program, see previous section on New Recreational Fees.

Providing hunting and fishing opportunities addresses the mandates

of Executive Order 12996 and the Refuge System Improvement Act

of 1997 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 and

fishing pressure to occur as a result of opening the refuge for these

activities. The plan to permit hunting and fishing on the refuge

should not significantly affect the wildlife populations in

Massachusetts, as the refuges represent only a very small portion of

the overall habitat available in Eastern Massachusetts.

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

Conservation 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 orientation prior to the hunting

seasons will emphasize refuge specific regulations, safety

considerations and the protection of wildlife species found on the

refuge.

Welcome sign. USFWS Photo
Draft CCP/EA Executive Summary April 2003 2-11

 Introduction Chapter 2

Alternatives or Actions Considered, but Eliminated From

Further Evaluation

Proposals for new, non-wildlife-dependent public uses

During our scoping process, we received requests for a number of

recreational opportunities that are not wildlife dependent. These

activities include horseback riding, biking, model airplane flying,

snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles, dog sled pulling, ice skating,

picnicking, jogging and dog walking. Biking and ice skating were

previously allowed, but were eliminated in the late 1990’s. Service

policy, as well as the Refuge Improvement Act, states that

incompatible or non-wildlife dependent recreation will be eliminated

as expeditiously as practical, with few exceptions. Our Refuge

Manual specifically states that, with few exceptions, these uses will

be de-emphasized and gradually phased out. Following public

review and comment, the Service published our Final Compatibility

Policy in Federal Register Volume 65. No. 202, pp 62484-62496 (603

FWM2) on October 18, 2002. This final rule provides additional

detail on our process for determining which activities are compatible

with a refuge’s establishment purpose and management goals. This

draft does not evaluate new proposals for these uses because their

establishment would contradict Service policy, the purposes for

which the refuges were established (see previous section, The

Compatibility Determination).

Non-wildlife dependent recreational uses currently allowed at Great

Meadows and Oxbow refuges, such as dog walking, jogging and

picnicking, are addressed in Parts 2 and 3 of this chapter. Assabet

River Refuge, which is currently closed, is not evaluating opening

the refuge to non-wildlife dependent public uses for reasons stated

above.

Deer Management Options

 Reproductive Intervention (birth control)

Reproductive intervention or birth control is the general category

for a number of fertility control methods available, each with varying

rates of success. Immunocontraception with porcine zona pellucida

(PZP) vaccine injection, is probably the best known and most widely

applied. Steroid implantation has been available since the 1970s.

Remote prostaglandin injection (Denicola 1997), oral vaccination with

a live vector (Miller et al. 1999a), and vaccines are more recent and

lack long-term evaluation of effectiveness. Sterilization is a

permanent option, although not widely applicable.

Effectiveness and efficiency of any of the above forms of

reproductive intervention is affected by a number of factors

including; method of application or delivery, need or ability to

capture the animal, the number of treatments needed to ensure

effectiveness, size of the population, status of the population

(confined or free ranging), and longevity of treatment.
 2-12 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Immunocontraception

Immunocontraception (PZP injection) is most effective at preventing

pregnancy when hand injected and combined with subsequent

boosts. The PZP vaccination produces reversible infertility lasting

1-4 years (Miller et al. 1999b), however, it requires two injections,

four weeks apart, to be effective for at least two years (McShea et

al.1997). Effectiveness at reducing population number and growth

rate is greatly reduced when dealing with large and open populations

due to the need to treat a large percentage of the females over a

large area. For a large population, contraception rates of less than

50% of does will curb growth in 30 years, but will not reduce the

size. Even rates of greater than 50% require at least a 5-10 year

planning horizon to see significant population declines (Seagle and

Close1996). Therefore, the cost, effort, expertise, manpower, and

handling time will continue for years before achieving any results.

Another obstacle to PZP immunocontraception is the adjuvant used

for the initial injection (an adjuvant is a microbial aid necessary for

boosting the vaccine once inside the animal’s bloodstream).

Complete Froine’s, the most commonly used, contains heat-killed

tuberculin cells, which causes subjects to test false positive for TB.

The FDA, which has jurisdiction over its commercial use, currently

does not permit use of this adjuvant on other than tightly controlled

or isolated populations and in combination with ear-tagging (in order

to prevent the public from consuming escaped deer). There are two

other adjuvants undergoing field tests but both are not yet effective

as boosters and still pending FDA approval (Rick Naugle, Humane

Society of the U.S., August 28, 2000, personal communication).

Steroidal implants

Subcutaneous steroidal implants have been used during the past 25

years with varying rates of effectiveness in reducing deer

pregnancy (and now remote delivery of this treatment is possible)

but the long-term effectiveness is uncertain. In addition, the same

factors that confound the PZP method at the population level apply

(Connecticut Department. of Environmental Protection, Wildlife

Bureau, 1988). Because of the uncertainty of long-term health

effects on deer and subsequent impacts on the food-web (including

human consumption of treated deer), the FDA will not approve

application on free-ranging deer at this time (DeNicola et al. 2000).

Oral Delivery of Contraceptives

Oral delivery of contraceptives has a number of concerns that make

this method ill-advised and impractical: it is not species-specific

(risks ingestion by non-target species), bait and supplies are wasted

on non-target species, deer sometimes reject treated bait, and it is

difficult to manage dosage control. Currently, the method is not

working at the field or captive level. Oral vaccinations through livevector delivery is a relatively new method, and is species-specific,

but is not long-acting and so must be delivered on a frequent and

regular basis (Alan Rutberg, Humane Society of the U.S., 2000).
Draft CCP/EA Executive Summary April 2003 2-13

 Introduction Chapter 2

GNRH Vaccine

Another field method currently being tested is the GNRH vaccine.

This shuts down the whole reproductive hormone system of both

sexes and its effects are dramatic, even on behavior and antler

development. This is a new method and the affect on deer and their

behavior needs further evaluation prior to application in the field

(Ibid.).

Sterilization

Sterilizations must be done annually, the number of which must be

calculated based on the number of fertile females in the herd. Great

care must be taken to reduce the number of sterilizations in time to

prevent a population crash and bottleneck (Boone and Wiegert 1994).

Again, this option is not effective for open populations unless

performed at a landscape level.

No matter which birth control method is used, more than 50% of the

females will need to remain infertile to effect a reduction in

population size (Hobbs et al. 2000, Seagle and Close 1996). All of the

above described techniques are compromised at the individual and

population levels due to the openness of the population. Because

these operations entail multiple captures, considerable handling

time, facilities for holding captured animals or conducting surgery,

risk to personnel and animals, trauma losses, and constant or

recurring expense means that at this stage of development they are

not viable methods in the field. This situation may change in a few

years as applications of these techniques are improved upon.

Live Trapping and Relocation

The live trapping and relocation approach entails transporting

captured animals to a new location outside the impacted area.

Disadvantages, however, far outweigh the advantages. Capture and

handling of deer involves risk to deer and handlers. Deer are

susceptible to capture myopathy, a form of muscle dysfunction that

is stress-related and can result in delayed mortality. Trauma losses

can amount to about 4% of capture and transfer efforts (Wildlife

Information Publication, Virginia Department of Game and Inland

Fisheries, 1999). The mortality potential attendant to handling is

amplified by placing individuals in unfamiliar surroundings (Cypher

and Cypher 1988).

Habitat Management

This approach manipulates the existing habitat to induce behavioral

changes in deer and reduce human/deer conflicts. An example

would be to lower the biological carrying capacity by removing

forage species, and/or changing landscape elements such as water

features or forest edge. This alternative has an appeal for its

humane and nonlethal approach but is incompatible with one of the

primary management goals for the refuge, which is to promote and

maintain its grassland habitat and vegetation cover.
 2-14 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Part 1: Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge

Alternative A — Current Management

The Current Management Alternative represents the anticipated

baseline of the refuge (and associated resources) if current policies,

programs and activities continue in a manner consistent with recent

or foreseeable trends. While this alternative does not represent a

true “status quo” condition, neither does it propose major changes in

public use/wildlife management programs or facilities.

Under this alternative, baseline population surveys of American

woodcock, marsh birds, breeding lands birds and anurans will

generate sufficient information to document trends among these

species and groups. Up to seventy acres of grassland/shrub habitat

will be maintained and fifty acres of degraded wetland habitat will be

restored. Otherwise, the land will be left alone and allowed to evolve

to various wildlife habitat types. Surrounding communities will

continue to benefit from ecological functions provided by protected

lands, such as watershed values. Continued closure of the land to

public access, much as it was during military ownership, may

deprive area residents and potential visitors of opportunities to enjoy

nearby and unique outdoor recreation and hands-on environmental

education experiences. The refuge would continue operations and

maintenance activities within its current staffing and funding levels

and the refuge boundary would remain at 2,230 acres.

Alternative B — The Proposed Action

Under the Service’s Proposed Action, refuge staffing and funding

levels would be increased. We would initiate new wildlife population,

habitat and invasive/overabundant species management activities and

provide new compatible wildlife-dependent recreational

opportunities. We would also work with State, Federal and nongovernmental partners to secure funding for the construction of new

visitor facilities and a visitor contact station to support the goals and

objectives of the Refuge System and the Assabet River Refuge.

Special emphasis would be placed on obtaining baseline data of

wildlife populations and habitat conditions required to develop the

detailed step-down plans under this CCP. Wildlife population and

habitat monitoring surveys and inventories would be continued to

provide the data needed to assess the effectiveness of management

programs and practices, and to make mid-course adaptations to

these practices to ensure they meet long-range refuge goals and

objectives.

A beaver’s work on the refuge.

USFWS Photo
Draft CCP/EA Executive Summary April 2003 2-15

 Part 1: Assabet River NWR Chapter 2
 2-16 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Our Proposed Action for habitat and wildlife management

includes four parts:

1. Collect information for all species on the refuge,

2. Determine resources of concern based on national

and regional Service plans,

3. Using information gathered in Steps 1 and 2,develop a

Habitat Management Plan,

4. Develop a Habitat and Wildlife Inventory and

Monitoring Plan to insure objectives in the Habitat

Management Plan are reached.

Special emphasis would also be placed on providing enhanced, but

sustainable opportunities for the six priority, wildlife-dependent

public uses defined in the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. Public

use evaluations, along with wildlife and habitat monitoring programs,

would assist us in both assessing the intensity of public use and

adapting our management strategies and practices for those uses.

Brief explanations of the Service’s Proposed Action follow. The

Proposed Action(s) are also summarized in Table 2-4. Actions and

Strategies Matrix for the Assabet River NWR.

Alternative C

Under this alternative the refuge management strategy would be

oriented towards a “hands-off, let nature take its course approach.”

We would curtail or forego most, active wildlife and habitat

management planning and implementation. Natural succession of

habitats would be the selected strategy across the refuge. The

refuge would be opened to public use only after all safety-related

concerns were corrected. Additional opportunities for wildlifedependent recreational activities would be reduced or eliminated

within portions of the refuge. Fewer public-use trails would be

developed.

Assabet NWR. Puffer Pond. USFWS

Photo

Milkweek. Photo by Marijke Holtrop
Draft CCP/EA Executive Summary April 2003 2-17

 Part 1: Assabet River NWR Chapter 2
 2-18 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex

Chapter 2 Alternatives
2- 19

Issue Alternative A

Current Management

Alternative B

Service’s Proposed Action

Alternative C

 Draft CCP/EA – Executive Summary April 2003

 Part 1: Assabet River NWR Chapter 2

Table 2-4. Actions and Strategies Matrix, Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge

Conduct annual surveys for

woodcock, marsh birds, breeding

birds, whip-poor-wills, migrating

hawks and anurans.

Obtain supplemental wildlife and

habitat information from partners.

Participate in partner-based

monitoring contaminants

program.

Maintain existing old field habitat

(approximately 60-70 acres) by

mechanical means or fire

management techniques.

Maintain approximately 500 acres

of existing wetland habitat.

Restore approximately 40-50 acres

of currently degraded wetlands.

Allow existing mix of hardwood

and pine forest to mature under

natural succession processes.

Selectively remove existing roads

and trails not required for refuge

maintenance, visitor use, or fire

control purposes.

Evaluate and re-ues ammunition

bunkers which provide suitable

for bat habitat.

Selectively remove portions of

the exterior fence which will allow

for wildlife movement.

Identify research needs.

How would we

manage habitats

and wildlife

populations?

Active management practices

would be severely curtailed or

eliminated.

Planning and monitoring would be

limited.

Inventory migratory bird and

Federal listed threatened and

endangered species, resident

vertebrate (e.g. deer, small

mammals, anuran, etc.) and

invertebrate species, including

State listed threatened/

endangered species, on the

refuge.

Develop an updated cover type

map

Repeat inventory surveys at five

year intervals to evaluate

successional changes.

 In addition to Alternative A:

Develop inventory list of

migratory bird and federally listed

threatened and endangered

species.

Inventory and evaluate population

statuses of key, resident vertebrate

and invertebrate species, including

State listed threatened/

endangered species, deer, small

mammals, frogs, and others on the

refuge.

Inventory refuge habitats surface

hydrology, soils and topography

Develop and update cover type

map

Identify focus species

Develop species management

objectives

Develop & implement a Habitat

Management Plan and a Habitat

and Wildlife Inventory and

Montioring Plan which may utilize

mechanical, chemical and fire

management techniques to

accomplish potential habitat plan

recommendations

Seek opportunities to develop

cooperative management

agreements with neighboring

conservation agencies,

organizations and individuals

Restore those habitats which were

severely impacted or destroyed as

a result of military activities,

including building and road

removal where appropriate
2-20 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Issue Alternative A

Current Management

Alternative B

Service’s Proposed Action

Alternative C

Table 2-4. Actions and Strategies Matrix, Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge

Chapter 2 Alternative Matrix

How would we

manage

invasive and

overabundant

species?

Monitor known stands of invasive

species, and implement control if

project- specific funding becomes

available.

Continue to rely on partners to

identify invasive species

problems.

Continue beaver management

program which currently relies

primarily on non-lethal methods of

control.

Inventory and document all

invasive, pest or overabundant

species locations and extent.

Monitor and evaluate rate of

spread of invasive, pest or

overabundant species.

Develop and implement an

Integrated Pest Management Plan

(IPM) for invasive plant, pest or

overabundant species which

utilizes biological, mechanical,

chemical and fire management or

other control techniques.

Manage overabundant/invasive

animal populations identifed in

surveys using hunting, trapping

and relocation, and lethal controls

as may be necessary. Specifically,

remove nuisance beaver where

other control methods fail and

remove territorial exotic mute

swans from the refuge.

Conduct/participate in

experimental control technique

research.

Active management practices

would be severely curtailed or

eliminated.

Planning and monitoring would

be limited.

Inventory and document all

invasive species locations and

pest or overabundant animal

species.

Monitor and evaluate rate of

spread of invasive pest or

overabundant species at fiveyear intervals.
2- 21

Issue Alternative A

Current Management

Alternative B

Service’s Proposed Action

Alternative C

 Draft CCP/EA – Executive Summary April 2003

 Part 1: Assabet River NWR Chapter 2

Table 2-4. Actions and Strategies Matrix, Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge

Currently the refuge is closed to

general public access and use due

to a number of unmitigated safety

hazards that exist on the property.

Special guided tours/events are

organized to allow limited access

to the refuge.

How will the

Refuge be

opened to

wildlifedependent public

uses?

The refuge will be opened only

after all safety issues are

corrected on a site-wide basis,

and along a limited subset of

designated trails.

A Visitor Services Plan for the

refuge will be prepared.

The refuge will be opened in

sections, along specific

designated trails, as current

safety problems are resolved

within those sections.

Potential strategies for a

sequenced opening of the refuge

include:

1. Section from Hudson Road

Gate along Patrol Rd. to North

Gate.

2. Section from North Gate along

Patrol and Old Marlboro Roads

back to Hudson Road Gate.

3. Portion South of the Hudson

Road.

4&5 Designated trails to be

established in and through the

""bunkers"".

6. Section from North gate along

White Pond Road back to Patrol

Road.

When safety-related concerns

have been eliminated, the two

gates on either side of Hudson

(State) Road (The old ""Main""

opened for public access to the

Refuge. The former ""North

Gate"" on White Pond Road will

also be made available for public

access.

Minimally intrusive parking areas

will be provided as funding and

staff allow.

An entrance fee will be collected.

.
2-22 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Issue Alternative A

Current Management

Alternative B

Service’s Proposed Action

Alternative C

Table 2-4. Actions and Strategies Matrix, Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge

Chapter 2 Alternative Matrix

Currently the refuge is closed to

general public access and use due to a

number of unmitigated safety

hazards that exist on the property.

A Refuge Hunting Plan will be

prepared using the analysis from

Alternative B and, if needed, refugespecific regulations will be prepared.

The refuge will be open to archery,

shotgun and black powder deer

hunting, if State mandated safety

distances can be maintained

Handicapped accessible hunting

opportunities will be provided refugespecific regulations will be prepared.

Shotgun hunting of upland game

birds, turkey and small game

mammals will be permitted. Use of

non-toxic shot would be required.

Annual fee permits will be required

for hunting on the refuge.

Same as Alternative B, except:

The refuge will be open to archery

and black powder deer hunting

only.

What upland and

big game

hunting

opportunities

would we

provide?

What migratory

game bird

hunting

opportunities

would we

provide?

Currently the refuge is closed to

general public access and use due to a

number of unmitigated safety

hazards that exist on the property.

Woodcock hunting on the refuge

would be open.

If supported by refuge specific

wildlife and habitat inventories,

portions of the refuge will be open to

waterfowl. A Refuge Hunting Plan

will be prepared using the analysis

from Alternative B and, if needed,

refuge-specific regulations will be

prepared.

Annual fee permits will be required

for hunting on the refuge.

Same as Alternative B.
2- 23

Issue Alternative A

Current Management

Alternative B

Service’s Proposed Action

Alternative C

 Draft CCP/EA – Executive Summary April 2003

 Part 1: Assabet River NWR Chapter 2

Table 2-4. Actions and Strategies Matrix, Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge

What fishing

opportunities

would we

provide?

Currently the refuge is closed to

general public access and use due to a

number of unmitigated safety hazards

that exist on the property.

Catch and release fishing will be

provided on Puffer Pond.

Use of live bait and motorized water

craft will not be permitted. Canoes

are allowed. Ice fishing will not be

permitted.

Portions of the Pond perimeter may

be closed from time to time to

minimize bank vegetation damage.

Handicapped accessible fishing

opportunities will be provided.

Same as Alternative B, except the

westerly shoreline of the pond

would not be opened for fishing.

What wildlife

observation and

photography

opporutnities

would be

provided?

Currently the refuge is closed to

general public access and use due to a

number of unmitigated safety

hazards that exist on the property.

Approximatley 5-6 miles of

designated trails/roads will be opened

for wildlife-dependent uses such as

wildlife observation and photography.

One wildlife viewing platform and

photography deck will be constructed.

Monitor programs for impacts to

wildlife, modify as needed.

Alternative B would be modified

to limit foot trails to only Patrol

and Old Marlboro Road routes.

What

environmental

education and

interpretation

opporutnities

would we

provide?

Currently the refuge is closed to

general public access and use due to a

number of unmitigated safety hazards

that exist on the property.

Very limited interpretive programs

occur, primarily organized and lead by

partners, volunteers and the Refuge

Friends group.

Provide on and off site environmental

education programs.

Coordinate with area environmental

educators to integrate refuge programs

with local environmental education

programs.

Provide assistance with teacher

workshops, as requested.

Construct three on-site informational

kiosks in the vicinity of the Main,

South and North gate entrances.

Develop, construct and implement a

self-guided interpretive trail or trails.

Develop volunteer-led interpretive and

education programs.

Provide Service-led interpretive and

education programs on the refuge.

Review non-Service sponsored uses of

the refuge for compatibility. Regulate

these uses through Special Use

Permits, Memoranda or

Understanding or Agreement, or

Concessions, as appropriate.

Same as Alternative B
2-24 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Issue Alternative A

Current Management

Alternative B

Service’s Proposed Action

Alternative C

Table 2-4. Actions and Strategies Matrix, Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge

Chapter 2 Alternative Matrix

How will the

refuge provide

outreach to

increase the

public's

awareness of the

refuge?

Same as Alternative A plus:

With partners, provide refuge related

presentations to schools, clubs, and

civic organizations when requested.

One or more annual events (such as

National Fishing Day, Refuge Week,

etc.), which promote wildlife

dependent uses and natural resource

education will be held on the refuge.

An Assabet River Refuge Brochure

would be developed.

Work with partners towards funding

construction of a visitor contact

station on the refuge.

Work with partners to place

information kiosks with refuge

oriented materials at 3 off-refuge

locations in the local communities.

Develop programs to education local

communities and landowners about

existing opportunities and strategies

for resource protection and

restoration.

Utilize on-going refuge management

areas to illustrate beneficial wildlife

and habitat practices.

A very active Refuge Friends group is

engaged in outreach programs.

A electronic newsletter is distributed.

A refuge Web-site and monthly news

releases are used to provide

information on refuge management

activities and upcoming events.

Same as Alternative B, except onrefuge wildlife and habitat

management demonstration areas

would not be available.

.

How would we

ensure resource

protection and

visitor safety?

 Law enforcement would be provided

by one full-time and one collateralduty staff shared with other Complex

refuges.

Federal cultural resource protection

laws and regulations are enforced.

Soil disturbance requires cultural

resource evaluations and clearance.

In addition to Alternative A:

Survey sites proposed for

construction of all facilities, roads,

trails, buildings, etc. Modify

construction as necessary to

minimize impacts to cultural

resources.

Same as Alternative B, except the

refuge-wide archeological survey

would be reduced in scope,

eliminating studies needed to

develop predictive models.

Complete an overview survey of

cultural resources of the refuge.

Develop predictive model for

probable archeological and historic

sites.
2- 25

Issue Alternative A

Current Management

Alternative B

Service’s Proposed Action

Alternative C

 Draft CCP/EA – Executive Summary April 2003

 Part 1: Assabet River NWR Chapter 2

Table 2-4. Actions and Strategies Matrix, Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge

What buildings

and facilities

would be used

or constructed

for refuge

operations?

No buildings are in use. Same as Alternative B.

What would be

the future

staffing needs at

Assabet River

Refuge?

Using information provided in

assessment of the condition and

historical significance of buildings

existing structures will be demolished.

Work with partners towards funding

construction of a visitor contact

station on the refuge.

Current Minimum Staffing:

1 Refuge Operation Specialist (vacant)

1 Biologist (vacant)

1 Park Ranger (LE) (vacant)

1 Outdoor Recreation Planner (vacant)

1 Biologist (vacant)

2 Maintenance Workers (vacant)

Total FTEs 7

In addition to Alternative A:

1 Administrative Technician

1 Forester (shared with other

Complex Refuges)

Total FTEs (A+B) 9

Same as Alternative A (except the

biologist), plus :

1 Administrative Technician

Total FTEs 7
 2-26 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Part 2: Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge

Actions Common to All Alternatives for Great Meadows

Refuge

Wild and Scenic River Designation

Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge protects 12 miles of the

Concord and Sudbury Rivers, which are designated under the Wild

and Scenic Rivers Act. For a complete description of the

designation see Chapter 3: Part 2 Great Meadows National Wildlife

Refuge.

Under all alternatives, we would continue to work with our partners

to develop a Wild and Scenic River Plan, as required by the

establishing act. We have also identified funding needs in our

Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS), Appendix E, for both

biological and interpretive programs to enhance our management

and conservation of these two rivers where they flow thru/by the

refuge. None of the actions proposed in any of the alternatives

violate the guidelines for Wild and Scenic river designations. For

additional information on this designation, see Chapter 3: Part 2 or

log onto http://www.nps.gov/rivers/wsr-suasco.html.

Alternative A: Current Management

The Current Management Alternative represents the anticipated

condition of the refuge (and associated resources) if current policies,

programs and activities continue in a manner consistent with recent

or foreseeable trends. While this alternative does not represent a

true “status quo” condition, neither does it propose major changes in

public use/wildlife management programs or facilities.

Maintaining the level of wildlife and habitat inventories that began in

2000 would, for the first time since refuge establishment, build a

foundation of natural resource information upon which to base long

range management plans. Ongoing maintenance of grassland/shrub

and wetland impoundment habitats combined with implementation of

plans emerging from the evolving information base would ensure

that wildlife and habitat diversity is maintained at Great Meadows

Refuge. Existing wildlife observation facilities and education

programs would accommodate visitor uses at current levels that

provide social and economic benefits to area communities.

Great blue heron with fish. Many

different marsh birds find food at the

Concord Impoundments. Photo by

Bruce Flaig
 Draft CCP/EA- Executive Summary April 2003 2-27

A Part 2: Great Meadows NWR Chapter 2
 2-28 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex

Chapter 2 Alternatives A
 Draft CCP/EA- Executive Summary April 2003 2-29

 Part 2: Great Meadows NWR Chapter 2
 2-30 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex

Chapter 2 Alternatives
 Draft CCP/EA- Executive Summary April 2003 2-31

 Part 2: Great Meadows NWR Chapter 2
 2-32 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex

Chapter 2 Alternatives
 Draft CCP/EA- Executive Summary April 2003 2-33

 Part 2: Great Meadows NWR Chapter 2

Alternative B- The Service’s Proposed Action

Under Alternative B, refuge staffing and funding levels would be

increased, and we would initiate new wildlife population, habitat, and

invasive/overabundant pest species management activities and

provide new compatible wildlife-dependent recreational

opportunities. The refuge would also work with State, Federal, and

non-governmental partners to secure funding for the construction of

new visitor facilities including a Concord visitor contact station and a

new visitor center to support the goals and objectives of the Refuge

System at Great Meadows Refuge.

Special emphasis would be placed on obtaining baseline data of

wildlife populations and habitat conditions required to develop

detailed step-down plans. This data would be needed to provide a

professional and scientifically adequate resource for future

management planning. Wildlife population and habitat monitoring

surveys and inventories would be continued to provide the data

needed to assess the effectiveness of management programs and

practices, and to make mid-course adaptations to these practices to

ensure they meet long-range refuge goals and objectives.

Special emphasis would also be placed on providing enhanced, and

sustainable, opportunities for the six priority, wildlife-dependent

public uses defined in the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997

(environmental education, fishing, hunting, interpretation,

photography and wildlife observation). The Visitor Services Plan,

which is part of the Proposed Action, would include a monitoring

program to evaluate intensity and potential impact of all the wildlifedependent public uses on the refuge. Public use activities in general

may be modified in the future if adverse impacts on wildlife or

habitat are identified. Public use evaluations, along with wildlife and

habitat monitoring programs, would assist the refuge in both

assessing the intensity of public use and adapting our management

strategies and practices for those uses. The Proposed Action is also

summarized under Alternative B in Table GRM 2-6.

Alternative C

Under this alternative little wildlife or habitat management would

occur. Great Meadows Refuge lands would succeed to climax stages

or be dominated by invasive species. This would lower habitat and

species diversity causing the refuge to become a less interesting

place for wildlife enthusiast to visit. The focus of this alternative for

this refuge is public use. Under this alternative, public use would be

expanded even beyond Alternative B.

Common reed. USFWS Photo

Trail at Great Meadows Refuge.

Proposed trails and observation

platforms offer visitors additional

opportunities for wildlife observation

and photography. USFWS Photo

Our Proposed Action for

habitat and wildlife

management includes four

parts:

1. Collect information for all

species on the refuge,

2. Determine resources of

concern based on national

and regional Service

plans,

3. Using information

gathered in Steps 1 and

2, develop a Habitat

Management Plan,

4. Develop a Habitat and

Wildlife Inventory and

Monitoring Plan to

insure objectives in the

Habitat Management

Plan are reached.
 2-34 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex

Chapter 2 Alternatives
 Draft CCP/EA- Executive Summary April 2003 2-35

 Part 2: Great Meadows NWR Chapter 2
 2-36 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex

Chapter 2 Alternatives
 Draft CCP/EA- Executive Summary April 2003 2-37

 Part 2: Great Meadows NWR Chapter 2
 2-38 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex

Chapter 2 Alternatives
 Draft CCP/EA- Executive Summary April 2003 2-39

 Part 2: Great Meadows NWR Chapter 2
 2-40 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex

Chapter 2 Alternatives
2- 41

Issue Alternative A

Current Management

Alternative B

Service’s Proposed Action

Alternative C

 Draft CCP/EA – Executive Summary April 2003

Part 2: Great Meadows NWR Chapter 2

Table 2-6. Actions and Strategies Matrix, Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge

Inventory breeding birds, marsh

birds, woodcock, anurans, waterfowl,

shorebirds annually

Manage Concord impoundments for

waterfowl and shorebirds annually.

Maintain current water control

structures

Band waterfowl annually through

partners

Conduct bald eagle survey annually

Monitor wood duck box production

annually through partners

Monitor and maintain bluebird

nesting boxes annually

Assist USFWS Fisheries Assistance

Office, as needed, with

reintroduction and survey efforts of

spawning habitat for

interjurisdictional fish including shad,

alewife, herring and Concord and

Sudbury Rivers

Collect information on plant species

and water quality through collection

of partners/volunteers data

Maintain existing open fields

(approximately 100 acres) through

mowing every 3-5 years

Allow partner to cooperatively farm

6 acres parcel in Concord

How would we

manage habitats

and wildlife

populations?

Same as Alternative A plus:

Conduct baseline surveys on plants,

invertebrates, mammals, amphibians,

reptiles and fish, and birds to

determine species presence; repeat

baseline surveys every 10 years.

Inventory refuge habitats and produce

a cover type map every ten years

which includes broad habitats

(wetland, grassland, shrub) as well as

specific endangered/threatened plants

Using survey results, develop a list of

focus species and habitats using

regional standards which includes

Federally-listed species

Develop & implement a Habitat

Management Plan and a Habitat and

Wildlife Inventory and Montioring

Plan which may utilize mechanical,

chemical and fire management

techniques to accomplish potential

habitat plan recommendations

Eliminate cooperative farming program

within 2 years. Plant appropriate

native vegetation.

Initiate research on the impact of

public use on wildlife and the impact

of water quality and quantity on

wetland resources

Seek opportunities to develop

cooperative management agreements

with neighboring conservation

agencies, organizations and individuals

Conduct baseline surveys on

plants, invertebrates, fish, small

mammals, amphibians and reptiles

to determine species presence

Develop a Wildlife Inventory Plan

Inventory refuge habitats and

produce a cover type map every

ten years which includes broad

habitats (wetland, grassland,

shrub) as well as specific

endangered/ threatened plants
2-42 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Issue Alternative A

Current Management

Alternative B

Service’s Proposed Action

Alternative C

Table 2-6. Actions and Strategies Matrix, Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge

Chapter 2 Alternative Matrix

Open archery deer hunting within

State guidelines on portion of the

Refuge South of Sherman’s Bridge in

towns of Sudbury, Lincoln, Wayland

and Framingham

Open archery deer hunting within

State guidelines on portions of the

Refuge north of 225 bridge in the

towns of Bedford, Billerica and

Carlisle

Complete Hunt Plan Prior to opening

Refuge to hunting. Refuge charge

special permit fee for hunting on

refuge

No upland small game hunting

allowed

In addition to Alternative B:

Initiate shotgun deer hunting on

same areas as archery deer hunting

was opened.

No upland small game hunting

allowed.

What big and

upland game

hunting

opportunities

would we

provide?

How would we

manage

invasive and

overabundant

species?

Beetles and weevil are released in

Concord, Sudbury, Wayland and

Carlisle to control purple loosestrife

annually

Large monotypic stands of cattail

at Concord unit are managed

through water level manipulation,

herbicide and mowing

Concord impoundments are

alternately flooded and drained for a

growing season at least every third

year to control water chestnut.

Aquatic weed harvester used by

refuge staff and partners to remove

water chestnut in Sudbury and

Concord Rivers and surrounding

ponds

Beaver deceivers are used as a

nonlethal control methods for

nuisance beaver to allow refuge to

manage water levels on refuge

Same as Alternative A plus:

Survey invasive and exotic species

and extent of distribution

Develop refuge-wide map of

invasive species.

Purple loosestrife beetle program

expanded. Refuge raising and

releases beetles annually

throughout refuge

Remove established common reed

Develop and implement Integrated

Pest Management program for

controlling invasive species found

on the refuge including biological,

chemical, mechanical and fire

management techniques

Evaluate and modify control

techniques for species found, each

year using: plot sampling,

estimates of cover, and response of

wildlife and other plants

Manage overabundant/invasive

animal populations identifed in

surveys using hunting, trapping

and relocation, and lethal controls

as may be necessary. Specifically,

remove nuisance beaver where

other control methods fail and

remove territorial exotic mute

swans from the refuge.

Participate in appropriate

experimental invasive species

control programs

Survey invasive and exotic species

and extent of distribution

Develop refuge-wide map of invasive

species

No hunting opportunities exist
2- 43

Issue Alternative A

Current Management

Alternative B

Service’s Proposed Action

Alternative C

 Draft CCP/EA – Executive Summary April 2003

Part 2: Great Meadows NWR Chapter 2

Table 2-6. Actions and Strategies Matrix, Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge

What migratory

game bird

hunting

opportunities

would we

provide?

No hunting opportunities exist

.

Open waterfowl hunting within State

guidelines on the portions of the

Sudbury River south of Sherman’s

Bridge and from Pantry Brook to

Route 117 in Towns of Sudbury,

Lincoln, Wayland and Framingham

Open waterfowl hunting within State

guidelines on portions of the refuge

on the Concord River north of the

Town of Concord in towns of

Bedford, Billerica and Carlisle

Open waterfowl hunting on the banks

of Heard Pond, Wayland, from

Refuge land

Complete Hunt Plan Prior to opening

Refuge to hunting.. Refuge charges

special permit fee for hunting on

Refuge

Open all refuge waters to

waterfowl hunting (except

Concord impoundments) according

to state guidelines

Complete Hunt Plan Prior to

opening refuge to hunting. Refuge

charges special permit fee for

hunting on refuge

What fishing

opportunities

would we

provide?

Continue to allow river fishing

throughout the Refuge on Sudbury and

Concord Rivers

All refuge pools remain closed

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

In addition to Alternative A:

Develop Visitor Services Plan

Re-establish parking area at Heard

Pond- Wayland

Create photo blinds at three sites

within refuge

Increase directional signage to all

public use areas

Create habitat demonstration areas to

explain management and observe

wildlife

Conduct research project on impacts

of public uses and carrying capacity of

areas

An entrance fee will be charged

Provide wildlife viewing opportunities

at: Heard Pond- Wayland, Weir Hill

trails- Sudbury, Dike trails, and

observation tower- Concord,

Two Brothers Rock- Bedford,

O’Rourke Trails- Carlisle, Route 4

trail- Billerica/Bedford Trail

Concord and Sudbury Rivers via

canoe- open through all 8 towns.

Maintain existing canoe landings

Host Wildlife photography contest

and display all entries in refuge Visitor

Center

What wildlife

observation and

photography

opportunities

would we

provide?

Same as Alternative B
2-44 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Issue Alternative A

Current Management

Alternative B

Service’s Proposed Action

Alternative C

Table 2-6. Actions and Strategies Matrix, Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge

Chapter 2 Alternative Matrix

What

environmental

education and

interpretation

opporutnities

would we

provide?

Provide for over 100 on-site

environmental education programs

annually

Offer teacher workshops on refuge

Environmental Ed. programs at least

twice a year

Work with Boston and Worcester

schools through the Urban Education

Program

Provide off-site education programs as

requested at local schools and on-site

interpretive programs

Maintain 3 interpretive kiosks- Weir

Hill, Heard Pond, Dike trails &

provide brochures at existing refuge

public use sites

Maintain 2 self-guided interpretive

trails: Concord Dike trails and Weir

Hill trail

Host 4 on-site special events/

celebrations annually

Allow partners (via required Special

Use Permit) to conduct education

programs on-refuge, no charge for

permit

Allow cooperating association,

SuAsCo Great Meadows Education

Fund to run a small book store at the

refuge headquarters

Quarterly news letter on the “web”

and viewed by over 3000 people

Refuge Web-site and monthly news

releases used to explain refuge

management and upcoming activities

Refuge visitor center with exhibits and

headquarters is open year round.

Provide programs within the local

community as requested.

Active volunteer force helps staff

provide on and off site programs

Same as Alternative A plus

Develop Visitor Services Plan

Develop refuge specific curriculum

for grades k-12.

Provide accredited teacher workshops

Disseminate school groups more

evenly between Dike trail and other

outdoor classrooms

Expand Urban Education Program to

more inner city schools in Boston

area

Allow private groups to conduct

programs on refuge via required

Special Use Permit, Memorandum of

Understanding, Memorandum of

Agreement, or concession to conduct

education programs on-refuge

Install 4 kiosks at areas with wildlife

observation opportunities

Develop self-guided canoe trail with

interpretive brochures on Concord

and Sudbury Rivers

Increase interpretive outreach to

hunters and anglers through hunter

education programs

Develop environmental education

partnerships, introductory refuge

video for all age groups, and wildlife

learning materials for children

Conduct outreach related to

environmental education

opportunities at refuge

Increase interface with education

community, & help develop wildlife

classroom projects

Reach out to local community groups,

especially those that are not the

refuge’s typical audience

Develop interpretive materials for

placement in the Boston metropolitan

area to reach nontraditional audiences

Active friends group supports refuge

activities

An entrance fee will be charged

Same as Alternative B
2- 45

Issue Alternative A

Current Management

Alternative B

Service’s Proposed Action

Alternative C

 Draft CCP/EA – Executive Summary April 2003

Part 2: Great Meadows NWR Chapter 2

Table 2-6. Actions and Strategies Matrix, Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge

What nonwildlife

dependent

public uses

would be

allowed on the

refuge?

Current nonwildlife-dependent uses

occurring:

picnicking

jogging

dog walking (on leash)

Eliminate non-wildlife dependent

uses. Refuge is closed to picnicking

and dog walking.

Study impacts of jogging

Same as Alternative B

Same as Alternative B, except the

refuge-wide archeological survey

would be reduced in scope,

eliminating studies needed to

develop predictive models.

In addition to Alternative A:

Hire additional full-time Park Rangers

Complete an overview survey of

cultural resources of the refuge.

Develop predictive model for probable

archeological and historic sites.

Wildlife and cultural resource law

enforcement is provided by two fulltime and one co-lateral duty staff

shared with other Complex refuges.

Federal cultural resource protection

laws and regulations are enforced.

Soil disturbance requires cultural

resource evaluations and clearance

How would we

ensure resource

protection and

visitor safety?

What

buildings and

facilities would

be used or

constructed for

Refuge

operations?

Continue to use existing refuge

buildings including

Refuge Visitor Center/

 headquarters- Sudbury

Comfort Station- Concord

4 storage barns/buildings

(Sudbury- 3, Concord)

3 residences (Sudbury 2,

Carlisle)

Same as Alternative A plus: Same as Alternative B

Conduct a Site Requirement Analysis

Construct new Visitor Center in the

high traffic flow area

Construct new Visitor Contact

Station at Concord Unit
2-46 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Issue Alternative A

Current Management

Alternative B

Service’s Proposed Action

Alternative C

Table 2-6. Actions and Strategies Matrix, Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge

Chapter 2 Alternative Matrix

What would be

the future

staffing needs at

Great Meadows

Refuge?

1 Refuge Manager (Vacant)

3 Maintenance Workers

1 Office Assistant

1 Admin Support Ass. (Vacant)

 Total FTEs = 6

Alternative A plus:

1 Biologist

1 Biological Technician (Seasonal)

1 Education Specialist

3 Park Rangers

1 Outreach Specialist/ Volunteer

 Coordinator

1 Maintenance Worker

 Total FTEs = 14

Alternative A plus:

1 Education Specialist

3 Park Rangers

1 Outreach Specialist/

 Volunteer Coordinator

1 Maintenance Workers

 Total FTEs(A+C)= 12

Should the two

Units within

Great Meadows

NWR be spilt

into 2 separate

NWRs?

Great Meadows Refuge remains one

refuge with 2 Units Concord Unit

and the Sudbury Unit

The Concord Unit (From 117 Bridge

in Lincoln/Concord to the Northern

boundary) remains Great Meadows

NWR and the Sudbury Unit (From

117 Bridge in Lincoln/Concord to the

Southern boundary) becomes the

Sudbury River Refuge

Same as Alternative B
Draft CCP/EA - Executive Summary April 2003 2-47

Part 3: Oxbow NW R Chapter 2

Part 3: Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge

Alternative A - The Current Management Alternative

The Current Management Alternative represents the anticipated

condition of the refuge (and associated resources) if current policies,

programs and activities continue in a manner consistent with recent

or foreseeable trends. While this alternative does not represent a

true “status quo” condition, neither does it propose major changes in

public use/wildlife management programs or facilities.

Habitat management that sustains small blocks of grassland/shrub,

wetland, and turtle nesting habitat would help maintain some habitat

diversity at Oxbow Refuge. Periodic release of selective insects

would help reduce the spread of the invasive plant purple loosestrife.

An absence of well-planned wildlife and habitat inventories would fall

short of adequately accounting for these resources.

Unmet demand for hunting, fishing, hiking and other recreation

opportunities would continue, as no action would be taken to expand

these activities at the refuge. The ability to attract more supportive

constituents is not anticipated to improve because education and

outreach concerning Oxbow Refuge would only occur as an adjunct

to outreach programs for the much larger Eastern Massachusetts

Refuge Complex. Oxbow Refuge would continue to have only minor

social or economic connection to surrounding communities.

Alternative B - The Service’s Proposed Action

Under the Service’s Proposed Action, refuge staffing and funding

levels would be increased, and we would initiate new wildlife

population, habitat and invasive and overabundant species

management activities; and provide new compatible wildlifedependent recreational opportunities. We would also work with

State, Federal and non-governmental partners to secure funding for

the construction of new visitor facilities and a visitor contact station

to support the goals and objectives of the National Wildlife Refuge

System and the Oxbow Refuge.

Special emphasis would be placed on obtaining baseline data of

wildlife populations and habitat conditions required to develop the

detailed step-down plans under this CCP. These plans are needed

to provide professional and scientifically adequate resource

management planning. Wildlife population and habitat monitoring

surveys and inventories would be continued to provide the data

needed to assess the effectiveness of management programs and

practices, and to make mid-course adaptations to these practices to

ensure they meet long-range refuge goals and objectives.

American Woodcock. USFWS Photo

Refuge staff and volunteers clear a

trail. USFWS Photo
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex 2-48

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Our Proposed Action for habitat and wildlife management

includes four parts:

1. Collect information for all species on the refuge,

2. Determine resources of concern based on national

and regional Service plans,

3. Using information gathered in Steps 1 and 2,develop a

Habitat Management Plan,

4. Develop a Habitat and Wildlife Inventory and

Monitoring Plan to insure objectives in the Habitat

Management Plan are reached.

Special emphasis would also be placed on providing enhanced, and

sustainable, opportunities for the six priority, wildlife-dependent

public uses defined in the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997

(environmental education, fishing, hunting, interpretation,

photography and wildlife observation). The Visitor Services Plan

would include a monitoring program to evaluate intensity and

potential impact of all the wildlife-dependent public uses on the

refuge. Public use activities in general, would be modified in the

future if adverse impacts on wildlife or habitat are identified. Public

use evaluations, along with wildlife and habitat monitoring programs,

would assist the refuge in both assessing the intensity of public use

and adapting our management strategies and practices for those

uses. The Proposed Action(s) are also summarized under

Alternative B in Table 2-8, Actions and Strategies Matrix for the

Oxbow NWR.

Alternative C

Under this alternative the refuge management strategy would be

oriented towards a “hands-off, let nature take its course approach.”

We would curtail or forego most, active wildlife and habitat

management planning and implementation. Natural succession of

habitats would be the selected strategy across the refuge.

Additional opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreational activities

would be reduced or eliminated within the portions of the refuge

located south of Shirley Road, and no facilities would be established

in the portion of the refuge located north of Shirley Road.

Hunting, fishing and public use plans would be completed. Any

necessary, refuge-specific regulations or restrictions would be

described in the hunting or fishing plan, published the Federal

Register, and disseminated through refuge hunting brochures, news

management objectives. No active management would be

undertaken except in the event of a threat to property or human

health

A

Students participating in the Urban

Education Program at Oxbow Refuge.

Under the Proposed Action, the

refuge would expand this program.

USFWS Photos
Draft CCP/EA - Executive Summary April 2003 2-49

Part 3: Oxbow NW R Chapter 2
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex 2-50

Chapter 2 AlternativesA
Draft CCP/EA - Executive Summary April 2003 2-51

Part 3: Oxbow NW R Chapter 2
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex 2-52

Chapter 2 Alternatives
Draft CCP/EA - Executive Summary April 2003 2-53

Part 3: Oxbow NW R Chapter 2
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex 2-54

Chapter 2 Alternatives
2-55

Issue Alternative A

Current Management

Alternative B

Service’s Proposed Action

Alternative C

Draft CCP/EA – Executive Summary April 2003

Part 3: Oxbow NWR Chapter 2

Table 2-8. Actions and Strategies Matrix, Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge

How would we

manage habitats

and wildlife

populations?

In addition to Alternative A:

Develop inventory list of migratory

bird and federally listed threatened and

endangered species.

Inventory and evaluate population

statuses of key, resident vertebrate

and invertebrate species, including

State listed threatened/ endangered

species, deer, small mammals, anuran,

and others on the refuge.

Identify focus species

Develop species management

objectives

Inventory Refuge habitats, surface

hydrology, soils & topography

Develop an updated cover type map

Develop & implement a Habitat

Management Plan and a Habitat and

Wildlife Inventory and Montioring

Plan which may utilize mechanical,

chemical and fire management

techniques to accomplish potential

habitat plan recommendations

Seek opportunities to develop

cooperative management agreements

with neighboring conservation

agencies, organizations and

individuals.

Conduct baseline population

surveys and inventories for

- woodcock

- marsh birds

- breeding birds

- anuran

Blandings turtle monitoring occurs

by a partner. Expand Blanding’s

turtle nesting habitat by removing

vegetation and surface organic matter

on approximately eight acres that

were formerly in this condition.

Continue management of 15-20

existing acres

Continue partner based

contaminants monitoring program

Existing information on wildlife

populations and habitat is being

obtained from partners.

Maintain existing old field habitat

(approximately 25-30 acres) utilizing

fire management techniques or

mechanical means.

Maintain existing wetland habitat.

Restore approximately 30 acres of

currently degraded wetlands.

Selectively remove existing roads and

trails not required for refuge

maintenance, visitor use or fire

control purposes.

Allow the remaining, existing mix of

wetland, hardwood and pine forest

to mature under natural succession

processes.

Active management practices would

be severely curtailed or eliminated.

Planning and monitoring would be

limited.

Inventory migratory bird and

Federal listed threatened and

endangered species, resident

vertebrate (e.g., deer, small

mammals, anuran, etc.) and

invertebrate species, including State

listed threatened/endangered species,

on the refuge.

Develop an updated cover type

map.

Repeat inventory surveys at 10 year

intervals to evaluate successional

changes.
2-56 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge

Issue Alternative A

Current Management

Alternative B

Service’s Proposed Action

Alternative C

Table 2-8. Actions and Strategies Matrix, Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge

Chapter 2 Alternative Matrix

How would we

manage

invasive and

overabundant

species?

A limited program of purple

loosestrife control occurs in one

wetland area. Host-specific beetles

are used to control loosestrife.

Monitor known stands of invasive

species

Continue beaver management

program which currently relies

primarily on non-lethal methods of

control.

In addition to Alternative A:

Inventory and document all invasive

species locations and pest or

overabundant animal species

Monitor and evaluate rate of spread

of invasive pest or overabundant

species

Develop and Implement an Integrated

Pest Management Plan (IPM) for

invasive plant species which utilizes

biological, mechanical, chemical and

fire management or control

techniques.

Manage overabundant/invasive animal

populations identifed in surveys

using hunting, trapping and

relocation, and lethal controls as may

be necessary. Specifically, remove

nuisance beaver where other control

methods fail and remove territorial

exotic mute swans from the refuge.

Conduct/participate in experimental

control technique research.

Active management practices

would be severely curtailed or

eliminated.

Planning and monitoring would be

limited.

Inventory and document all

invasive species locations and pest

or overabundant animal species

Monitor and evaluate rate of

spread of invasive pest or

overabundant species at 10-year

intervals

What big and

upland game

hunting

opportunities

would we

provide?

The refuge is not currently open for

deer hunting.

The current Refuge Hunting Plan will

be updated, and:

Portions of the refuge opened to

archery, shotgun and black powder

deer hunting. (See text and maps for

specifics).

Handicapped accessible deer hunting

opportunities will be provided.

All Public use programs will be

monitored for potential impacts on

wildlife and habitat, programs will be

modified as needed, if adverse

impacts are identified

Annual fee permits will be required

for hunting on the refuge.

Same as Alternative B., except

areas of the refuge north of Shirley

Road, portions of the refuge would

be closed to hunting.
2-57

Issue Alternative A

Current Management

Alternative B

Service’s Proposed Action

Alternative C

Draft CCP/EA – Executive Summary April 2003

Part 3: Oxbow NWR Chapter 2

Table 2-8. Actions and Strategies Matrix, Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge

Portions of the refuge are open to

woodcock hunting

Additional portions of the refuge,

north of Route 2 will be open for

woodcock hunting.

Waterfowl hunting would be open on

the refuge South of Route 2 on the

Nashua River.

Annual fee permits will be required

for hunting on the refuge.

Same as Alternative B for

woodcock hunting, except areas of

the refuge north of Shirley Road

would not be open for hunting.

No waterfowl hunting is proposed

under this alternative.

What migratory

game bird

hunting

opportunities

would we

provide?

What fishing

opportunities

would we

provide?

The Nashua River is open to boat

fishing. Refuge wetland pools are

closed to public access. Bank fishing

is not allowed.

In addition to Alternative A,

River-bank fishing access points will

be provided at up to 4 designated

areas. These may be closed from time

to time to minimize river bank

vegetation damage.

One or more access points will be

made handicapped accessible.

Alternative B, except:

only two river-bank fishing

locations will be provided.

the portions of the refuge north of

Shirley Road would remain closed

to fishing.

What wildlife

observation and

photography

opporutnities

would be

provided?

The refuge currently provides

approximately 2.5 miles of trails, one

canoe launch, and a parking area.

Snowshoeing and cross country

skiing are allowed on the trails

currently open for public use.

Same as Alt. A, plus:

An additional 5 to 6 miles of hiking

trails will be provided on the portion

of the refuge north of Route 2.

An additional canoe launch, with a

parking area will be provided off

Jackson Road in the vicinity of

Jackson Gate.

One additional canoe landing and an

additional parking area will be

developed within the former North

Post portion of the refuge (North of

Shirley Road).

One wildlife viewing platform and a

photography blind will be

constructed.

Public use programs will be monitored

for potential impacts on wildlife and

habitat, programs will be modified as

needed, if adverse impacts are

identified.

Evaluate the potential for a foot trail

on the Watt farm.

An entrance fee would be charged

Same as Alternative B, except:

the portions of the refuge located

north of Shirley Road will remain

closed to public use; and,

the parking areas and canoe

launches in this portion of the

refuge would not be constructed.
2-58 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge

Issue Alternative A

Current Management

Alternative B

Service’s Proposed Action

Alternative C

Table 2-8. Actions and Strategies Matrix, Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge

Chapter 2 Alternative Matrix

How will the

Refuge provide

outreach to

increase the

public's

awareness of the

Refuge?

Same as Alternative A, plus:

One or more annual events (such as

National Fishing Day, Refuge Week,

etc.), which promote wildlife

dependent uses and natural resource

education will be held on the refuge.

Work with partners to construct a

visitor center at Jackson Gate

entrance.

Develop refuge-specific EE

curriculum for K-12.

Develop annual teacher workshop.

Develop program to educate local

communities and landowners about

existing programs and strategies for

resource protection and restoration.

Utilize on-going refuge management

areas to illustrate beneficial wildlife

and habitat practices.

Work with partners to place

information kiosks with refuge

oriented materials at 3 strategic, offrefuge locations.

FWS staff and partners provide

off-site, refuge-related presentations

to school, clubs, communities, etc.

as requested.

Continue to develop and build the

Refuge Friends group.

A quarterly news letter is

distributed

A refuge Web-site and monthly

news releases are used to provide

information on refuge management

activities and upcoming events.

Same as Alternative B, except onrefuge wildlife and habitat

management demonstration areas

would essentially be eliminated from

the programs.

What

environmental

education and

interpretation

opporutnities

would we

provide?

Both on and off-refuge

environmental education and

interpretive programs are being

provided by refuge staff, the Friends

group and volunteers.

Assistance with teacher workshops

is being provided, as requested.

An Urban Education program with

Worcester school systems has been

initiated.

Same as Alternative A plus:

Develop a Visitor Services Plan

Expand volunteer led interpretive and

education programs on the refuge.

Expand Urban Education Programs to

other regional school systems.

Coordinate with area environmental

educators to integrate refuge programs

into their education programs.

Construct three on-site informational

kiosk, and implement self-guided

interpretive walking and canoeing

trails.

Review non-Service sponsored uses of

the refuge for compatibility. Regulate

this uses through use of Special Use

Permits, Memoranda or

Understanding or Agreement, or

Concessions, as appropriate

Alternative B would be modified

by eliminating kiosk construction

and limiting most non-refuge staff

led programs to the portions of the

refuge south of Shirley Road.

Self-guided foot or canoe trails

would be limited to the southern

portions of the refuge, below

Shirley Road.
2-59

Issue Alternative A

Current Management

Alternative B

Service’s Proposed Action

Alternative C

Draft CCP/EA – Executive Summary April 2003

Part 3: Oxbow NWR Chapter 2

Table 2-8. Actions and Strategies Matrix, Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge

What nonwildlife

dependent

public uses

would be allowed

on the Refuge?

Current uses occurring:

Picnicking, jogging, dog walking (on

leash)

Eliminate non-wildlife dependent

uses. Refuge is closed to dog walking

and picnicking.

Study impacts of jogging

Same as Alternative B

Wildlife and cultural resource law

enforcement is provided by one fulltime and one co-lateral duty staff

shared with other Complex units.

Enforce Federal cultural resource

protection laws and regulations.

Soil disturbance requires cultural

resource evaluations and clearance

In addition to Alternative A:

Law enforcement staff would be

assigned specifically to the Oxbow

Refuge.

Survey sites proposed for

construction of all facilities- roads,

trails, buildings, etc. Modify

construction as necessary to minimize

impacts to cultural resources.

Complete an overview survey of

cultural resources of the refuge.

Develop predictive model for

probable archeological and historic

sites.

Same as Alternative B, except the

refuge-wide archeological survey

would be reduced in scope,

eliminating studies needed to

develop predictive models.

How would we

ensure resource

protection and

visitor safety?

What buildings

and facilities

would be used

or constructed

for Refuge

operations?

The are no buildings on the refuge at

the current time.

Working with partners to obtain

funding, a Visitor Contact Station

with administrative offices will be

constructed at the Jackson Gate

entrance to the refuge.

Same as Alternative B.
2-60 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge

Issue Alternative A

Current Management

Alternative B

Service’s Proposed Action

Alternative C

Table 2-8. Actions and Strategies Matrix, Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge

Chapter 2 Alternative Matrix

What would be

the future

staffing needs

at Oxbow

Refuge?

Current Staffing Level:

1 Refuge Manager

1 Assistant Mgr. (vacant)

1 ORP (vacant)

1 Maintenance Worker (vacant)

1 Admin. Tech (vacant)

1 Park Ranger (LE) (vacant)

Total FTEs 6

In addition to Alternative A:

1 Park Ranger

1 Biological Technician

1 Equipment Operator

Total FTEs 9

In addition to Alternative A:

1 Park Ranger (LE)

Total FTEs 7
 Chapter 4

A volunteer leads an environmental education program on the refuge.

USFWS Photo

Environmental

Consequences
 4-2 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Consequences

Introduction

This chapter describes the environmental consequences likely to

result from implementation of each alternative management scenario

presented in Chapter 2, Alternatives. This section of the EA/CCP

forms the scientific and analytical basis for comparisons of the

alternatives.

Both indirect and direct effects are predicted for the 15-year planning

horizon (as much as can be reasonably expected). Indirect, direct,

and cumulative effects beyond 15 years may also be discussed, but

are often more speculative in nature.

Most proposed management activities and projects described in

Chapter 2 will be analyzed in this chapter. However, the CCP does

not contain site plans and exact locations for certain projects, such as

the visitor center for Great Meadows. Therefore, additional NEPA

compliance and public review may be required once site-specific plans

are completed, depending on the nature of the activity.

Certain management activities described in Chapter 2 may qualify

as “categorical exclusions” under NEPA provided they meet certain

conditions that include not adversely affecting a listed threatened or

endangered species. This means they would not require review in

an environmental assessment because they are actions which

typically do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect

on the human environment. The following activities are considered

categorical exclusions in this plan: environmental education and

interpretation; wildlife observation and photography research,

wildlife inventories (not involving construction), and outreach and

partnering efforts. As part of the CCP process, we have identified a

range of alternatives to address these issues, however we will not

analyze the impacts of these alternatives in this chapter.

In the following discussion, the terms “positive”, “negative”, and

“neutral” are used frequently as qualitative measures of how an

action would likely affect resources of concern. In some of our

discussions below, we are not able to quantify the effect. A “positive

effect” means that the actions are predicted to enhance or benefit the

resources under consideration and work towards accomplishing goals

and objectives over the short or long term. A “negative effect” means

that the actions are predicted to be detrimental to a resource over the

short or long term, and work against achieving goals and objectives.

A “neutral effect” means either a) there would be no discernible

effect, positive or negative, on the resources under consideration; or

b) predicted positive and negative effects cancel each other out.

We have generally described the impacts on a relatively local or

“fine” geographic scale — for example, within national wildlife refuge

lands. In actuality, the refuge is not isolated, and the influence of the

surrounding landscape on the duration and extent of impacts may not

Red tailed hawk. USFWS

Illustration
 Draft CCP/EA- Executive Summary April 2003 4-3

 Introduction Chapter 4

be adequately recognized in our text. We may have overstated both

positive and negative impacts, considering the geographic context.

On the other hand, many of the actions we propose are consistent

with other plans identified in Chapter 1, and provide a positive, albeit

incremental, contribution to these larger landscape goals. In other

words, the refuge may be small, but the actions take a big step on

refuge lands towards achieving Refuge System and ecosystem goals.

Each of the three alternatives are analyzed for their impact on air

and water quality, wildlife and habitat, and public use and access.

Actions Common to All Action Alternatives

Fees

While administering fees is considered a routine administrative

action, we acknowledge that initiating a fee program at Assabet

River, Great Meadows and Oxbow refuges may be controversial.

Some visitors may disapprove of the fees since many are used to

accessing Great Meadows and Oxbow refuges without fees. Some

people who currently use these refuges may choose not to return

because of the fees and others, who have not visited before may

choose not to visit because of the fees.

A recent article evaluating the Demonstration Fee Program at 14

national wildlife refuges provides some idea of what impacts can be

expected from a fee program. On those refuges surveyed, only 8%

of the visitors said that they would change their future plans to visit

the refuge because of fees charged. Hunters and anglers were more

likely to be displaced by fees and change their plans while those

coming to refuges for wildlife photography and observation were

less likely. Less than 13% of those surveyed chose not to visit at all,

or were displaced, because of the fees. The study suggests that

individuals in lower income brackets are more likely to be displaced

by fees than others. Those who understood how fees would be used

and their importance to maintaining quality services and enhancing

economic efficiency on refuges were more likely to agree with fees

(Taylor et. al 2002). Because education is such an important part of

any fee program we intend to provide information to all our users

about the fee program. Information distributed would explain that

fees promote equity by charging those who actually use the refuge,

enhance programs by generating revenue that can be used on the

refuge and help recover administrative costs, especially in the case

of the hunting fees, where there are specific administrative costs

involved. The fees would also fund additional programs and

facilities, providing new opportunities for those who use the refuges.

For more information about how the fee program would be

administered, see Chapter 2, Actions Common to All Action

Alternatives.
4-4 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge

Alternative A

Current Management

Alternative B

Service’s Proposed Action

Alternative C

Table 4-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences

Chapter 4 Consequences Summary

Water Quality/

Hydrology

Positive impact by protecting land,

use of beaver deceivers and periodic

ditching

Possible minimal negative impacts to

nontarget organisms from pesticides

and herbicides used to control invasive

and exotic species

Geology/

Topography/

Soils

Overall, no impact to local geology,

topography or soils

Temporary disturbance may occur

during habitat management practices

such as discing and plowing

Small scale permanent alteration will

occur at locations for administrative,

maintenance, and visitor facilities

Air Quality No impact on air quality. All three

refuges have attainment status

required by the Clean Air Act

Same as Alternative A

Same as Alternative A

Same as Alternative A, except short

term negligible impacts from small

scale prescribed burning (See Chapter

2, Fire Management EA)

Negative impacts to hydrology

and habitat from no control of

beaver (nonlethal or lethal)

Same as Alternative A, except

minimized impacts to soil due to

reduced habitat management and

public use (Assabet River and Oxbow

refuges)

Same as Alternative A at Great

Meadows Refuge

Same as Alternative A

Habitat and

Wildlife

Populations

Positive impacts to wetland habitats

from restoration of natural hydrology

and native species

Positive impact on grassland habitat

and species from managing 70 acres

Positive impacts on all other habitats

from land conservation

Same as Alternative A, except

positive impact to the sustainability

of habitat and wildlife on the refuges

from additional surveying and

planning

Negative impacts to wetland

habitats that are not restored

Negative impact to grasslands and

grassland species as these lands

succeed to shrub and forest

Positive affect on forest birds as

lands succeed to forest
4-5

Issue Alternative A

Current Management

Alternative B

Service’s Proposed Action

Alternative C

Draft CCP/EA – Executive Summary April 2003

Consequences Summary Chapter 4

Table 4-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences

Habitat

and

Wildlife

Populations

(Continued)

Invasive

Species

Hunting Potential positive impact on plant

composition and species richness

from deer hunting

Potential negative impacts to

habitat from trampling of

vegetation, creation of

unauthorized trails by hunters and

subsequent erosion, littering and

vandalism

Negligble impacts to non-target

fauna from hunters

Deer herd continues to increase,

resulting in potential negative impact

on plant composition and species

richness and abundance of

herbaceous and woody vegetation

understory available for migratory

birds

Same as Alternative B, except

fewer deer would likely be

removed under this alternative,

except at Great Meadows where

the hunt program would be

expanded under this alternative

Negative impact and loss of native

habitat and wildlife that use that

habitat from limited invasive species

control

Positive impacts to all habitat types

from the removal of invasive and

exotic species, including purple

loosestrife, common reed and water

chestnut

Negligible short term impacts to

wildlife and native species from

proposed burning and pesticide use

(see Chapter 2, Fire Management EA)

Positive impact to wetland habitat

and native wildlife from the removal

of aggressive and territorial mute

swans

Negative impact to native habitat

and wildlife from limited invasive

species control program

Fishing No impacts to fish or habitat at

Assabet River Refuge, where fishing

is closed

Negligble impacts to fish and habitat

at Great Meadows and Oxbow

where limited fishing is allowed

Negligble impacts to fish and habitat

(at all three refuges) by opening or

expanding fishing opportunities.

Individual fish may die (even in catch

and release areas) but no real affect on

the overall population is anticipated

Potential negative impacts to habitat

from trampling of vegetation, creation

of unauthorized trails and subsequent

erosion, littering and vandalism

(impacts to habitat will be minimal in

areas where access points designated

and fishing platforms are provided)

Same as Alternative B
4-6 Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge

Alternative A

Current Management

Alternative B

Service’s Proposed Action

Alternative C

Table 4-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences

Chapter 4 Consequences Summary

Public Use

Fishing (for

impacts of this

activity on habitat

and wildlife, see

previous section)

Hunting (for

impacts of this

activity on habitat

and wildlife, see

previous section)

No hunting opportunities occur at

Assabet River and Great Meadows

Negative interactions between

humans and deer occur (road kill,

Lyme disease, damage to residential

neighborhoods and agricultural crops)

Positive impacts to hunters at

Oxbow Refuge- hunting

opportunities provided

No fishing opportunities occur at

Assabet River Refuge

Positive impacts on fishing

opportunities at Great Meadows and

Oxbow by offering river fishing

Positive impact on hunters by

offering hunting opportunities

Potential negative interactions

between non-hunters and hunters

during hunting seasons

Positive impacts to public use

opportunities at Assabet River

Refuge- refuge open to all priority

public uses and uses expanded at

Great Meadows and Oxbow refuges

Potential positive impact on

appreciation of public land by offering

additional outreach and public use

opportunities

Positive impact on fishermen/women

by offering fishing opportunities on

Puffer Pond at Assabet River Refuge

and other new opportunities at

Oxbow Refuge

Same as Alternative A for Great

Meadows

Same as Alternative B, except

fewer opportunities

Same as Alternative B at Great

Meadows, except increased

programs beyond Alternative B for

wildlife observation and

photography, environmental

education and interpretation and

fishing and hunting

Same as Alternative B, except fewer

opportunities for Assabet and Oxbow

refuges

Same as Alternative A for Great

Meadows

Same as Alternative B at Assabet

River and Oxbow Refuges, except

fewer opportunities

Same as Alternative B for Great

Meadows, except shotgun deer

opportunities offered, potentially

creating additional negative

interactions between non-hunters and

hunters

Negative impact on public use

opportunities due to closure of

Assabet River Refuge

Positive impact on public use at

Great Meadows and Oxbow where

refuges are open to wildlife

observation and photography,

environmental education and

interpretation

Non-wildlife

dependent

recreational uses

(Great Meadows

and Oxbow

refuges, Assabet

River Refuge

would not be

open to these

uses under any

alternative)

Dog walking and picnicking would

remain open at Great Meadows and

Oxbow despite contradicting refuge

purposes

Negative impacts from dogs

disturbing or killing wildlife.

Negative impacts from feces left on

trail, impacting aesthetic value

Negative impacts to bird observers

and photographers (disrupting

wildlife) from unleashed dogs

Positive impacts on priority public

uses by eliminating non-wildlife

dependent uses which interfere with

these uses and disturb wildlife and

habitat

Positive impact on nesting birds and

resident flora and fauna from

eliminating dog walking

Positive impact on wildlife by

eliminating attraction of nuisance

wildlife to human food sources from

eliminating picnicking

Negative impacts to users who

utilize the refuge for non-wildlife

dependent uses

Same as Alternative B
4-7

Issue Alternative A

Current Management

Alternative B

Service’s Proposed Action

Alternative C

Draft CCP/EA – Executive Summary April 2003

Consequences Summary Chapter 4

Table 4-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Protection and

Visitor Safety

Safety maximized since the refuge is

closed to the public at Assabet River

Negative impacts at all refuges from

limited enforcement

Cultural resource reviews occur when

required

Cultural

Resources

Positive impact on resources and

visitor safety from providing

consistent enforcement and outreach

and additional staff on refuges

Positive impacts to cultural resources

by completing a comprehensive

cultural resource review on all refuges

Same as Alternative B

Negligible impacts from habitat

management and public use on the

refuges

Positive impact from land

conservation in local towns

Socioeconomic Same as Alternative A. Positive

impacts to towns from potential

increase in visitors

Same as Alternative B

Same as Alternative A
 Chapter 5

The Concord impoundments at Great Meadows Refuge offer visitors an

opportunity to view birds that use the Complex. USFWS Photo

Coordination With Others

• Introduction

• Public Involvement Summary

• Coordination with State and Other Partners

• Mailings

• Federal Register Notices

• Core Planning Team

• Other Assistance

• Addresses
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex 5-2

Chapter 5 Coordination With Others

Core Planning Team

Tim Prior, Deputy Project Leader, Eastern Massachusetts

Complex

Education: BS Biology

University of Hawaii Graduate School of

Oceanography

Experience: 2 years, Biology Teacher

5 years, State of Hawaii, Environmental Specialist

16 years, Department of the Army

11 years, USFWS

Phone: (978) 443-4661

Email: tim_prior@fws.gov

Stephanie Koch, Wildlife Biologist, Eastern Massachusetts

Complex

Education: BS Wildlife Biology

Experience: 9 years, USFWS

Phone: (978) 443-4661

Email: stephanie_koch@fws.gov

Sharon Fish Marino, Refuge Manager, Monomoy National

Wildlife Refuge

Education: BS Wildlife Biology

MS Wildlife Ecology

Experience: 6 years, USFWS

Phone: (508) 945-0594

Email: sharon_marino@fws.gov

Carl Melberg, Land Acquisition Planner

Education: BS Wildlife Biology

Experience: 3 years Department of Defense Mapping Agency

3 years Massachusetts Highway Department

6 years Army Corps of Engineers

13 years, USFWS

Phone: (413) 253-8521

Email: carl_melberg@fws.gov

Lindsay Krey, Assistant Planner (Team Leader)

Education: BS Natural Resources

Experience: 4 years, USFWS

Phone: (413) 253-8556

Email: lindsay_krey@fws.gov

Bud Oliveira, Deputy Chief of the National Wildlife Refuge

System, Region 4, Former Project Leader,

Eastern Massachusetts Complex

Education: BS Wildlife Management

Experience: 20 years, USFWS

Phone: (978) 443-4661

Email: bud_oliveira@fws.gov
 Draft CCP/EA - Executive Summary April 2003 5-3

Coordination With Others Chapter 5

Pamela Hess, Appalachian Mountain Club, Former Deputy

Project Leader, Eastern Massachusetts National

Wildlife Refuge Complex

Education: BS Wildlife Biology

MS Natural Resources Environmental Education and

Interpretation

Experience: 9 years, USFWS

Phone: (978) 443-4661

Email: pamela_hess@fws.gov

Other Assistance from Partners

Chuck Bell, District Manager Northeast District, Division of

Fisheries and Wildlife,

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Fish and Wildlife

Review and comment for the State

Debbie Dineen, Natural Resources, Town of Sudbury

Provided biological information regarding Assabet River Refuge

Curt Laffin, Planning Consultant

Wrote Environmental Consequences

Jack Lash, Planning and Ecology Director, Department of

Environmental Management, Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Review and comment for the State

Tom Poole, Natural Resource Manager, Army at Devens

Reserve Forces Training Area

Provided biological information regarding Assabet River Refuge

Bill Woytek, Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Commonwealth

of Massachusetts

Information regarding deer populations

Bruce Flaig and Marijke Holtrop

Generously allowed the refuge to use their photographs, many of

which were used in this plan

Other Service Assistance

Nicole Allison, Former Wildlife Biologist, Refuges and Wildlife

Drafted affected environment for Assabet River Refuge

William Archambault, Fisheries Supervisor South, Former

Regional NEPA Coordinator

Reviewed document for NEPA compliance

Melissa Brewer, Former Fisheries Biologist

Research and collection of aquatic information for affected

environment

Berries. Photo by Joan Rolfe
Eastern Massachusetts National Wildife Refuge Complex 5-4

Chapter 5 Coordination With Others

John Eaton, Cartographer

Created maps for alternatives

Andrew French, Realty Officer

Provided guidance on land protection strategies

Thomas Bonetti- Refuge Planner

Former Team Leader for this project.

Victoria Jacobson, Archeologist

Drafted the cultural resource sections of the affected environment

Rick Jorgensen, Realty Specialist

Provided guidance regarding land protection planning

Wendy Lilly-Hanson, Former Wildlife Biologist, Great

Meadows National Wildlife Refuge

Assisted with affected environment chapter for Great Meadows

Refuge

Janet Kennedy - Refuge Manager Parker River National

Wildlife Refuge (Former Deputy Refuge Manager for Eastern

Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex)

Assisted with early development of the plan

Deborah Long - Deputy Refuge Manager Forsythe National

Wildlife Refuge, Former Monomoy Refuge Manager

Former core team member

Lisa Plagge, Former Bio-technician, Great Meadows, Oxbow,

and Assabet NWRs

Species list and information

Pamela Rooney- Engineering Supervisor, Former Planning

Team Leader

Lead the project for the first two years.

Rick Schauffler, Wildlife Biologist and Cartographer

Created and edited all land protection planning maps

Janith Taylor- Regional Biologist, Refuges and Wildlife

Review and comment on biology

Sharon Ware - Refuge Manager Sachuest Point National

Wildlife Refuge (Former Refuge Manager at Monomoy

National Wildlife Refuge)

Assisted with early development of the plan

Mike Amaral, Senior Endangered Species Specialist

Provided information and guidance Northern red-bellied cooter

management and Karner blue butterfly

Prarie warbler. Photo by Bruce Flaig
 Draft CCP/EA - Executive Summary April 2003 5-5

Coordination With Others Chapter 5

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