Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge 

Transportation Study Report

Submitted to

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

21400 Ridgetop Circle

Sterling, VA 20166-6511

Submitted by

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge 

Transportation Study Report 

Prepared For: Federal Highway Administration 

 Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

 Northeast Region 

Prepared By: Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. 

January 2013 
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

i

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1-1 

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

1.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission and Goals........................................................................................................................... 1-4 

1.3 National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals....................................................................................................................... 1-5 

1.4 Purpose of the Transportation Study............................................................................................................................................... 1-5 

1.5 Study Area....................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-6 

1.6 Study Schedule ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1-6 

2 Activities and Visitation .............................................................................................. 2-1 

2.1 Activities .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.2 Visitation Summary and Profile ....................................................................................................................................................... 2-3 

3 Regional Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics .................................................. 3-1 

3.1 Demographic Profile........................................................................................................................................................................ 3-1 

3.2 Socioeconomic and Community Features....................................................................................................................................... 3-2 

4 Habitat and Cultural Resources..................................................................................... 4-1 

4.1 Habitat ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 4-1 

4.2 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4-3 

5 Existing Transportation Conditions ................................................................................ 5-1 

5.1 Adjacent Land Uses ........................................................................................................................................................................ 5-1 

5.2 Entrances to the Refuge.................................................................................................................................................................. 5-3 

5.3 Visitor Travel Mode.......................................................................................................................................................................... 5-5 

5.4 Pedestrian Access to the Refuge .................................................................................................................................................... 5-5 

5.5 Bicycle Access to the Refuge ......................................................................................................................................................... 5-6 

5.6 Vehicle Access to the Refuge ......................................................................................................................................................... 5-9 

5.7 Mobility and Transportation Infrastructure within the Refuge ....................................................................................................... 5-13

5.8 Major Transportation Issues and Challenges at the Refuge ........................................................................................................ 5-21 

6 Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives .............................................................................. 6-1 

6.1 Screening Criteria............................................................................................................................................................................ 6-1 

6.2 Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives................................................................................................................................................ 6-2 

7 Candidate Alternatives ............................................................................................... 7-1 

7.1 External Access Projects................................................................................................................................................................. 7-1 

7.2 Internal Infrastructure Projects ...................................................................................................................................................... 7-10

7.3 Internal Circulation and Mobility Projects ...................................................................................................................................... 7-13

8 Transportation Improvement and Enhancement Plan ......................................................... 8-1 

8.1 Near-term Opportunities.................................................................................................................................................................. 8-1 

8.2 Large-project Opportunities............................................................................................................................................................. 8-3 
 Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT 

ii

List of Figures

1.1 Project Location ...................................................................................................... 1-2

1.2 Study Area ............................................................................................................. 1-3 

2.1 Monthly Visitation Patterns (2011) ............................................................................... 2-3 

2.2 Average Daily Visitation (2011) .................................................................................... 2-3 

3.1 Share of Area Population by Town ................................................................................ 3-1 

3.2 Area Population by Age and Gender .............................................................................. 3-2 

3.3 Median Annual Household Income ................................................................................ 3-4 

4.1 Habitat .................................................................................................................. 4-2 

4.2 Historic USGS 1940-1941 (pre-military era) .................................................................... 4-4 

4.3 Historic USGS 1950 (military era) ................................................................................. 4-5 

4.4 Ammunition Bunkers ................................................................................................. 4-6 

5.1 Nearby Land Uses ..................................................................................................... 5-2 

5.2 Rail Trails ............................................................................................................... 5-7 

5.3 Hourly Traffic Volumes on Hudson Road (Weekday) ........................................................ 5-10 

5.4 Hourly Traffic Volumes on Hudson Road (Weekend day) ................................................... 5-11 

5.5 Access Easements .................................................................................................. 5-16 

5.6 Roadway Condition ................................................................................................. 5-18 

7.1 Additional Parking at Main Entrance ............................................................................. 7-5 

7.2 Relocate Entrance Road ............................................................................................ 7-8 

7.3 Left-turn Lane at Main Entrance ................................................................................. 7-9 

7.4 Reconstruct North Entrance Access Road ..................................................................... 7-11 

7.5 Accessible Canoe Launch ......................................................................................... 7-15 

8.1 Project Locations .................................................................................................... 8-6 
 Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT 

iii

List of Tables

2.1 2011 Hunting Seasons ............................................................................................... 2-2 

2.2 Average Daily Visitation at ARNWR Visitor Center (2011) .................................................... 2-3 

3.1 Area Housing by Occupant Type ................................................................................... 3-2 

3.2 Unemployment Rate ................................................................................................. 3-3 

3.3 Employment by Industry ........................................................................................... 3-3 

4.1 State-listed Birds, Amphibians and Reptiles .................................................................... 4-3 

5.1 Visitor Travel Mode................................................................................................... 5-5 

5.2 Roadway Classifications ............................................................................................. 5-9 

5.3 Average Daily Traffic Volume (Weekday) ...................................................................... 5-10 

5.4 Average Daily Traffic Volume (Weekend day) ................................................................ 5-10 

5.5 Crash Frequency at Entrances to ARNWR ..................................................................... 5-11 

5.6 Crash Frequency at Key Intersections ......................................................................... 5-12 

5.7 Sight Distances at the Main Entrance ........................................................................... 5-13 

5.8 Parking Inventory ................................................................................................... 5-14 

5.9 Peak Parking Lot Occupancy, October 13-23, 2011 ......................................................... 5-14 

5.10 Winterberry Way Daily Traffic Volumes, November 12-18, 2011 ........................................ 5-15 

5.11 Roads and Ways on which Bicycles are Allowed .............................................................. 5-19 

5.12 Walking Trails in the ARNWR ..................................................................................... 5-20 

7.1 Candidate Alternatives .............................................................................................. 7-3 

8.1 Transportation Improvement and Enhancement Plan Projects: Near Term Opportunities .......... 8-4 

8.2 Transportation Improvement and Enhancement Plan Projects: Large-project Opportunities ....... 8-5 
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Introduction 1-1

1 

Introduction

1.1 Refuge Overview

The Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge 

(ARNWR) is one of eight refuges comprising the 

Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Complex. 

The locations of the ARNWR and the other refuges 

are shown in Figure 1.1. The refuge is relatively 

new. It was established in 2000 and first opened to 

the public in 2005. 

The refuge is located in the communities of 

Hudson, Stow, Maynard and Sudbury, 

Massachusetts. The property had been under the 

control of the U.S. Army since 1942 and used for a 

variety of training and research purposes until it 

was transferred to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) in 2000 as a result of the Base Closure 

and Realignment Act of 1990. 

The refuge was established for the purpose of 

having “particular value in carrying out the national 

migratory bird management program.” The large 

areas of wetlands and forest that comprise the 

refuge provide feeding and breeding areas for 

migratory birds as well as other wildlife. 

As detailed in the Assabet River National Wildlife 

Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan,

1

 the 

refuge is home to more than 135 bird species, 25 

mammals, 20 reptile species, and 20 fish species, as 

well as over 650 different plant species.

Figure 1.2 depicts the two primary areas comprising 

the Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge. The

refuge contains about 2,300 acres. The north tract is 

approximately 1,900 acres and the south tract is 

approximately 300 acres.There are also some 

parcels along the nearby Assabet River that are part 

of the refuge.

2

 

The north tract contains 12.5 miles of trails, the 

Visitor Center, parking areas, a canoe launch and a 

fishing area. The main entrance to the refuge is 

along Hudson Road. The south tract of the refuge is 

undeveloped and has 2.7 miles of trails.

1 Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge, Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, January 2005. 2

 Those outlying parcels are excluded from this transportation study 

and are not shown on Figure 1.2.
P LYMOUTH

EDGARTOWN

BARNSTABLE

FA LMOUTH

SALEM

BOSTON

BURYPORT

WORCESTER

MAYNARD

HARVARD

FRAMINGHAM

TAUNTON

CHATHAM

CONCORD

PLYMOUTH

EDGARTOWN

NANTUCKET

BARNSTABLE

FALMOUTH

SALEM

BOSTON

NEWBURYPORT

WORCESTER

MAYNARD

HARVARD

FRAMINGHAM

TAUNTON

CHATHAM

CONCORD

90

95

395

95

93

95

95

90

495

495

495

195

1

1

3

44

44

6

6

3

24

9

2

Long

Pond

Watuppa

Ponds

Great

Quittacus

Pond

Wachusett

Reservoir

Nas hua R.

Oxbow 

National 

Wildlife 

Refuge

Assabet 

River 

National 

Wildlife 

Refuge

Massasoit 

National 

Wildlife Refuge

Great Meadows

National Wildlife 

Refuge

Concord 

Division

Sudbury 

Division

Mashpee

National 

Wildlife 

Refuge

Nomans CHILMARK

Land Island

National 

Wildlife Refuge

Monomoy

National 

Wildlife 

Refuge

Nantucket

National 

Wildlife 

Refuge

Eastern

Massachusetts 

National Wildlife

Refuge Complex

5 0 10 20 Miles

N

¬«117

¬«62

¬«62

¬«27

¬«117

STOW

ACTON

HUDSON

MARLBOROUGH

SUDBURY

MAYNARD

CONCORD

ARNWR

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

ASSABET RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

transportation study

Figure 1.1

Project Location
Fairbank Road

Hudson Road

Sudbury Road

Main Street

Old Marlboro Road

White Pond Road

Assabet River Rail Trail

(Central Massachusetts Rail Trail)

Town of

Maynard

Public

Schools

Town of

Maynard

Public

Water

Supply

Town of

Maynard

Public

Water

Supply

DCR:

Marlborough - Sudbury

State Forest

DCR:

Marlborough - Sudbury

State Forest

DCR:

Marlborough - Sudbury

State Forest

City of Marlborough:

Desert Conservation Land

Sudbury Valley Trustees:

Memorial Forest

Town of Sudbury:

Hop Brook

Moore Road

Duton Road

Towhee Trail

Petapawag Trail

Tri-town Trail

Otter Alley

Hill Trail

Pine Garden Trail

Powerline

Trail

Fisher Loop

Fisher Loop

Sweet Fern Trail

Mink Link

Puffer Pond Trail

Patrol Road

Pond White

Road

Harry's Way

Taylor Way

Puffer

Pond

Winterberry

Way

Winterberry

Way

62 62

117

27

27

117

STOW

HUDSON

MARLBOROUGH

SUDBURY

MAYNARD



N

0 1/4 1/2 Mile

Canoe Access

Fishing Area

Parking

Visitor Center

Trail Access

Trails (no bikes)

Roads and Ways (bikes allowed)

Town Boundary

Assabet River NWR Other Conservation Lands

Rail Trails

Trails

Parking

Active, Unpaved

Planned

ASSABET RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

transportation study

Figure 1.2

Study Area

U.S.

Air Force

Department of 

Fire Services

North

Entrance

East

Entrance

South

Entrance

FEMA

Area

Closed

to Public
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Introduction 1-4

The first settlers on the refuge lands were Native 

Americans.3 European settlement in the area began 

around 1650. For more than 200 years the lands 

were used primarily for farming. 

By the start of the 20th century some of the farms 

were being replaced by smaller homesteads and a 

few decades later vacation home lots were being 

developed along the shores of Puffer Pond. In 1942 

the military era of the lands began when the private 

properties were acquired through eminent domain 

by the U.S. Army to support the war effort. 

The original purpose of the military facility was to 

store ammunition that was transferred between the 

site and the port of Boston via the Central 

Massachusetts Rail Line. Some fifty ammunition 

bunkers, and a series of railroad spurs to those 

bunkers, were constructed. New roadways, notably

the perimeter Patrol Road, were built. 

For almost 50 years, the property was used for a 

variety of training and research purposes by the 

Army. During that time many of the original houses 

and farm buildings were removed, a few adapted 

for Army use, and some new Army buildings 

constructed. 

Management of the Army property was transferred 

in 2000. Most of the property was transferred to the 

USFWS. A small parcel inside what is now the 

ARNWR was transferred to the U.S. Air Force and 

used until recently as a weather station. Some of the 

Army property was transferred to the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and

FEMA parcels now abut the refuge near the 

refuge’s north and east entrances. 

3

 Information about the history of the Refuge is taken from the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

Despite the impact of the Army activity, the long 

period of military ownership and restricted access 

allowed the lands to remain undeveloped, unlike 

much of the land in the adjacent suburban towns. 

During the past 10 years, there was environmental 

remediation of the site and most of the Army 

facilities, including the railroad lines, were 

removed. Only the ammunition bunkers remain. 

The refuge’s current trail network was created 

primarily on old road and rail beds. Paved surfaces

remaining from the Army era were generally left as 

is, but substantial work was done to clear and 

upgrade all trails for use by the public. 

Two major construction projects, the Visitor Center 

and Winterberry Way, were completed in 2010. 

New parking lots at the north and east entrances 

were constructed in 2012. 

1.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Mission and Goals

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is a bureau within 

the Department of the Interior. The mission of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is to: 

“work with others to conserve, protect, and 

enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their 

habitats for the continuing benefit of the 

American people.”4

 

The goals of the USFWS are aimed at fulfilling this 

mission. Primary USFWS goals are to:

 Sustain fish and wildlife populations including 

migratory birds, endangered species, 

anadromous fish, and marine animals.

4 National Policy Issuance 99-01, United States Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 6/15/1999.
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Introduction 1-5

 Conserve a network of lands and waters, 

including the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

 Provide Americans opportunity to understand 

and participate in the conservation and use of 

fish and wildlife resources.

1.3 National Wildlife Refuge System 

Mission and Goals

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System is to:

“administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, 

and, where appropriate, restoration of the 

fish, wildlife, plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans.” 5

 

The primary goals of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System are to:

 Preserve, restore, and enhance threatened and 

endangered species in their natural ecosystems.

 Perpetuate the migratory bird resource.

 Preserve a natural diversity and abundance of 

fish and wildlife ecology.

 Provide the public an understanding and 

appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology. 

 Provide visitors with wildlife-dependent 

recreation.

5

 The National Wildlife Service Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997.

Legislative history recognizes the importance of 

providing for wildlife-oriented recreation for people 

on national wildlife refuges. The Refuge Recreation 

Act of 1962 provided guidance for the USFWS to 

provide wildlife-oriented recreational opportunities 

for the public if deemed compatible with the 

primary purpose of the refuge. The National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

specified that the refuge system must focus on 

wildlife, and it defined the following six wildlifedependent recreational uses as priority public uses 

of refuge lands. 

 Hunting 

 Fishing 

 Environmental education

 Environmental interpretation

 Wildlife observation 

 Wildlife photography 

1.4 Purpose of the Transportation 

Study

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the existing 

transportation system and infrastructure to 

understand current conditions and use, and to 

develop a plan of near-term and long-term projects 

to improve access to, and mobility within, the 

Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge. 

The need for the study arises from several factors. 

One is the desire to determine the best means to 

accommodate the growing amount and changing 

type of visitation experienced since the opening of 

the refuge in 2005 and the Visitor Center in 2010. 

Another reason for the study is that many of the 

then existent trails, roads and travelways in the 

refuge were in disrepair at the time the property was 

transferred to the USFWS in 2000 and the roadway 
 Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT 

Introduction 1-6

surfaces have deteriorated further since. In addition, 

the refuge lands were isolated from the surrounding 

communities in the decades they were used by the 

Army and there are opportunities for better 

connectivity to the adjacent neighborhoods and 

communities. 

1.5 Study Area 

The primary project study area for purposes of 

mobility within the Assabet River National Wildlife 

Refuge encompasses the entirety of the ARNWR’s 

north tract and south tract. The ARNWR outlying 

parcels along the Assabet River are excluded from 

this transportation study. 

An important element of the study is consideration 

of potential improvements to the existing pedestrian 

and bicycle access between the refuge and the host 

communities of Stow, Sudbury, Maynard, and 

Hudson. The study area for pedestrian and bicycle 

access focuses on routes that provide a reasonable 

length of travel path to the ARNWR Visitor Center. 

The pedestrian evaluation includes access via trails 

in adjacent conservation and recreation properties. 

The evaluation of bicycle access considers 

connections to the Assabet Rail Trail, the Bruce 

Freeman Rail Trail, and the Central Mass Rail Trail. 

The study area includes roadways external to the 

refuge that provide direct access to existing or 

proposed entrances and parking areas. This includes 

White Pond Road, Old Marlboro Road, and the 

Sudbury Road/State Road/Hudson Road corridor. 

1.6 Study Schedule 

Data collection and the evaluation of existing 

conditions at the refuge began during the fall of 

2011. The assessment of existing conditions 

included a public open house in November 2011 to 

introduce the project and gather feedback on how 

visitors experience the refuge, what issues they 

might have, and what ideas they have. The review 

of existing conditions also included input from a 

group of key stakeholders. These stakeholders 

included representatives from the host communities 

of Maynard, Stow, Sudbury and Hudson; 

representatives of agencies with abutting parcels, 

including FEMA, the state Department of 

Recreation and Conservation, the state Department 

of Fire Services, and the Sudbury Valley Trustees; 

and the Friends of the Assabet River National 

Wildlife Refuge. The findings regarding existing 

conditions were presented in the Assabet River 

National Wildlife Refuge Transportation Study 

Existing Conditions Report, finalized in April 2012. 

The development of potential transportation 

improvement and enhancement projects involved 

participation by the public and the stakeholders. A 

public involvement meeting was held in February 

2012 to introduce the potential projects that were 

developed in response to the initial public and 

stakeholder comments and the refuge’s issues and 

challenges identified during the existing conditions 

assessment. Several stakeholder meetings were 

held, during which additional participants included 

representatives from rail trail organizations and 

regional planning agencies. The Assabet River 

National Wildlife Refuge Transportation Study 

Preliminary Candidate Alternatives Report, 

finalized in September 2012, presents details of the 

initial screening of potential projects. 

A more detailed evaluation of candidate projects, 

and the prioritization of recommended projects, was 

conducted during the summer and fall of 2012. The 

results are included in this report. 
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Activities and Visitation 2-1

2 

Activities and 

Visitation 

2.1 Activities

The Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge is 

open daily, from sunrise to sunset. The refuge offers 

opportunities for walking, bicycling, canoeing, 

fishing, hunting, as well as educational activities at 

the Visitor Center. 

2.1.1 Visitor Center

The 5,000 square foot Visitor Center opened in the 

fall of 2010. The Visitor Center houses interactive 

educational exhibits and is used for a variety of 

refuge-sponsored events throughout the year. Such 

events include talks, film nights, and nature walks 

and tours. The Visitor Center also serves as a 

meeting venue for local organizations. 

Educational outreach programs are an important 

and growing element of the refuge’s visitation. 

There are programs for schools, scouting groups, 

and similar organizations. 

Educational exhibits in the Visitor Center

2.1.2 Walking and Bicycling

The refuge has more than 15 miles of trails. Use of 

those trails reflects the refuge’s and USFWS’s

missions of supporting compatible wildlifedependent public use. Most of the trail system is 

restricted to walking and hiking.

Bicycles are permitted in the north tract of the 

refuge, along more than seven miles of roads and 

ways (Winterberry Way, White Pond Road/Patrol 

Road, Harry’s Way and Taylor Way). Bicycles are 

not permitted in the south tract of the refuge. 
 Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT 

Activities and Visitation 2-2

Except for Winterberry Way, which provides access 

to the Visitor Center and several parking areas, the 

refuge is closed to motorized vehicles. Horses and 

dogs are not allowed in the refuge. 

2.1.3 Hunting and Fishing 

Hunting and fishing are allowed in accordance with 

refuge, state and federal regulations. Hunting is 

allowed in much of the refuge, including a section 

west of White Pond Road that is not otherwise open 

to the public. 

Table 2.1: 2011 Hunting Seasons 

Activity Open Season 

White-tailed Deer 

 Archery Oct. 17-Nov. 26 

 Shotgun Nov. 28-Dec. 10 

 Primitive Firearms Dec. 12-Dec. 31 

Ruffed Grouse Oct. 15-Nov. 26 

Gray Squirrel Sept. 12-Jan. 2,2012 

Rabbit Jan. 1-Feb. 28, 

Oct. 15-Feb. 29,2012 

Woodcock Oct. 5-Oct. 29, 

Oct. 31-Nov. 19 

Turkey Apr. 25-May 21 

Source: 2011 Massachusetts Guide to Hunting, Freshwater 

Fishing and Trapping: Quick Reference List; MassWildlife 

Migratory Bird Regulations for 2011-12 Season 

Catch-and-release fishing is allowed on Puffer 

Pond. There is a designated fishing area located at 

the end of Carbary’s Trail. 

Handicapped accessible fishing pier on Puffer Pond 

2.1.4 Other Activities 

During the winter, cross-country skiing and 

snowshoeing are allowed on the trails. This includes 

the section of Winterberry Way north of the Visitor 

Center. That part of the road is closed during the 

winter and left unplowed. 

Canoeing and kayaking is allowed on Puffer Pond. 

Access to the pond is located at Sandbank Trail, 

approximately 500 yards north of the Visitor 

Center. 

The canoe launch site on Puffer Pond is unimproved and not 

handicapped accessible. 
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Activities and Visitation 2-3

2.2 Visitation Summary and Profile

Counts are made by refuge staff and volunteers of 

people who enter the Visitor Center. These counts 

include individuals and families who enter the 

Visitor Center during their visit to the refuge and 

those attending organized group activities hosted at 

the Visitor Center. 

Actual visitation levels at the refuge are 

undoubtedly higher than the visitation recorded at 

the Visitor Center. The Visitor Center counts 

include only people who enter the Visitor Center, 

which is only open Thursdays through Sundays 

from 10:00 am to 4:00 pm. Yet, the refuge is open 

from dawn to dusk seven days a week. In addition, 

even on days when the Visitor Center is open many 

visitors simply walk or bicycle among the trails and 

never enter the Visitor Center. 

2.2.1 Seasonal Visitation Patterns

The visitation at the Visitor Center in calendar year 

2011 was 9,717. The monthly totals are illustrated 

in Figure 2.1. April was the busiest month, with 

May, June and July all above average. The months 

of March, September, October and November were

each near the monthly average of about 800 visitors

at the Visitor Center. 

Figure 2.1: Monthly Visitation Patterns (2011)

Source: USFWS, ARNWR Visitor Center counts

Included among the 9,717 visitors at the Visitor 

Center in 2011 are 2,051 attendees among 81 events 

and group visits. 

2.2.2 Daily Visitation Patterns

Average daily visitation for each month in 2011 (at 

the Visitor Center) ranged between 42 and 62. The 

only exception is for December when visitation 

averaged 27 people per day. As shown in Table 2.2, 

most of the refuge visitation occurs on weekend 

days.

Figure 2.2: Average Daily Visitation (2011)

Source: USFWS, ARNWR Visitor Center counts

Table 2.2: Average Daily Visitation at ARNWR 

Visitor Center (2011)

Day of Week Visitors

Thursday 16

Friday 22

Saturday 62

Sunday 77

Source: USFWS, ARNWR Visitor Center counts

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Individual Visitation Group Visitation

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Regional Demographic and Socioeconomic 3-1

Characteristics

3 

Regional 

Demographic and 

Socioeconomic 

Characteristics 

The Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge is 

located in Middlesex County, Massachusetts, and 

covers parts of the towns of Maynard, Stow, 

Sudbury, and Hudson. Demographic data for the 

county and the towns from the 2000 and 2010 

Census were reviewed and are presented in the 

sections that follow. 

3.1 Demographic Profile

Hudson, with a population of 19,063 in 2010, is the 

largest of the four towns. Sudbury has 17,689 

residents and Maynard has 10,106 residents. Stow 

is the smallest of the four towns and as of 2010 had 

a population of 6,590 residents. 

Despite having a relatively small population, the 

Town of Maynard has the highest population 

density, 1,929 residents per square mile, among the 

four communities. Population density in Hudson is 

1,656 residents per square mile. Sudbury and Stow 

have a much lower population density at 725 and 

374 residents per square mile, respectively. 

Figure 3.1: Share of Area Population by Town

Source: 2010 census data.

The population of the area has seen modest growth 

during the past decade. As a whole, the four towns 

saw a total of 4.2% growth in population from 2000 

to 2010. Despite the relatively low population 

growth rate among the four towns, it exceeded that 

for Middlesex County and the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts. Middlesex County had a population 

of 1,503,085 in 2010, which is a 2.6% increase 

from 2000. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

had a population of 6,547,097 in 2010, up from 

6,349,097 in 2000, a 3.1% increase. 

Maynard (19%)

Stow (12%)

Sudbury (33%)

Hudson (36%)
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Regional Demographic and Socioeconomic 3-2

Characteristics

The distribution of the population among the four 

towns by age and gender is shown in Figure 3.2. 

The towns have a combined population of almost 

50,000 persons. The distribution by age and gender 

is similar to the county and state data. Among the 

four towns there are almost 14,000 people (28%) 

under the age of 20 and almost 9,500 (19%) over 

the age of sixty.

Figure 3.2: Area Population by Age and Gender

Source: 2010 Census data for Hudson, Stow, Sudbury and 

Maynard

3.2 Socioeconomic and Community 

Features

The socioeconomic and community features 

described in this section include households, 

education, employment, and income. 

3.2.1 Households 

Area housing statistics shown in Table 3.1 are 

illustrated by town and by occupant type. 

Occupants are categorized as either owners or 

renters. The towns of Maynard and Hudson each 

have the highest rates of renter occupancy at 29%

and 28% of households, respectively. The towns of 

Stow and Sudbury have rates of renter occupancy at 

11 % and 8%, respectively

Table 3.1: Area Housing by Occupant Type

Owner 

Occupied

Renter 

Occupied

Total 

Households

Hudson 5,454 2,074 7,528

Maynard 3,018 1,221 4,239

Stow 2,158 271 2,429

Sudbury 5,327 444 5,771

Total 15,957 4,010 19,967

According to the 2010 Census, the four towns had 

19,967 total housing units with an average 

household size of 2.55 persons per household. 

Among the households, 14,628 dwellings (73%) 

were considered “families” while the remaining 

27% of households are considered “nonfamily.” 

Twenty-two percent of households are one-person 

households, 32% of households are two person 

households, 17% are three person households, and 

19% are four person households. 

3.2.2 Education

Within the four study area towns, nine percent of 

the adult population does not hold a high school 

diploma. Twenty-two percent have a high school 

diploma or equivalent. Fourteen percent of the 

population has some college education while 34% 

have an associate or bachelor’s degree and 21% 

have an advanced educational degree. Men and 

women have comparable levels of education with 

21% of men and 24% of women holding a high 

school diploma or equivalent, and 33% of men and 

34% of women holding associate or bachelor’s 

degrees. 

The levels of education in the four towns are 

comparable to those in Middlesex County. In the 

county, 23% of the population has a high school 

diploma or equivalent (23% of men, 22% of 

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Male Female
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Regional Demographic and Socioeconomic 3-3

Characteristics

women), 30% have an associate or bachelor’s 

degree (29% of men, 30% of women), and 20% 

have an advanced degree (22% of men, 18% of 

women). 

3.2.3 Employment

Twenty-eight percent of the total population in the 

study area age 16 and over were not in the labor 

force in 2000. The percentage of women not in the 

labor force was greater than the percentage of men 

(18% of men, 37% of women). 

Table 3.2 shows the unemployment rates for each 

town in 2000 and in 2011. The unemployment rate 

in Maynard exceeded the average for Middlesex 

County in both years, and the unemployment rate 

for Hudson exceeded the county average in 2011. 

Table 3.2: Unemployment Rate

Unemployment Rate

Town 2000 2011

Maynard 2.6% 5.8%

Stow 1.9% 3.9%

Sudbury 1.3% 4.1%

Hudson 2.0% 6.0%

Middlesex County 2.4% 5.1%

Source: 2000 Census data and 2011 data from the 

Massachusetts Executive Office of Labor and Workforce 

Development

In 2000, 26,777 workers in the study area were 16 

years or older and commuted to work; of which 

77% worked in Middlesex County, 22% worked in 

Massachusetts but outside of Middlesex County, 

and less than two percent worked outside of 

Massachusetts. 

As shown in Table 3.3, the category of “Education, 

Health and Social Services” presented the largest 

single employment sector at 18.1%, followed 

closely by “Professional, scientific, management, 

administrative and waste management services” at 

15.8%, “Manufacturing” at 15.7% and “Retail 

Trade” at 14.3%. These four employment categories 

collectively represent approximately 64% of the 

total employment of area residents. 

Table 3.3: Employment by Industry 

Industry Employed 

Population 

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and 

hunting, and mining

0.4%

Construction 5.7%

Manufacturing 15.7%

Wholesale trade 2.2%

Retail trade 14.3%

Transportation and warehousing, 

and utilities

1.9%

Information 3.6%

Finance, insurance, real estate, 

and rental and leasing

7.1%

Professional, scientific, 

management, administrative, 

and waste management 

services

15.8%

Educational, health and social 

services 18.1%

Arts, entertainment, recreation, 

accommodation and food 

services

4.8%

Public administration 4.3%

Other services 6.2%

Total 100.0%

Source: 2010 Census data for Hudson, Stow, Sudbury and 

Maynard
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Regional Demographic and Socioeconomic 3-4

Characteristics

3.2.4 Household Income 

The 2010 median household income was $60,800 

for Middlesex County and $61,700 for the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The 2010 

median household income for the four towns was 

$80,800. 

The median household income for Sudbury was 

close to double that for the county and state. The 

household income for Stow was more than 50% 

above the county and state averages. The median 

household income for Maynard and Hudson were 

essentially the same as for the state and county.

Figure 3.3 shows how the median household 

income compares by town. 

Figure 3.3: Median Annual Household Income 

Source: 2010 Census data.

$-

$20,000 

$40,000 

$60,000 

$80,000 

$100,000 

$120,000 

Maynard Stow Sudbury Hudson
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Habitat and Cultural Resources 4-1 

4 

Habitat and Cultural 

Resources

The following information regarding habitat and 

cultural resources in the refuge is taken from the 

Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

4.1 Habitat

The Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge 

contains a diversity of wetland and upland habitat. 

The mix of habitat supports a wide variety of birds, 

mammals, reptiles and amphibians. 

In the 18th and 19th centuries, the refuge lands were 

dominated by farms and pastures. Since then much 

of the area has succeeded back to forest. Most of 

the refuge is now forested, with mixed white pine 

and oak hardwoods dominating. Only a few 

meadow areas remain.

As shown on Figure 4.1, much of the refuge, 

particularly in the north tract, is forested and 

emergent wetland habitat. Due principally to beaver 

activity, the amount of wetlands has increased since 

the property was transferred to the Fish and 

Wildlife Service.

The one-time Army Taylor Drop Zone is now the largest area

of grassland habitat in the refuge. The forested hill in the 

background was once pastureland.

The refuge contains a significant amount of priority

wildlife habitat. Approximately 50 vernal pools 

have been identified on the refuge. The vernal pools 

are critical breeding habitat for amphibians. Large 

sections of the refuge are designated as Priority 

Habitats of Rare Species under the Massachusetts 

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife’s Natural 

Heritage & Endangered Species Program. The 

entire Assabet River NWR has been designated as a 

Massachusetts Important Bird Area due to the 

habitat it provides to breeding, wintering and 

migratory birds. 
STOW

HUDSON

MARLBOROUGH

SUDBURY

MAYNARD

0 1,500 3,000 Feet

Legend

NHESP Certified Vernal Pools

Potential Vernal Pools

Parcels

Roads

National Wetland Inventory Rivers and Streams

Assabet Boundary

Town Boundary

NHESP Priority Habitats of Rare Species

National Wetland Inventory

WET_TYPE

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

ASSABET RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

transportation study

Figure 4.1

Habitat
 Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT 

Habitat and Cultural Resources 4-3 

The refuge is home to more than 135 bird species, 

25 mammals, 20 reptile species, and 20 fish species, 

as well as over 650 different plant species. 

There are no federally listed threatened or 

endangered species known to be in the refuge. 

State-listed birds, amphibians and reptiles at the 

refuge are shown in Table 4.1. Among them are the 

Blanding’s Turtle, a State-listed threatened species. 

A repatriation program involving transplanting 

hatchlings from the nearby Oxbow NWR is 

underway at the Assabet River NWR. 

Table 4.1: State-listed Birds, Amphibians and 

Reptiles 

Common Name Status 

Blue Spotted Salamander Special concern 

Spotted Turtle Special concern 

Eastern Box Turtle Special concern 

Blanding’s Turtle Threatened 

Sharp-shinned Hawk Special concern 

Cooper’s Hawk Special concern 

Blackpoll Warbler Special concern 

Northern Parula Threatened 

Source: Assabet River Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4.2 Cultural Resources 

Some prehistoric sites have been identified in the 

refuge and there is a likelihood of others. Although 

no buildings remain, the historic period of European 

settlements dating from the mid-1600s through the 

mid-1900s is evident in the many stone walls 

running throughout the refuge and the occasional 

building foundation or chimney remnants. 

Most buildings and facilities from the military 

period have been removed, but the military period 

from 1942 through 2000 is readily apparent in the 

network of roadbeds and rail beds that remain. 

Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3 present USGS mapping of 

the area shortly before and after the acquisition of 

the property by the Army. Comparison of the two 

illustrates the railway network and additional roads 

constructed by the Army. 

The most visible of all the historic resources are the 

former ammunition bunkers. Figure 4.4 shows their 

locations. Many are along trails that were once the 

rail spurs to the ammunition bunkers. The 75 foot 

by 40 foot concrete bunkers were heavily earth 

covered and that cover now supports trees, bushes, 

and other vegetation. Some of the bunkers are 

opened occasionally for public tours. A few of the 

ammunition bunkers are being used for bat habitat. 
\\mawatr\ts\35010.05 ARNWR\GIS\Project\Historic_USGS.mxd

ASSABET RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

transportation study

Figure 4.2 

Historic USGS 1940-1941 (pre-military era)

ARNWR Boundary 
ASSABET RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

transportation study

Figure 4.3 

Historic USGS 1950 (military era)

ARNWR Boundary 
Fairbank Road

Hudson Road

Sudbury Road

Main Street

Old Marlboro Road

Assabet River Rail Trail

(Central Massachusetts Rail Trail)

Town of

Maynard

Public

Schools

Town of

Maynard

Public

Water

Supply

Town of

Maynard

Public

Water

Supply

DCR:

Marlborough - Sudbury

State Forest

DCR:

Marlborough - Sudbury

State Forest

DCR:

Marlborough - Sudbury

State Forest

City of Marlborough:

Desert Conservation Land

Sudbury Valley Trustees:

Memorial Forest

Town of Sudbury:

Hop Brook

Moore Road

Duton Road

Towhee Trail

Petapawag Trail

Tri-town Trail

Otter Alley

Hill Trail

Pine Garden Trail

Powerline

Trail

Fisher Loop

Fisher Loop

Sweet Fern Trail

Mink Link

Puffer Pond Trail

Patrol Road

Pond White

Road

Harry's Way

Taylor Way

Puffer

Pond

Winterberry

Way

Winterberry

Way

White Pond Road

Kingfisher Trail

62 62

117

27

27

117

STOW

HUDSON

MARLBOROUGH

SUDBURY

MAYNARD

ARNWR

Ammunition Bunkers



N

0 1/4 1/2 Mile

ASSABET RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

transportation study

Figure 4.4

Ammunition Bunkers

North

Entrance

East

Entrance

Main

Entrance

Area

Closed

to Public
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Existing Transportation Conditions 5-1 

5 

Existing 

Transportation 

Conditions

This chapter describes existing transportation 

conditions at the Assabet River National Wildlife 

Refuge. The evaluation covers external access, 

internal circulation and internal transportation 

infrastructure. 

5.1 Adjacent Land Uses

Much of the refuge is adjacent to other conservation 

properties. The other adjacent land uses are several

single-family residential neighborhoods and two 

institutional properties. 

5.1.1 Adjacent Conservation Lands 

Figure 1.2, presented earlier, shows conservation 

lands adjacent to the refuge. The north tract of the 

refuge is bounded to the northwest by the Assabet 

River and the Assabet River Rail Trail, to the north 

by some Town of Maynard properties, and to the 

south by the Marlborough-Sudbury State Forest. 

Both the Town of Maynard and state forest 

properties have walking trail systems that connect 

with the refuge’s trail system.

The south tract of the refuge is bounded to the north 

by a section for the Marlborough-Sudbury State 

Forest. The trail connection between the refuge’s 

north and south tracts travels through the state 

forest. 

The south tract of the refuge is adjacent at the south 

boundary to three conservation areas. One is 

managed by the Town of Marlborough, one by the 

Town of Sudbury, and the third by the Sudbury 

Valley Trustees, a non-profit environmental 

organization. The south tract of the refuge is also 

adjacent to the proposed Central Massachusetts Rail 

Trail, the property of which is controlled by the 

Massachusetts Department of Conservation and 

Recreation under a 99-year lease from the MBTA. 

5.1.2 Other Adjacent Lands

Figure 5.1 shows the various types of 

non-conservation land uses near to the refuge. The 

highest density of land uses is to the north in 

Maynard. Downtown Maynard is approximately 

one mile from the refuge’s North Entrance, at 

White Pond Road. 
Sudbury Road

Main Street

Hudson Road

27

62

117

62

\\MAWATR\ts\35010.05 ARNWR\GIS\Project\LandUse.mxd

Participation Recreation

Urban Public/Institutional

Refuge Boundary

Commercial/Industrial

Residential



N

0 1/4 1/2 Mile

ASSABET RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

transportation study

Figure 5.1

Nearby Land Uses

Massachusetts Department

of Fire Services

FEMA

Downtown 

Maynard

129 Parker Street

Maynard Schools

Haskell Field

Fairbanks 

Community Center
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Existing Transportation Conditions 5-3

To the east of the refuge, in Sudbury, is primarily 

single-family housing. The density of housing in 

Stow, to the west and northwest of the refuge, is 

much lower than in Maynard or Sudbury. 

There are two institutional properties that are 

adjacent to the refuge. There is a Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) facility 

at refuge’s East Entrance on Old Marlboro Road. 

The Massachusetts Department of Fire Services 

campus is located adjacent to the refuge’s Main 

Entrance on Hudson Road. 

5.1.3 Future Development Projects

Given the large amount of conservation and other 

protected properties, and the established residential 

land uses in the area around the refuge, there is little 

opportunity for future significant land development 

projects that might have a noticeable impact on the 

refuge. 

The Massachusetts Department of Fire Services 

campus has expanded in recent years, but there are 

no active plans to expand further. The Federal 

Emergency Management Agency facility may add 

warehousing space in the future but this would have 

little impact on traffic.

The development projects with the most direct 

impact on the refuge may occur in Maynard. In 

2010, the town rezoned a large office property in 

the downtown to allow retail and hotel uses, and up 

to 200 live-work residential units. There are no 

plans proposed for the development at this time, but 

the residential units in particular could have a 

strong relationship to the refuge. Downtown 

Maynard is only one mile away from the refuge via 

the Assabet River Rail Trail. The other potential 

development in Maynard is at 129 Parker Street 

(Route 27). This 50-acre commercial property is 

located less than one mile from the refuge’s East 

Entrance and has been vacant for approximately 15 

years. Several years ago, the property was rezoned 

to allow mixed-use office, retail and residential 

uses. However, there are no current proposals for 

development being considered. 

5.2 Entrances to the Refuge

The refuge has three primary entrances, each with 

vehicle parking and all on the north tract (see 

Figure 1.2 for locations). Visitors can also enter the 

refuge via several formal walking trail connections 

on both the south and north tracts of the refuge. 

5.2.1 Main Entrance

The Main Entrance, located along the southern 

border of the north tract, provides access via 

Winterberry Way to the Visitor Center. It is located 

on Hudson Road in Sudbury near the Sudbury/Stow 

town line. There is a small parking area adjacent to 

the gate. The Visitor Center is located 

approximately one-half mile up Winterberry Way 

from the gate.

Assabet River NWR sign at Main Entrance (Hudson Road)
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Existing Transportation Conditions 5-4

5.2.2 North Entrance 

The North Entrance is located on White Pond Road 

at the Stow/Maynard town line. White Pond Road is 

accessed via Route 62/117 (Great Road) in Stow. 

The entrance to the refuge is about one mile down 

White Pond Road from Route 62/117. The North 

Entrance is adjacent to the Assabet River Rail Trail.

A parking area is located about one-quarter mile

inside the refuge. There is no public vehicle access 

beyond the parking area. The Visitor Center is 

located approximately two miles from the North 

Entrance via the Harry’s Way trail.

North Entrance at White Pond Road. The parking area is 

located approximately one-quarter mile up the road.

5.2.3 East Entrance

The East Entrance is located in Maynard on Old 

Marlboro Road off Parker Street (Route 27). The 

entrance is the end of Old Marlboro Road, about 

one-quarter of a mile down from the Parker Street 

intersection. 

The East Entrance is approximately one mile from 

the Visitor Center via Winterberry Way. There is no 

public vehicle access into the refuge at the East 

Entrance. A small parking lot was constructed in 

2012 at the entrance and drivers no longer have to 

park on the public street next to the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency facility.

East Entrance at the end of Old Marlboro Road, looking from 

within the refuge (Fall 2011). The FEMA fence line is visible to 

the left

5.2.4 Other Entrances

In the north tract of the refuge, there are trail 

connections to the Town of Maynard properties to 

the north and to the state forest lands to the south.

There is no vehicle access to the south tract of the 

refuge. There are several trail connections with the 

conservation properties and rail trail alignment to 

the south, as well as an entrance via Moore Road 

for the Sudbury neighborhood to the east. The north 

and south tracts of the refuge are connected via a 

trail through the state forest. 
 Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT 

 

Existing Transportation Conditions 5-5

Entrance to Assabet River NWR south tract via a trail through 

the Marlborough-Sudbury State Forest 

5.3 Visitor Travel Mode 

The proximity of the refuge to neighborhoods and 

rail trails allows many visitors to access the refuge 

by foot or bicycle, in addition to by car. There is no 

public transit access to the refuge. 

A sample of the visitor travel mode is provided by 

data collected between dawn and dusk on each day 

of the three-day Columbus Day weekend in 2011. 

Cameras were used to record the mode of travel for 

those entering the refuge at the three primary 

entrances. The data are summarized in Table 5.1. 

Although private automobiles are the dominant 

travel mode, accounting for about 72% of total 

observed visitation during this survey time period, 

bicycle and pedestrian access of, respectively, 17% 

and 11% were notable for a suburban destination. 

Indeed, at the North Entrance, 36% of all observed 

entering visitors used a bicycle and another 16% 

walked in, in contrast to only 48% arriving by car. 

At the East Entrance, the auto, bike, and walk 

access percentages were more balanced at 37%, 

32% and 31%, respectively. 

Table 5.1: Visitor Travel Mode 

No. of Access Mode 

 Visitors Car Bike Walk 

Main Entrance 460 377 51 32 

North Entrance 100 48 36 16 

East Entrance 65 24 21 20 

625 449 108 68 

 

No. of Access Mode

Visitors Car Bike Walk 

Main Entrance 460 82% 11% 7% 

North Entrance 100 48% 36% 16% 

East Entrance 65 37% 32% 31% 

625 72% 17% 11%

Source: Data collected by VHB on October 8-10, 2011 from 

6:30 am to 6:30 pm. 

5.4 Pedestrian Access to the Refuge 

There is generally good pedestrian access to the 

refuge. However, the number of people who walk to 

the refuge is limited by the total distance they 

would need to travel when also considering walking 

distances within the refuge. 

5.4.1 North Entrance 

There are neighborhoods in both Stow and Maynard 

near the North Entrance. From Stow, the refuge can 

be reached via White Pond Road. There are no 

sidewalks along the road but traffic volumes are 

low and people routinely walk along the road. 

However, vehicle speeds are a concern voiced by 

some residents at the project’s first public meeting. 

Pedestrian access from Maynard to the North 

Entrance is via a section of the Assabet River Rail 

Trail. The rail trail extends directly to downtown 

Maynard, one mile away, and passes through 

several established neighborhoods. 
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Existing Transportation Conditions 5-6

5.4.2 East Entrance

The East Entrance has pedestrian access from the 

small neighborhood along Old Marlboro Road. 

Other, larger neighborhoods are located north the 

Old Marlboro Road/Route 27 intersection, but there 

are currently no sidewalk connections. Fortunately, 

the Town of Maynard is planning to construct 1,200 

feet of sidewalk on the east side of Route 27 

between Old Marlboro Road and Vose Hill Road. 

This project will connect Old Marlboro Road to a 

sidewalk network stretching into downtown 

Maynard.

5.4.3 Main Entrance

The Main Entrance for the refuge is located on 

Hudson Road. There is no sidewalk along Hudson 

Road west of the entrance, but there are very few 

residential properties within reasonable walking 

distance to the west. 

There is a considerable amount of single-family 

housing in Sudbury starting about a half-mile east 

of the Main Entrance. There is an extensive 

sidewalk network in those neighborhoods and there 

is a paved path along the south side of Hudson 

Road that terminates at the refuge. Unlike the 

sidewalks within the residential areas, the path 

along Hudson Road near the refuge is not 

maintained during the winter.

5.4.4 Sudbury Road

Sudbury Road runs along the southwest boundary 

of the refuge’s north tract. There is a trail 

connection from Sudbury Road through the state 

forest that is within walking distance to a lowdensity neighborhood off Sudbury Road, but 

walking is not practical due to a lack of sidewalks 

and high vehicle speeds of cut-through traffic. 

5.4.5 South Tract of Refuge

The south tract of the refuge has an entrance at 

Moore Road that is accessible to pedestrians. Moore 

Road does not have any sidewalks but there are few 

vehicles on the road. Other pedestrian connections 

are via the trails among the conservation properties 

at the south end. 

The most important pedestrian access to the south 

tract is the trail from Hudson Road through the state 

forest. Residents from nearby Sudbury 

neighborhoods can access the trail directly from the 

path along the south side of Hudson Road. Refuge 

visitors can walk from the north tract to the south 

tract via an unsignalized crosswalk on Hudson 

Road. During the public involvement process some 

people noted concerns with using the crosswalk due 

to the volume and speed of cars on Hudson Road, 

as well as vegetation obscuring walkers waiting to 

cross from the view of approaching drivers. 

5.5 Bicycle Access to the Refuge

Bicycles are permitted only in the north tract of the 

refuge. The pedestrian routes to the east, north, and 

main entrances are also used by bicyclists. More 

regional bicycle access will be available once 

nearby rail trails are fully constructed. There are 

three rail trails near the refuge. The status and 

potential relationship to the refuge are summarized 

below. The rail trails are shown on Figure 5.2. 
Fairbank Road

Hudson Road

Sudbury Road

Main Street

Old Marlboro Road

White Pond Road

Town of

Maynard

Public

SchoolsTown of

Maynard

Public

Water

Supply

Town of

Maynard

Public

Water

Supply

DCR:

Marlborough - Sudbury

State Forest

DCR:

Marlborough - Sudbury

State Forest

DCR:

Marlborough - Sudbury

State Forest

City of Marlborough:

Desert Conservation Land

Sudbury Valley Trustees:

Memorial Forest

Town of Sudbury:

Hop Brook

Moore Road

Duton Road

Towhee Trail

Petapawag Trail

Tri-town Trail

Otter Alley

Hill Trail

Pine Garden Trail

Powerline

Trail

Fisher Loop

Fisher Loop

Sweet Fern Trail

Mink Link

Puffer Pond Trail

Patrol Road

Pond White

Road

Harry's Way

Taylor Way

Puffer

Pond

Winterberry

Way

Winterberry

Way

Kingfisher Trail

STOW

ACTON

BOLTON

WA

HARVARD

HUDSON

BOXBOROUGH

FRAMINGHAM

MARLBOROUGH

SUDBURY

MAYNARD

CONCORD

20

20

20

495

2

62

2

85

27

111

111

117

117

62

62

62

85

27

27

2A

111

117

90

126

30

Rail Trails

Active, Paved

Active, Unpaved

Planned, Under Design

Proposed

ASSABET RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

transportation study

Figure 5.2

Rail Trails



N

0 1/2 1 Mile

Visitor

Center

Assabet

River National

Wildlife Refuge

Assabet River Rail Trail

Assabet River Rail Trail

Central Massachusetts

Rail Trail

Bruce Freeman

Rail Trail
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Existing Transportation Conditions 5-8

5.5.1 Assabet River Rail Trail

The Assabet River Rail Trail (ARRT) runs along 

the northwest boundary of the refuge and will 

ultimately connect Marlborough to Acton via 

Hudson, Stow, and Maynard. Currently, a six-mile 

segment from Marlborough to Hudson is complete. 

The trailhead nearest to the refuge is almost five 

miles from the North Entrance and four miles from 

the Main Entrance. 

Design of the section in Maynard, from the refuge’s 

North Entrance through Maynard to South Acton, is 

underway. A one-mile section between the North 

Entrance and downtown Maynard is currently 

unpaved but is maintained and is actively used by 

bicyclists. This section of the ARRT provides quick 

and convenient access to the refuge for bicyclists 

from most parts of Maynard. 

An easement for the ARRT through Stow, from the 

refuge’s North Entrance to Sudbury Road, has been 

obtained. The trail is unpaved but usable, and 

provides a connection between the refuge and some 

low-density residential areas.

Assabet River Rail Trail near the North Entrance

There is one segment of the ARRT for which an 

easement has not been obtained and at present little 

likelihood that one will be obtained in the near 

term. That segment is the missing connection 

between the sections already constructed between 

Marlborough and Hudson, and the existing unpaved 

sections in Stow and Maynard. 

5.5.2 Central Mass Rail Trail 

The proposed Central Mass Rail Trail (CMRT) 

would extend some 100 miles through 

Massachusetts, from Northampton to Boston. The 

Massachusetts Department of Conservation and 

Recreation controls the segments of trail near the 

refuge. There are currently no funding 

commitments for design or construction, but initial

environmental permitting the eastern segment of the 

CMRT is underway. The DCR is preparing and 

Environmental Notification Form that will identify 

the extent of additional environmental review 

required. 

The Central Mass Rail Trail intersects with the 

Assabet River Rail Trail at the trailhead in Hudson. 

If bicycle use in the south tract were permitted, the 

CMRT would provide the safest and most direct 

means the reach the refuge from that trailhead. The 

CMRT would also provide bicycle access to the 

refuge from neighborhoods in Sudbury to the east. 

Central Mass Rail Trail adjacent to south tract
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Existing Transportation Conditions 5-9

5.5.3 Bruce Freeman Rail Trail

The Bruce Freeman Rail Trail is proposed to follow 

a 25-mile route from Lowell to Framingham, and 

will pass through Sudbury. The northerly seven

miles of the trail have been constructed, and the 

next 13 miles, down to the Concord/Sudbury town 

line, is under design. 

The remaining section, through Sudbury and into 

Framingham, continues to be advocated for by the 

Friends of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail and others, 

but right-of-way acquisition is incomplete and no 

design work is underway. 

Unlike the ARRT and the CMRT, the Bruce 

Freeman Rail Trail alignment is not adjacent to the 

refuge. The closest it will be to the refuge is about 

3.5 miles. It does, however, connect with the 

Central Mass Rail Trail and would thus provide 

additional connectivity to the refuge for bicyclists.

5.6 Vehicle Access to the Refuge

Some local visitors access the refuge via the North 

Entrance or the East Entrance, but most visitors 

arriving by car access the refuge via the Main 

Entrance on Hudson Road in Sudbury. 

Those arriving from the northeast tend to be 

directed by the ARNWR website and brochures, the 

Friends group website, and by on-line and GPS 

mapping services, to travel south on Route 27 to 

Fairbank Road in Sudbury and then to Hudson 

Road. Those traveling from the northwest are 

directed down Route 62 to connect with Sudbury 

Road and then to Hudson Road. 

Visitors arriving from the southeast are generally 

directed up Route 27 to where it splits from Hudson 

Road in Sudbury and then west along Hudson 

Road. Visitors arriving from the southwest are 

typically directed up Route 62 to where it splits 

from Main Street in Hudson and then west along 

Main Street. 

Regional visitors from the east using Route 2 are 

directed south to Route 62 and then Route 27. 

Those using Route 20 are directed north on 

Route 27. Those arriving from the west on Route 2 

are directed south along Route 27. Regional visitors 

arriving from Route 495 to the west of the refuge 

must travel via a series of local roads to reach 

Hudson Road. 

5.6.1 Roadway Classifications

All of the roads near the refuge are owned by the 

local communities. Roads such as Route 27, 

Route 117 and Route 62 are state-numbered roads, 

but are not owned by the state. Table 5.2 lists the 

functional classification of the roads based on the 

Massachusetts Department of Transportation 

(MassDOT) functional roadway classification 

system. 

Table 5.2: Roadway Classifications

Road Classification

Route 117 (Great Road) Urban Principal Arterial

Route 27 (Parker Street) Urban Principal Arterial

Route 62 (Gleasondale 

Road/Wilkins Street)

Urban Principal Arterial

Main Street Urban Minor Arterial

Sudbury Road Urban Minor Arterial

State Road Urban Minor Arterial

Hudson Road Urban Minor Arterial

Fairbank Road Urban Collector

White Pond Road Local

Source: MassDOT
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Existing Transportation Conditions 5-10

5.6.2 Daily Traffic Volumes

MassDOT maintains a database of traffic volume 

data for state roadways in Massachusetts. Annual 

Average Daily Traffic counts for Route 117 (Great 

Road), Route 27 (Parker Street), and Route 62 

(Wilkins Street) were available. Additional traffic 

counts were conducted for this study on Sudbury 

Road, Hudson Road, and Winterberry Way. 

Weekday traffic 

As shown in Table 5.3, the weekday (two-way) 

traffic volumes on Hudson Road at the Main 

Entrance to the refuge averages 9,600 vehicles. 

That is substantially higher than nearby on Route 

62, and comparable to volumes nearby on Route 27. 

Weekday vehicle traffic into the refuge is light, 

with an average of about 125 vehicle trips into and 

out of Winterberry Way.

Table 5.3: Average Daily Traffic Volume 

(Weekday)

Road Town ADT (year)

Maynard Road (Rte 27) Sudbury 10,200 (2004)

Parker Street (Rte 27) Maynard 10,800 (2004)

Great Road (Rte 117) Maynard 12,500 (2008)

Wilkins Street (Rte 62) Hudson 5,000 (2008)

Sudbury Road Stow 1,700 (2011)

Hudson Road Sudbury 9,600 (2011)

Winterberry Way ARNWR 125 (2011)

Source: Traffic data from 2011 collected by VHB November

12-18, 2011. All other data from MassDOT.

Figure 5.3 illustrates the influence of commuter 

traffic on Hudson Road. Not only do (two-way)

traffic volumes spike to more than 1,000 cars per 

hour during peak commuting times, but the traffic is 

directed principally eastbound in the morning and 

westbound in the evening. 

Figure 5.3: Hourly Traffic Volumes on Hudson 

Road (Weekday)

Source: Data collected by VHB November 12-18, 2011. 

Weekend Traffic

Table 5.4 lists average daily traffic counts that were 

collected on a busy weekend in November.6 The 

traffic volumes on the roads abutting the refuge 

were considerably less on the weekend days than 

the weekdays, while the traffic volume on 

Winterberry Way was higher on the weekend days 

compared to weekdays. 

Table 5.4: Average Daily Traffic Volume 

(Weekend day)

Road Town ADT (year)

Sudbury Road Stow 1,400 (2011)

Hudson Road Sudbury 5,600 (2011)

Winterberry Way ARNWR 225 (2011)

Source: Traffic data collected by VHB November 12-18, 2011

The traffic distribution and peaking patterns also 

differ on weekends compared to weekdays. 

Figure 5.4 illustrates that the traffic on Hudson 

Road is generally evenly distributed by direction 

over the course of a weekend day and that the 

hourly volume is more consistent on a weekend day 

than on weekdays. The hourly (two-way) traffic 

6

 The playing fields nearby in Sudbury were fully used, and apple 

orchard businesses in Stow were still very active.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

12:00 AM 6:00 AM 12:00 PM 6:00 PM 12:00 AM

Weekday AverageWB Weekday AverageEB
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Existing Transportation Conditions 5-11

volume on Hudson Road ranged narrowly from 400 

to 485 during the six hours from 10:00 am to

4:00 pm when the Visitor Center was open. 

Figure 5.4: Hourly Traffic Volumes on Hudson 

Road (Weekend day)

Source: Data collected by VHB November 12-18, 2011.

5.6.3 Motor Vehicle Crash Summary

Motor vehicle crash data were reviewed for the 

intersections at the refuge entrances, at nearby 

intersections used by visitors traveling to the refuge, 

and along Hudson Road near the refuge’s Main 

Entrance. The motor vehicle crash data were 

obtained from the most recent MassDOT database, 

which covers the years of 2007 through 2009, and 

from accident reports for 2010 and 2011 obtained 

from the Hudson Police Department. 

The crash data were reviewed to determine the 

magnitude, type and frequency of crashes. The 

metric for the frequency of crashes is a “crash rate” 

calculated as crashes per million vehicles entering 

an intersection. To assess the relative safety at a 

location, crash rates are used to determine how the 

particular location compares to the average crash 

rate for that area. MassDOT calculates the average 

crash rates for intersections and roadway segments

in various areas of Massachusetts. 

Entrances to Refuge

Table 5.5 shows the history of motor vehicle 

crashes at the Main Entrance, and at the 

intersections leading to the North Entrance and East 

Entrance. The number of crashes is low, and the 

average annual crash rates at all three locations of 

0.09, 0.26, and 0.00 accidents per million vehicles, 

respectively, are significantly lower than the overall 

average rate of 0.66 accidents per million vehicles 

recorded at all similar intersections in this part of 

Massachusetts. 

Table 5.5 Crash Frequency at Entrances to ARNWR

Year

Winterberry 

Way at 

Hudson Road

Old Marlboro 

Road at

Route 27

White Pond 

Road at 

Route 117

2007 0 2 0

2008 1 1 0

2009 0 0 0

Total 1 3 0

Crash 

Rate 0.09 0.26 0.00

Areawide Crash Rate = 0.66

Source: VHB analysis of MassDOT Statewide Crash Data

There were no reported crashes at the unsignalized 

intersection of Route 117 at White Pond Road. 

White Pond Road provides access to the North 

Entrance of the refuge. 

There were three crashes reported for 2007 to 2009 

at the unsignalized intersection of Route 27 and Old 

Marlboro Road. Old Marlboro Road leads to the 

East Entrance of the refuge. One of the crashes was 

an angle collision between two vehicles and one 

was a single vehicle crash. There are no data on the 

type for the third crash. One crash resulted in a 

non-fatal injury; the remaining two were property 

damage only crashes.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

12:00 AM 6:00 AM 12:00 PM 6:00 PM 12:00 AM

Average WeekendWB Average WeekendEB
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Existing Transportation Conditions 5-12

There was a single crash reported from 2007 

through 2009 at the Main Entrance (Winterberry 

Way) on Hudson Road. The crash was an angle 

crash that resulted in property damage only. It 

should be noted that the Visitor Center was not 

open during those years. However, a review of 

accident reports for 2010 and 2011 show no other 

crashes.

Intersections Near the Refuge

Table 5.6 shows the history of motor vehicle 

crashes at four (unsignalized) intersections near the 

refuge through which most visitors travel. 

 Sudbury Road at State Road is located threequarters of a mile west of the refuge’s Main 

Entrance. Visitors arriving from the west travel 

through the intersection

 Hudson Road at Route 27 is located about 

three miles from the Main Entrance and visitors 

from the south and east travel through the 

intersection. 

 Fairbank Road connects Route 27 to Hudson 

Road and is used by visitors arriving from north 

of the refuge. Crash data for both intersections 

were reviewed.

Table 5.6: Crash Frequency at Key Intersections 

Year

Hudson 

Road at 

Fairbank 

Road

Hudson 

Road at 

Maynard 

Road

Maynard 

Road at 

Fairbank 

Road

Sudbury 

Road at 

State 

Road

2007 3 6 1 2 

2008 2 0 2 1 

2009 2 3 4 0 

Total 7 9 7 3 

Crash 

Rate 0.63 0.52 0.59 0.27

Areawide Crash Rate = 0.66

Source: VHB analysis of MassDOT Statewide Crash Data

All of the intersections have a crash rate that is less 

than the average for that area of Massachusetts. The 

number of accidents at the intersections ranges from 

one to three per year. Of the 26 crashes among the 

four intersections, only three involved a personal 

injury. Two of those occurred at the intersection of 

Route 27 at Fairbank Road, and one at the 

intersection of Route 27 (Maynard Road) at Hudson 

Road. 

Hudson Road/Sudbury Road/State Road Corridor

The Hudson Road/Sudbury Road/State Road 

corridor near the Main Entrance is a heavily 

traveled, two-lane road. Motor vehicle crash data 

for the corridor within one mile of the Main 

Entrance was reviewed. 

In the three years from 2007 to 2009 there were 16 

crashes along the corridor to the west of the Main 

Entrance, and 23 crashes to the east. The crash rates 

were 1.96 and 2.03, respectively and both are below 

the average crash rate of 3.73 for similar road 

segments in that area of Massachusetts. There were 

no crashes reported within 1,000 feet of the Main 

Entrance. 

5.6.3 Sight Distance at the Main Entrance

Intersection sight distance (ISD) and stopping sight 

distances (SSD) were measured at the Main 

Entrance intersection of Winterberry Way and 

Hudson Road. As shown in Table 5.7, all sight 

distances were within acceptable ranges.

At this intersection, stopping sight distance is the 

distance required for a vehicle on Hudson Road to 

perceive a situation, react, and come to a complete 

stop. Intersection sight distance is the distance 

necessary for a driver exiting Winterberry Way 

onto Hudson Road to do so safely. 
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Existing Transportation Conditions 5-13

Table 5.7: Sight Distances at the Main Entrance

Desirable

(feet)

Observed

(feet)

Intersection Sight Distance

Looking West 375 440

Looking East 430 1,250

Stopping Sight Distance

Traveling Eastbound 290 420

Traveling Westbound 290 1,210

Note: Desirable sight distances are as per A Policy on 

Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (AASHTO, 2004) 

for the observed speed of 39 mph.

5.6.3 Planned Area Transportation 

Improvement Projects 

The State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) 

was reviewed for projects planned near the refuge. 

There are no roadway projects currently on the 

STIP that would likely have a noticeable impact on 

the traffic network near the refuge. 

5.7 Mobility and Transportation 

Infrastructure within the Refuge

The refuge contains 15.4 miles of trails and roads 

open to the public, including 7.7 miles on which 

bicycles are allowed. There are 1.3 miles of road 

open to private vehicles and several miles of roads 

restricted for use by USFWS and two easement 

holders. In addition, most of the trails are

occasionally, but routinely, traveled by USFWS 

motor vehicles for administrative and management 

purposes. 

5.7.1 Parking

There are five designated public parking areas 

within the refuge providing a total of 111 parking 

spaces. All have been constructed within the past 

three years and are in excellent condition.

There is a 9-space parking lot at the Main Entrance, 

48 spaces near the Visitor Center, and 15 spaces at 

the end of Winterberry Way near Carbary’s Trail. 

All three parking areas were constructed in 2009. 

The parking for the North Entrance had been at a 

graveled area off of Patrol Road. It was replaced in 

2012 by a larger, paved parking lot of off White 

Pond Road. A simultaneous construction project 

was an eight-space gravel parking lot at the East 

Entrance. Before the new parking lot was built there 

had been no designated parking at the East Entrance

and visitors parked on street at the end of Old 

Marlboro Road. 

Table 5.8: Parking Inventory

Parking Lot

Standard 

Spaces

Accessible 

Spaces

Total

Spaces

North Entrance 29 2 31

Main Entrance 8 1 9

Visitor Center 46 2 48

Carbary’s Trail 14 1 15

East Entrance 7 1 8

Total 104 7 111

Occupancy of the parking areas along Winterberry 

Way (Main Entrance, Visitor Center, Carbary’s 

Trail) was recorded using time-lapse cameras 

during an 11-day period in October of 2011 to 

better understand how the parking lots are utilized.

Table 5.9 shows the maximum parking occupancy 

for each of the lots on each of the 11 days. It should 

be noted that during this period the refuge hosted 

some events for the public including a Bunker Tour 

(10/15/2011), a Birding Walk (10/16/2011), a 

Nature Walk (10/23/2011), and a Historical Tour by 

bus (10/23/2011). 
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Existing Transportation Conditions 5-14

Table 5.9: Peak Parking Lot Occupancy,

October 13–23, 2011

Main 

Entrance

Visitor 

Center

Carbary’s 

Trail

Thursday 4 X 2

Friday 2 X 1

Saturday 8 27 3

Sunday 8 30 4

Monday 9 16 4

Tuesday 8 13 4

Wednesday 1 22 2

Thursday 5 11 3

Friday 4 22 3

Saturday 9 31 3

Sunday 7 45 6

Max Occupancy 9 45 6

No. of Spaces 9 48 15

% of Capacity 100% 94% 40%

Note: Occupancy counts were recorded by camera from dawn 

to dusk each day. No counts are available for the first two days 

at the Visitor Center due to rain and fog.

The parking at Carbary’s Trail never had more than 

four of the 15 parking spaces occupied. Parking at 

the Visitor Center, which included USFWS vehicles 

and those of staff and volunteers, was never more 

than half full on weekdays and typically never more 

than two-thirds full on weekend days. The only 

time the Visitor Center parking was almost full was 

the Sunday when there was a historical tour with 50 

participants.

The 9-space parking lot at the Main Entrance

reached capacity (excluding the handicap parking 

space) on five of the 11 days. However, the parking 

lot was full only 3.5 hours over the 11 days. 

The information recorded by the cameras also 

allowed the parking duration of the cars in the Main 

Entrance lot to be quantified. The average parking 

duration on a weekday was 1.0 hours and the 

average parking duration on a weekend day was 

1.4 hours. 

5.7.2 Motor Vehicle Circulation

Most of the trails in the refuge are occasionally 

traveled by USFWS motor vehicles for 

administrative and management purposes, but 

motor vehicle circulation is generally limited to the 

roads and ways in the north tract. 

Roads Open to Private Vehicles

The refuge has 1.32 miles of roads that are open to 

public vehicles. This consists of a 0.28-mile section 

of White Pond Road that provides access to the 

parking area at the North Entrance and a 1.04-mile 

section of Winterberry Way from the Main 

Entrance, past the Visitor Center, to Carbary’s 

Trail. Winterberry Way was constructed in 

2009/2010 and is in excellent condition. The 

segment of White Pond Road was noted in a 2010 

study7

 as “poor” and in need of rehabilitation.

Traffic volumes on the public roads are relatively 

low. Table 5.10 shows the daily two-way traffic 

volumes for a sample week in November. 

Table 5.10: Winterberry Way Daily Traffic 

Volumes, November 12-18, 2011

Day of Week Two-way Traffic Volume

Saturday 86

Sunday 139

Monday 66

Tuesday 58

Wednesday 78

Thursday 53

Friday 65

7

 The Road Inventory of the Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge, 

September 2010. Federal Highway Administration, Central Federal 

Lands.
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Existing Transportation Conditions 5-15

Other Roads

Patrol Road, White Pond Road, Harry’s Way, 

Taylor Way, and Winterberry Way are routinely 

travelled by USFWS motor vehicles for 

management purposes. Some of the roads are also 

occasionally used by the U.S. Air Force, the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and by 

a twice-yearly bus tour. 

Figure 5.5 depicts the access easements provided to 

the Air Force and FEMA. The Air Force owns a 

small property within the refuge and has an 

easement along the length of Patrol Road and the 

section of White Pond Road near the North 

Entrance. FEMA has one easement along Harry’s 

Way, part of White Pond road and part of the old 

Trail B, and a second easement along parts of 

Winterberry Way and Puffer Pond Trail. 

The use of the roads by the easement holders is 

minimal. The Air Force has recently dismantled the 

weather station on their property and FEMA has not 

used the Harry’s Way easement recently. The 

Winterberry Way easement is used by FEMA 

occasionally for maintenance purposes.

Bus tours of refuge’s historical sites have been 

conducted for more than 10 years – even before the 

public opening of the refuge. The tours are operated 

by the Friends of the Assabet River NWR. Tours 

are conducted once in the spring and once in the 

fall. A single tour trip of 40 people is made using a 

standard school bus. The bus tour route is along 

Patrol Road, White Pond Road and Harry’s Way. 

The twice-yearly bus tours sell out quickly. The 2 1⁄2 hour tour 

includes stops at old home site locations and one of the 

ammunition bunkers.

The conditions of the restricted roads (those used by 

vehicles other than private vehicles) are depicted on 

Figure 5.6. The conditions vary from good to poor. 

There are also some sections among those roads 

that are subject to seasonal flooding. One is on 

Taylor Way near Otter Alley and the other is the 

gravel section of Winterberry Way between the 

East Entrance and Puffer Pond Trail. Water levels 

adjacent to a segment of White Pond Road have 

risen substantially in the past few years due to 

beaver activity, but the road is not currently subject 

to flooding. 

Concrete sluice on Taylor Way between two wetland areas.
Fairbank Road

Hudson Road

Sudbury Road

Main Street

Old Marlboro Road

Assabet River Rail Trail

(Central Massachusetts Rail Trail)

Town of

Maynard

Public

Schools

Town of

Maynard

Public

Water

Supply

Town of

Maynard

Public

Water

Supply

DCR:

Marlborough - Sudbury

State Forest

DCR:

Marlborough - Sudbury

State Forest

DCR:

Marlborough - Sudbury

State Forest

City of Marlborough:

Desert Conservation Land

Sudbury Valley Trustees:

Memorial Forest

Town of Sudbury:

Hop Brook

Moore Road

Duton Road

Towhee Trail

Petapawag Trail

Tri-town Trail

Otter Alley

Hill Trail

Pine Garden Trail

Powerline

Trail

Fisher Loop

Fisher Loop

Sweet Fern Trail

Mink Link

Puffer Pond Trail

Patrol Road

Pond White

Road

Harry's Way

Taylor Way

Puffer

Pond

Winterberry

Way

Winterberry

Way

White Pond Road

Kingfisher Trail

62 62

117

27

27

117

STOW

HUDSON

MARLBOROUGH

SUDBURY

MAYNARD

ARNWR

Air Force Easement

FEMA Easement



N

0 1/4 1/2 Mile

ASSABET RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

transportation study

Figure 5.5

Access Easements

North

Entrance

East

Entrance

Main

Entrance

Area

Closed

to Public
Fairbank Road

Hudson Road

Sudbury Road

Main Street

Old Marlboro Road

Assabet River Rail Trail

(Central Massachusetts Rail Trail)

Town of

Maynard

Public

Schools

Town of

Maynard

Public

Water

Supply

Town of

Maynard

Public

Water

Supply

DCR:

Marlborough - Sudbury

State Forest

DCR:

Marlborough - Sudbury

State Forest

DCR:

Marlborough - Sudbury

State Forest

City of Marlborough:

Desert Conservation Land

Sudbury Valley Trustees:

Memorial Forest

Town of Sudbury:

Hop Brook

Moore Road

Duton Road

Towhee Trail

Petapawag Trail

Tri-town Trail

Otter Alley

Hill Trail

Pine Garden Trail

Powerline

Trail

Fisher Loop

Fisher Loop

Sweet Fern Trail

Mink Link

Puffer Pond Trail

Patrol Road

Pond White

Road

Harry's Way

Taylor Way

Puffer

Pond

Winterberry

Way

Winterberry

Way

White Pond Road

62 62

117

27

27

117

STOW

HUDSON

MARLBOROUGH

SUDBURY

MAYNARD

ARNWR

Roadway Surface

Gravel

Paved

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Failed

Roadway Condition



N

0 1/4 1/2 Mile

ASSABET RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

transportation study

Figure 5.6 

Roadway Condition

North

Entrance

East

Entrance

South

Entrance

Area

Closed

to Public
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Existing Transportation Conditions 5-18

Although conditions on the restricted roads are 

often graded as “fair” or “poor” as part of standard 

pavement management evaluations, the conditions 

have little day-to-day impact on the circulation of 

vehicles. The roads are infrequently used and the 

vehicles that travel the roads tend to be heavy-duty 

service vehicles capable of operating on even native 

surfaces if need be. 

The most significant issue with the roadways is not 

that it is difficult for USFWS and other vehicles to 

travel upon them, but that many of the roads are 

shared with walkers and bicyclists and during wet 

conditions even occasional vehicles can cause ruts 

and other damage. The resulting ponding and 

uneven surfaces can inconvenience both walkers 

and bicyclists. 

Ponding in tire ruts along Otter Alley. 

5.7.3 Bicycle Circulation

Bicycles are allowed on some roads and ways to 

encourage travel to the refuge by bicycle, and to 

enhance access within the refuge to wildlifedependent uses. All the roads and ways where 

bicycles are allowed are in the north tract of the 

refuge.

Table 5.11: Roads and Ways on which Bicycles 

are Allowed

Length (miles)

Name Paved Unpaved Total

Winterberry Way 1.0 0.5 1.5

Taylor Way 1.8 1.8

Harry’s Way 0.4 1.5 1.9

White Pond Road 1.7 1.7

Patrol Road* 0.8 0.8

Total 3.9 3.8 7.7

* Between White Pond Road and Winterberry Way

Note: Distance and surface from The Road Inventory of the 

Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge. 

Bicycling is a popular activity at ARNWR. On the 

three-day Columbus Day weekend in October 2011 

more than 100 people arrived at the refuge by 

bicycle (see Table 5.1). Others drive to the refuge, 

park, and then bicycle around the refuge. The 

parking lot at the Main Entrance is the most popular 

parking location for those visitors. Observations 

indicate that most of the bicyclists who park near 

the Main Entrance travel on Patrol Road toward 

White Pond Road. Some, particularly those with 

small children, use the path along Winterberry 

Way.

The trails used by bicyclists are a mix of paved and 

unpaved surfaces. The trail conditions are such that 

the trails are generally appropriate for casual 

bicycle use, even by families with young children, 

but they are not suitable for fast road-bike travel.

The paved surfaces, except for Winterberry Way, 

have not been maintained since long before the 

property was transferred to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. The paved surfaces are heavily 

cracked, often heaved and rutted, and sometimes 

potholed. 

The unpaved surfaces on most of the trails are 

rutted and uneven due to the impact of vehicles and 
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Existing Transportation Conditions 5-19

bicycles during wet conditions. Trails are generally 

at least 10 feet wide, which is typical of a multiuse 

path, but the rutting and other trail conditions 

sometimes makes it difficult for bicyclists to pass 

walkers without the walkers stepping aside. 

The most difficult bicycle surface conditions are 

experienced along Taylor Road and the segment of 

Winterberry Way between the East Entrance and 

Carbary’s Trail. The same seasonal flooding 

conditions that affect motor vehicle circulation 

affect bicyclists. In addition, there are a some 

sections of Taylor Way where the surface is a soft, 

sandy soil. 

Taylor Way near the North Entrance is a section of soft sandy 

soil that is difficult to bicycle. 

5.7.4 Hiking and Walking

The refuge has 15.4 miles of trails open to the 

public. The majority, some 12.7 miles, are located 

in the north tract. Table 5.12 lists the length of the 

trails and whether the trails are also used by 

bicyclists and motor vehicles.

Table 5.12: Walking Trails in the ARNWR

Name

Length 

(miles)

Shared 

with 

Bicycles

Shared 

with 

Cars*

North Tract

Winterberry Way 1.5 No No

Taylor Way 1.8 Yes Yes

Harry’s Way 1.9 Yes No

White Pond Rd 1.7 Yes No

Patrol Road 0.8 Yes Yes

Puffer Pond Trail 0.4 No Yes

Carbary’s Trail 0.1 No No

Petapawag Trail 0.9 No No

Towhee Trail 1.0 No No

Otter Alley 0.3 No No

Powerline Trail 0.2 No No

Sandbank Trail 0.1 No No

Tebassa Trail 0.1 No No

Tri-Town Trail 1.2 No No

Pine Garden Trail 0.3 No No

Hill Trail 0.4 No No

Total North Tract 12.7

South Tract

Fischer Loop 2.3 No No

Mink Link 0.1 No No

Sweet Fern Trail 0.3 No No

Total South Tract 2.7

Total 15.4

* Refers to cars associated with easements held by FEMA and 

the U.S. Air Force. There is no private vehicle access on these 

trails. USFWS vehicles use all trails occasionally for 

management purposes.

Note: Lengths of trails from The Road Inventory of the Assabet 

River National Wildlife Refuge and the ARNWR Trail Guide. 

The trail network provides access to a wide variety 

of forest and water habitats, the Visitor Center, the 

fishing area, and many of the ammunition bunkers. 

Most of the trails are along old roadbed and rail 
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Existing Transportation Conditions 5-20

beds and about five miles of the trails have some 

paved surface. 

Some trails are affected by seasonal flooding. These 

include Otter Alley, a section of Taylor Way near 

Otter Alley, and a section of Winterberry Way near 

the north section of Puffer Pond Trail. 

The paved surfaces of trails that are along old 

roadbeds have not been maintained since they were 

used by the military and all of them have drainage 

problems. The crowning of the surface has 

deteriorated and there are usually ruts that retain 

stormwater. This not only inconveniences those 

walking on the trail, it also hastens the deterioration 

of the trail surface. 

Example of ponding on Harry’s Way

5.7.4 Handicap Accessibility

The refuge provides many opportunities for those 

who are mobility impaired, albeit in a limited area 

of the refuge. The Visitor Center is handicapped 

accessible; the one-mile path parallel to 

Winterberry Way is accessible and travels along 

woods and offers views of Puffer Pond; and there is 

a section of Harry’s Way that provides an 

accessible route from the Visitor Center to one of 

the ammunition bunkers. 

On the other hand, while the pier at the Barron 

Fishing Access site is fully accessible, the 500′ path 

to it is not. Nor is the canoe launch at Puffer Pond 

handicap accessible. 

One handicap accessibility issue has been addressed 

by the construction of new parking areas at the 

North Entrance and East Entrance. Previously, there 

was no accessible path past the gates at those 

locations. Visitors using wheelchairs could not 

enter the refuge at either entrance. The new parking 

lots include accessible paths from the parking areas 

into the refuge. 

The chief issue with handicap accessibility at the 

refuge is providing accessibility to more areas and 

to a wider variety of habitats. There is currently no 

handicap accessibility to the edge of a pond or 

wetlands and the accessible trails are typically 

accessed via the Main Entrance. The trails near the 

East Entrance are rough, and although there are 

some segments of accessible trails near the North 

Entrance, they are not linked and there is no 

opportunity for a fully accessible loop. 

5.8 Major Transportation Issues and 

Challenges at the Refuge

Many of the major transportation issues and 

challenges at ARNWR were identified by USFWS 

prior to this study and have been reviewed as part of 

the existing conditions work, and other issues have 

been identified during the existing conditions phase 

of work by stakeholders and the public. A summary 

of those issues and challenges follows.

5.8.1 Visitation Data

Visitation data are collected only at the Visitor 

Center, which is only open Thursday through 

Sunday. Vehicle counters for Winterberry Way and 
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Existing Transportation Conditions 5-21

the parking lots, and trail counters for key locations, 

would provide more accurate information on the 

number of visitors and their pattern of use. This will 

enable future transportation and program planning 

to better meet the needs of the visitors and the 

refuge in a cost-effective way.

One element of visitation data is scheduled to be 

addressed in 2012. Assabet River National Wildlife 

Refuge was selected to be part of the USFWS 

Visitor Use Survey, which should provide some 

useful information about visitor use and experience.

5.8.2 Maintenance of Trails, Roads and Ways

The maintenance of the trails, roads and ways in the 

refuge is the most challenging of the transportation 

issues. Except for Winterberry Way, none of the 

trail surfaces have been maintained since long 

before the refuge was established. Paved surfaces 

have deteriorated and unpaved surfaces are rutted. 

The loss of the crowning of the surface profile, as 

well as the loss of drainage swales, has hastened the 

damage by water flow. 

Some trails are protected by tree cover, and others 

are appropriately maintained as a native surface, but 

those roads and ways used by bicycles and motor 

vehicles require extensive rehabilitation or 

reconstruction. 

Financial resources for construction and 

maintenance of the roads and ways are limited. The 

financial constraints will affect decisions about 

investments in roads and ways to support bicycle 

use and handicap accessibility.

5.8.3 Parking

Construction projects were completed in 2012 that

approximately doubled the capacity of public 

parking areas at the North Entrance and the East 

Entrance. This appears to be appropriate for 

accommodating reasonable expectations of future 

visitation levels at the refuge. 

Parking utilization data collected in 2011 show that 

parking at the Main Entrance is sometimes full and 

that parking at the Visitor Center may sometimes 

nearly reach capacity during larger events.

Construction of additional parking is one means of 

addressing existing and future parking shortfalls. 

The amount of new parking required can be 

mitigated by policies such as encouraging 

non-automobile access to the refuge, parking 

management during events, and making better use 

of parking on adjacent state forest lands.

5.8.4 Wayfinding 

Wayfinding is a challenge for some visitors 

traveling to the refuge. There has never been any 

wayfinding signage external to the refuge. The 

installation of appropriate wayfinding signs will 

provide better guidance for first-time visitors, as 

well as make those other drivers who see the signs 

aware of the refuge. 

The issue of wayfinding extends into the refuge. 

Some visitors do not understand that the Visitor 

Center is located a half-mile from the Main 

Entrance and instead see only the small parking lot. 

At the North Entrance, some visitors are unaware 

that the parking area is a quarter-mile inside the 

refuge. 

There are also opportunities to provide visitors with 

more information about exploring the refuge by 

providing brochure and map information at 

additional kiosks and digitally by the use of QR 

Code tags at trailheads.
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Existing Transportation Conditions 5-22

5.8.5 Transportation Safety 

The speed and volume of traffic on, and character 

of, Hudson Road create some safety concerns at the 

refuge’s Main Entrance. There are issues with 

pedestrians crossing the road to travel between the 

north and south tracts or to neighborhoods in 

Sudbury, and with eastbound vehicles entering the 

refuge. The relatively low volume of traffic entering 

the refuge can result in through-traffic drivers being 

unprepared for vehicles slowing to turn left into the 

refuge. 

The options for addressing safety concerns range 

from near-term projects of signage, lighting and 

maintenance of roadside vegetation, to long-term 

projects such as constructing a left-turn lane or 

relocating the entrance.

5.8.6 Handicap Accessibility

Providing handicap accessibility to the canoe 

launch and the fishing area at Puffer Pond is a 

priority for the refuge. There are also many other 

opportunities to enhance the experience at the 

refuge for all those who are mobility impaired. 

Some of these opportunities may be achieved 

through policy changes such as where disabled 

hunters may take their cars. Others could be 

realized through education outreach programs 

oriented to those who are physically disabled. A 

mobility-assistance shuttle service would increase 

access within the refuge for many visitors.

Some opportunities can be achieved by physical 

improvements. Rehabilitation of the existing trails 

to eliminate ruts and uneven surfaces would benefit 

all persons with mobility disabilities. Some trails 

could be reconstructed to be fully handicapaccessible, particularly those in areas that provide 

access to a wider variety of habitats than provided 

the existing accessible trail network. 

5.8.7 Community Connections 

The refuge benefits from the existing pedestrian and 

bicycle connections with nearby neighborhoods. 

They facilitate visitation while mitigating the need 

for additional on-site motor vehicle parking. 

The North Entrance and the Main Entrance have 

good pedestrian access, and a sidewalk is planned 

by the Town of Maynard on Route 27 that will fill a 

missing link in the neighborhood sidewalk network 

near the East Entrance. 

Bicycle access from Maynard and parts of Sudbury 

is also good and there are opportunities to improve 

bicycle access from other sections of Sudbury and 

from Stow and Hudson by connecting to regional 

rail trail projects. Completion of the Assabet River 

Rail Trail through Maynard will improve 

connectivity with the area of highest population 

density near the refuge. The proposed Central Mass 

Rail Trail is promising for its connection to 

Sudbury neighborhoods and to the trailhead for the 

Hudson section of the Assabet River Rail Trail. 

However, project implementation is uncertain and 

undoubtedly long term. 

5.8.8 Educational Outreach

Educational outreach is an important objective of 

the refuge and a significant part of the current 

visitation. Transportation strategies can support 

educational outreach efforts in a variety of direct 

and indirect ways. An electric charging station 

provides educational opportunities. A shuttle 

vehicle could be available to transport school 

groups to learning sites within the refuge, or a 

shuttle service could be implemented to provide 

regular tours for all visitors.
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives 6-1 

6 

Preliminary 

Conceptual 

Alternatives

This chapter presents the initial screening of 

potential projects identified during the evaluation of 

existing conditions and through the project’s public 

outreach process, including consultation with refuge 

staff. The purpose of the initial screening was to 

determine the conceptual project alternatives to 

advance for further, detailed evaluation, and to 

document those potential projects dismissed from 

further consideration. 

6.1 Screening Criteria

General and comparative screening criteria were 

used for determining which of the conceptual 

project alternatives were advanced for further 

evaluation as candidate alternatives. The general 

criteria include consistency with the mission and 

policies of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and the Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge. 

Criteria used to screen preliminary project concepts 

that addressed similar purpose and need included 

comparative factors such as the transportation 

benefits provided by the project, environmental and 

cultural impacts, constructability, cost, and the 

overall feasibility for implementing the project. In 

addition, all conceptual projects were screened for 

readily apparent design or operational “fatal flaws”. 

All projects advanced as candidate alternatives are 

consistent with the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System to conserve, protect, and enhance 

fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the 

continuing benefit of the American people. This 

includes supporting the six wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses defined as priority public uses of 

refuge lands – hunting, fishing, environmental 

education, environmental interpretation, wildlife 

observation, and wildlife photography.8 Policies set 

forth in the refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and other planning documents set some 

parameters for the types of transportation projects 

considered for further evaluation. For example, the 

refuge’s system of roads, trails and ways was

carefully developed and no new or relocated roads, 

trails or ways, except for connectivity purposes, 

were considered in conjunction with this study. 

8 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives 6-2 

Some of the conceptual projects are “competing” 

projects that are alternative ways of addressing the 

same transportation issues. Among the factors 

considered in the comparative screening were the 

following. 

 Transportation Benefits provided by the 

project – Which project alternative best 

achieves the identified needs for access to, 

and mobility within, the refuge.

 Environmental and Cultural Impacts – 

Which project alternative is best for 

protecting and enhancing wetlands, wildlife 

habitat, and historic elements. 

 Constructability – For projects with 

similar benefits, which project alternative is 

most likely to be effectively implemented. 

This takes into account not only the 

physical constraints of the project location, 

but also the complexity of required 

permitting, number of partnerships, and the 

likely time frame for implementation.

 Cost – Which project alternative is the 

most cost-effective. 

6.2 Preliminary Conceptual 

Alternatives

This section presents the preliminary conceptual 

alternatives identified through the existing 

conditions data gathering process, stakeholder 

input, and public outreach process. The potential 

projects are listed among the general categories of 

External Access, Internal Infrastructure, and 

Internal Circulation and Mobility. It is noted that 

often an issue can overlap with two of the main 

areas.

6.2.1 External Access

Based on a review of existing and projected future 

conditions, the following external access 

improvements were considered for the refuge study 

area.

Vehicular wayfinding signage to the refuge. 

There has never been any wayfinding signage 

external to the refuge. Installation of appropriate 

wayfinding signs will provide better guidance for 

first-time visitors, as well as market the refuge to 

passing drivers. Most of the signage would be on 

arterial and collector roads and would lead visitors 

to the Main Entrance and the Visitor Center. 

Additional signs would be on the local roads that 

lead to the North Entrance and to the East Entrance. 

This project was advanced as a candidate 

alternative for evaluation.

Improve visibility of Hudson Road crosswalk. 

This crosswalk is used by visitors walking or 

bicycling to the refuge from Sudbury via the 

sidewalk path along the south side of Hudson Road, 

and by visitors traveling between the refuge’s north 

and south tracts. The project is to trim vegetation 

near the crosswalk to make people waiting to cross 

more visible to approaching drivers, and to use an 

in-street pedestrian crossing sign on busy days. This 

project was advanced as a candidate alternative for 

evaluation. 

Encourage use of existing state forest parking on 

Sudbury Road. Making better use of parking on 

adjacent conservation and recreation lands by 

visitors to the refuge would provide an alternative 

to constructing additional parking in the refuge. The 

best opportunity for doing so is with the state forest 

parking lot on Sudbury Road. The parking lot can 

accommodate about a dozen cars and a short walk 

from the lot through the state forest property leads 

to the interior of the refuge at the intersection of 
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives 6-3 

Patrol Road and White Pond Road. The parking lot 

is well used during hunting season, but it is rarely 

used other times of the year. This project was 

advanced as a candidate alternative for evaluation.

Additional parking at the Main Entrance. The 

9-space parking lot at the Main Entrance is a 

popular location for visitors who are walking or 

biking on the trail networks. The parking lot is 

usually full at some point during busy days. Several 

options for creating additional parking were 

identified. 

1. One option is to expand the existing parking 

area by 10 parking spaces by adding a second 

row of parking. This project was advanced as a 

candidate alternative for evaluation.

2. Another option is to create a new parking area 

on the adjacent gravel parking area owned by 

the Massachusetts Department of Fire Services. 

This alternative was dismissed from further 

consideration since the Department of Fire 

Services plans to re-grade and pave the parking 

area to accommodate continued growth in 

training activity. 

3. A third option is to create a new parking area 

on the state forest land adjacent to the entrance 

drive, where the sign and flagpole are located. 

This project could provide up to about 35 

parking spaces. The land would have to be 

obtained from the Massachusetts Department of 

Conservation and Recreation, and this would 

require action not only by the agencies 

involved, but also by the state legislature. This 

alternative was dismissed from further 

consideration due to the comparative 

advantages of the first option. The first option 

can be implemented without land acquisition, at 

a lesser cost, and provides for a better visual 

entrance to the refuge than would a large 

parking area remote from the Visitor Center. 

Although the first option provides only 10 

additional parking spaces, they would be 

sufficient on most days and additional parking 

capacity for the few busiest days each year is 

available at the Visitor Center. 

Support rail trail connections. Facilitating nonmotorized access to the refuge is a high priority of 

the refuge and is consistent with the USFWS efforts 

to reduce its carbon footprint. There are three rail 

trail projects in the refuge’s host communities that 

provide various levels of opportunities to enhance 

connectivity. They are the Assabet River Rail Trail, 

the Central Mass Rail Trail, and the Bruce Freeman 

Rail Trail. 

The support for the rail trail projects involves 

marketing of how the trails provide access to the 

refuge and advocacy to support current efforts to 

move the trail projects through the state planning, 

design and funding process. For example, the recent 

Boston MPO FY13-FY16 Transportation 

Improvement Plan9

 deferred the construction 

funding for the northerly section of the Assabet 

River Rail Trail and instead made it a “first tier”

priority project for the MPO should additional 

funding become available. The refuge could support 

efforts to restore the previous funding schedule. 

Signage at Main Entrance. An issue regarding 

uncertainty by first-time visitors as to whether they 

should proceed through the gate on Winterberry 

Way or park in the adjacent parking lot was 

identified through the study process. The issue 

arises from the Visitor Center not being visible 

from the gate and concern as to when the gate will 

be closed at the end of the day. Project elements to 

9 Draft Federal Fiscal Years (FFYs) 2013–16 Transportation Improvement 

Program (TIP), Boston MPO, May 2012.
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives 6-4 

address this issue include more explicit signage 

directing to the parking and trails at the Visitor 

Center, and signs indicating when the gate will 

close that day. This project was advanced as a 

candidate alternative for evaluation. 

Improved safety at Main Entrance. The speed 

and volume of traffic on, and character of, Hudson 

Road create some safety concerns at the refuge’s 

Main Entrance related to eastbound vehicles 

entering the refuge. The relatively low volume of 

traffic entering the refuge can result in throughtraffic drivers being unprepared for vehicles 

slowing to turn left into the refuge. There have been 

no accidents at that location, but the refuge is 

relatively new and increased visitation is a goal. 

Four alternatives were identified to address the 

issues.

1. Signage at Main Entrance. Because of the 

lack of visibility of the Winterberry Way 

driveway drivers sometimes slow suddenly for 

the turn into the refuge, or miss the turn 

altogether. Advance signs for the entrance, an 

entrance sign closer to the road, and removing 

some vegetation obscuring the existing 

ARNWR monument sign from westbound 

drivers are ways to improve visibility. 

Reflective signs would improve conditions at 

night for those attending meetings at the Visitor 

Center. This project was advanced as a 

candidate alternative.

2. Move the entrance road to the east. This 

option is to relocate the refuge entrance road 

about 300 feet to the east onto state forest 

property, to where the crosswalk on Hudson 

Road is at present. The new alignment would be 

on the old rail track corridor now used for the 

sidewalk path from Hudson Road. The project 

would include reconfiguration of the crosswalk 

and the sidewalk path. The land would have to 

be obtained from the Massachusetts Department 

of Conservation and Recreation, subject to 

approval by the state legislature. This project 

was advanced as a candidate alternative.

3. Move the entrance road to the west. This

option is to relocate the refuge entrance road 

about 700 feet to the west, near to the 

Sudbury/Stow town line. The entrance road 

alignment would use an existing utility corridor 

through Department of Fire Services land and 

along Powerline Trail in the refuge. A sight 

distance analysis of this location showed that 

there would be little improvement over the 

existing location, essentially mitigating issues 

with the eastbound approach by creating similar 

issues with the westbound approach. Because 

the benefits are less than relocating the entrance 

to the east, and because it is a more costly and 

complex project, this project was dismissed 

from further consideration. 

4. Create an eastbound left-turn lane pocket. 

Widening Hudson Road to provide a left-turn 

lane would allow through traffic to pass cars 

waiting to turn into the refuge. This project was 

advanced as a candidate alternative.

Construct parking in state forest along Hudson 

Road. A potential project was identified to 

construct a small dirt parking lot on state forest land 

along Hudson Road near the refuge’s main 

(Winterberry Way) entrance. The parking would be 

similar to the state forest parking lot on Sudbury 

Road. Several locations were considered, but all 

were dismissed from further consideration. 

Locations on the south side of Hudson Road are not 

practical due to proximity of wetland areas or 

because driveway locations on the south side would 

create similar safety concerns with sight distance 

and turning vehicles as now exist at the Winterberry 

Way driveway. Locating parking on the north side 
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives 6-5 

of Hudson Road, to the east of the crosswalk, is 

constrained by wetlands and an easement for a 

high-pressure natural gas pipeline. 

Other potential external access projects

dismissed from further consideration are links to 

transit and connections to waterways. Supporting 

access by means other than private automobiles is 

an important goal of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System and the ARNWR already achieves 

considerable access by bicyclists and walkers. 

Connections to waterways and transit links are also 

desirable but impractical for the ARNWR. There 

are no public transit systems operating in the host 

communities and none planned. The Assabet River 

does not provide any practical water access since 

the section of river adjacent to the refuge (the Ben 

Smith dam impoundment) is where kayaks and 

canoes are put in rather than a destination from 

other locations along the river.

6.2.2 Internal Infrastructure

Based on a review of existing and projected future 

conditions, the following internal infrastructure 

improvements were considered for the refuge study 

area.

Reconstruct the North Entrance access road 

(White Pond Road). This 1,000-foot long section 

of roadway extends from the refuge boundary at the 

end of White Pond Road at the Assabet River Rail 

Trail, to the newly constructed parking area near the 

North Entrance gate. The 14-foot wide paved 

roadway is in “poor” condition based on a 2010 

roadway inventory conducted by the Federal 

Highway Administration – Central Federal Lands 

Division10 and has an estimated service life of less 

10 The Road Inventory of Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge, Federal 

Highway Administration – Central Lands Division, September 2010.

than five years. This project was advanced as a 

candidate alternative.

Reconstruction of Roads and Ways. The 

reconstruction and future maintenance of the roads 

and ways in the refuge is the most challenging of 

the transportation issues. Except for Winterberry 

Way none of the trail surfaces have been 

maintained since long before the refuge was 

established. Paved surfaces have deteriorated and 

unpaved surfaces are rutted. The loss of the 

crowning of the surface profile, as well as the loss 

of drainage swales, has hastened the damage by 

water flow. 

The following projects were advanced as candidate 

alternatives.

1. Patrol Road, between Winterberry Way and 

White Pond Road. This 0.8-mile section of 

paved roadway is used not only by bicyclists 

and walkers, but it also provides primary 

vehicle access to the Air Force site in the west 

section of the refuge. The project would 

reconstruct the paved road at a reduced width. 

2. White Pond Road. This paved road is 1.7 

miles long and used by bicyclists and walkers.

It is the most popular bicycle route in the 

refuge. The project would reconstruct the paved 

roadway. 

3. Harry’s Way. This trail is used by bicyclists 

and walkers. It is 1.9 miles long, of which 1.5 

miles is gravel and 0.4 miles is paved. The 

paved section connects with the Visitor Center 

and is handicap accessible. The project would 

reconstruct the paved and gravel segments 

separately.
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives 6-6 

4. Taylor Way. This 1.8 mile gravel trail is used 

by bicyclists and walkers. The project would 

reconstruct the trail with a gravel surface.

Install a charging station at the Visitor Center. 

An electric vehicle charging station is in keeping 

with the education mission of the refuge and the 

carbon-footprint reduction goals of the USFWS. 

The ARNWR is well suited for an electric vehicle 

charging station due to the demographics of the 

gateway communities and the fact that the typical 

duration of visit to the refuge is about two hours 

and thus a single charging station might 

accommodate multiple vehicles each day. This 

project was advanced as a candidate alternative.

Traffic counters at entrances. Vehicle, pedestrian 

and bicycle counters at the entrances to the refuge 

would provide more accurate information on the 

number of visitors and their pattern of use. This will 

enable future transportation and program planning 

to better meet the needs of the visitors and the 

refuge in a cost-effective way. This project was 

advanced as a candidate alternative. 

Electronic kiosk at Visitor Center. A park use 

management software system, including an 

electronic kiosk at the Visitor Center, would 

provide visitors with information when the Visitor 

Center is closed, allow the refuge to collect 

information about visitor characteristics and 

experiences, and provide a means to manage the 

fishing and hunting activities at the refuge. Like the 

traffic counters, the park use management system 

would provide data to be used for future 

transportation and program planning. This project 

was advanced as a candidate alternative.

Kiosk at the northern end of Winterberry Way. 

For this project a standard informational kiosk 

would be installed at the terminus of public vehicle 

access (paved) section of Winterberry Way. It was 

observed that when many of the visitors reach that 

location they are unsure of where they might enjoy 

going from there. This project was advanced as a 

candidate alternative.

Maintenance of Sandbank Trail canoe launch. A 

canoe launch for Puffer’s Pond is located off the 

Sandbank Trail. There is a short, unimproved path 

leading from Sandbank Trail down to the water’s 

edge. The slope down to the water is relatively 

steep and erosion along the path and at the shoreline 

is a maintenance issue. An articulating concrete 

block mat system would stabilize the shoreline and 

path. This project was advanced as a candidate 

alternative.

Accessible canoe launch. Providing handicap 

accessibility to the canoe launch is a priority for the 

refuge. Making the existing canoe launch location 

handicapped accessible was dismissed from further 

consideration because of grade issues that would 

require construction of an extensive and intrusive 

ramping system. There is a drop of about 10 feet to 

the water and this would require more than 200 feet 

of ramping for handicap accessibility. 

The most practical means of providing an 

accessible canoe launch is to provide it at the 

Barron Fishing Access Site located at the end of 

Carbary’s Trail. The dock could be expanded to 

include additional dock platform and an accessible 

transfer system. This project was advanced as a 

candidate alternative.

6.2.3 Internal Circulation and Mobility

The conceptual project alternatives addressing 

internal circulation and mobility reflect the study 

guideline that since the refuge’s system of roads, 

trails and ways has been carefully developed and no 

new or relocated roads, trails or ways are to be 

considered except for connectivity purposes.
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives 6-7 

Accordingly, the conceptual projects focus on 

enhancing mobility among the existing travelways 

rather than constructing new trails. 

Improve handicapped accessibility along Puffer 

Pond Trail and Carbary’s Trail. This is an 

opportunity to enhance the experience at the refuge 

for all those who are mobility impaired. 

Reconstructing Carbary’s Trail would provide an 

accessible trail from the parking at the end of 

Winterberry Way to the Barron Fishing Access Site. 

Reconstructing Puffer Pond Trail southerly from 

Carbary’s Trail to Winterberry Way would create 

an accessible trail along the water, something not 

now available in the refuge. These projects were 

advanced as a candidate alternatives.

Procure electric shuttle vehicle. Procuring one or 

more multi-passenger shuttle vehicles was 

identified as a means of expanding access to sites in 

the refuge for visitors who have mobility 

impairments, transporting school groups to learning 

sites within the refuge, and providing tours for all 

visitors. A multi-passenger vehicle could also be 

used as a parking shuttle to accommodate large 

meetings and events. This project was advanced as 

a candidate alternative.

Circulation and mobility concept alternatives 

dismissed from further consideration include 

accommodating unrestricted bicycle access on the 

south tract and consolidating bicycle routes within 

the north tract. The refuge has carefully considered 

both issues in the past and the current policies 

reflect the findings and recommendations of those 

analyses. Reducing the number of trails open to 

bicyclists in the north tract would be contrary to the 

compatibility determination for bicycle use in the 

north tract. Reducing the number of trails open to 

bicyclists would reduce mobility in that large area, 

would diminish visitor’s access to a variety of 

habitats, and could dissuade non-automobile access 

to the refuge. Conversely, the south tract is small 

and easily walkable, it does not provide a unique 

visitor experience for bicyclists, and bicycle use in 

the south tract does not facilitate non-automobile 

access to the refuge.

Undefined future projects. There are two 

potential, but not certain, events that could 

significantly affect circulation within the refuge. 

The first is the construction of the Central Mass 

Rail Trail. For that project to facilitate 

non-automobile access to the refuge would require 

connectivity for bicyclists through the south tract 

and to the Visitor Center. The second potential 

event is the possible transfer of the Air Force 

easement and buildings to the USFWS. If that 

transfer were to occur, it would change how Patrol 

Road in the area of the refuge closed to public 

access might be used and thus affect options for 

roadway capital and maintenance investments.

There is no guarantee that either event will ever 

occur and, due to their potentially broad impacts on 

the refuge, if they were to happen any subsequent 

planned projects and policy changes would likely 

first need to be evaluated as part of the refuge’s 

next Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) 

update. The first CCP for ARNWR was done in 

2005 and they are typically updated every 15 years.

Regardless of the uncertainty and long-term time 

frame, the significant changes to circulation that 

could arise should those events occur make it useful

to understand how the existing transportation 

infrastructure might be maintained in order to not 

preclude later transportation planning options. 

1. Bicycle connectivity between the Central 

Mass Rail Trail and Visitor Center. The 

proposed Central Mass Rail Trail would 

provide additional non-automobile access to the 

refuge, but since the trail connects to the 

refuge’s south tract there would need to be a 
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives 6-8 

bicycle-usable connection through the south 

tract to the Visitor Center. Bicycle use in the 

south tract is not currently allowed and a 

determination of compatibility would need to 

be approved if the current policy were to 

change. The south tract is relatively small, is 

level and is easily walkable using the existing 

trail system. It also does not offer habitat 

significantly different than elsewhere in the 

refuge and so it is reasonable to assume that any 

determination of compatibility of bicycle use 

would focus on the connectivity to the Visitor 

Center rather than mobility within the south 

tract. 

The most direct route is along a 1.14 mile 

stretch of the Fisher Loop trail that includes a 

segment through the adjacent state forest land. 

The trail surfaces include native (0.25 mile 

segment), gravel (0.29 miles), and asphalt (0.6 

miles, most of which is within state forest land). 

Although the asphalt is in poor condition all of 

the trail surfaces are suitable for their current 

use as walking trails and no heavy maintenance 

or reconstruction would be necessary to 

continue use as a walking trail. On the other 

hand, if bicycles were to be accommodated then 

the entire length of the trail would need to be 

reconstructed as a stabilized gravel path or a 

paved path. The cost of doing this would 

exceed half a million dollars. 

No infrastructure investment on the Fisher 

Loop trail is necessary unless the Central Mass 

Rail Trail is constructed and construction of the 

trail is uncertain. Preliminary rail trail design 

has recently been initiated, but there is no 

funding commitment and there are many other 

rail trail projects in the state that have been 

waiting 10 or more years for funding and still 

have no funding commitment. Nonetheless, it 

would be appropriate for the refuge to 

coordinate with the Massachusetts Department 

of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) about 

the Fisher Loop trail and the rail trail project 

planning and design. The DCR not only 

controls the rail trail right of way, but it owns 

the state forest land adjacent to the refuge 

through which part of the Fisher Loop trail 

traverses.

2. Public access to the restricted-access section 

of the north tract. The section of the north 

tract west of White Pond Road is closed to 

public access. The northerly part of Patrol Road 

bisects the area and there has until recently 

been an Air Force weather monitoring facility 

located there. The Air Force has discontinued 

use of the facility and it is hoped that the land 

and roadway easements will be transferred to 

the USFWS. However, the time line for any 

transfer is uncertain, in part due to the buildings 

on site and the evaluation of options for 

removal or renovation. 

If that transfer were to occur the options for 

capital investments and maintenance of Patrol 

Road would vary according to future 

administrative and public access requirements.

Following are some initial findings regarding 

possible roadway projects. 

• A preliminary review of potential 

circulation options should public access be 

restored found that most circulation options 

would not require transportation 

infrastructure projects of the types 

applicable to this study. Pedestrian access 

along Patrol Road does not require 

reconstructing the road, and reopening of 

native-surface walking trails, such as old 

Trail B, would also not require construction 

work. Accommodating bicycles on Patrol 

Road would require reconstruction of the 
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives 6-9 

roadway, but bicycle access in the nowclosed area is not necessary. The primary 

reason is that White Pond Road is preferred 

for bicycle travel over the closed section of 

Patrol Road. White Pond Road is level and 

provides access to a variety of habitats

whereas Patrol Road does not offer access 

to any new habitats and is hilly. One 

section, which has a grade of about 12%, 

would be extremely difficult and potentially 

unsafe for many bicyclists, particularly the 

families with small children that are an 

important part of current visitation.

• If the area was maintained for 

administrative use there are many options 

for using the roadways and they depend on 

the proposed administrative use. For 

example, there is a gravel pit off Patrol 

Road that can be accessed by retaining the 

southerly section of Patrol Road, or by 

upgrading old Trail B and accessing the 

area via White Pond Road instead of Patrol 

Road. Access to the Air Force parcel could 

be maintained from either or both direction 

on Patrol Road. In addition, it may be 

desirable to retain the northerly section of 

Patrol Road to provide access to the utility 

line paralleling the roadway or to provide 

access to a planned equipment/maintenance 

facility. In all cases it may be desirable to 

decommission part of the roadway either 

passively by installing barriers or actively 

by removing the pavement and restoring the 

landscape.
 Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT 

 

Candidate Alternatives 7-1

7 

Candidate 

Alternatives

The candidate alternatives remaining after the initial 

screening of the conceptual alternatives are 

summarized in Table 7.1. This chapter presents the 

conclusions of further evaluation of those 

alternatives. The evaluation of the alternatives 

includes preliminary cost estimates for 

implementation and ongoing operations; required 

coordination with municipalities and state agencies; 

and, as applicable, environmental issues. The 

findings contribute to the recommended 

transportation plan of prioritized projects presented 

in Chapter 8. 

7.1 External Access Projects 

The candidate alternatives related principally to 

external access to the refuge range from policy 

actions to large construction projects. 

Provide vehicular wayfinding signage to the 

refuge. The recommended wayfinding signage plan 

is described in a separate technical memorandum 

(see appendix). The wayfinding signs cover three 

categories – wayfinding access from local roads to 

the ARNWR Main Entrance on Hudson Road, 

wayfinding from regional highways to the ARNWR 

Main Entrance on Hudson Road, and signs for the 

refuge’s secondary entrance. 

There would be about 30 signs and the cost for 

materials and installation, including some police 

details, is estimated to be about $10,200. If some of 

the signs were installed by refuge staff the cost 

would be lower. Ongoing maintenance costs would 

be limited to the occasional replacement of signs. 

The project requires coordination of efforts with the 

communities in which signs would be installed, i.e., 

Stow, Maynard, Sudbury, and Hudson. 

Improve visibility of the Hudson Road 

crosswalk. This project to trim vegetation at the 

crosswalk near the entrance driveway and to use an 

in-street pedestrian crossing sign at 

the crosswalk. The in-street 

pedestrian crossing sign would be 

similar to that used by the Town of 

Sudbury at crosswalks farther east on 

Hudson Road near Haskell Field The 

project needs to be coordinated with 

the Town of Sudbury as the road is 

owned by the town. The cost of a pedestrian 

crossing sign is about $300 and annual replacement 

of the sign due to damage by vehicles should be 

expected. 
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Candidate Alternatives 7-2

Encourage use of state forest parking on 

Sudbury Road to access the refuge. The trail 

connection to the refuge can be highlighted on park 

mapping and parking information. Although no 

improvements would need to be made to the 

parking area, a few small directional signs would be 

needed at the parking lot and along the trail 

connection through the state forest. The project 

would need to be coordinated with the owner of the 

land, the Massachusetts Department of 

Conservation and Recreation. Most significantly, 

the trail and parking lot would need to be 

maintained. As with routine trail maintenance 

within the refuge, volunteers could be used for the 

project. Accordingly, both the implementation cost 

and annual cost are estimated to be less than $500. 

Expand parking lot at the Main Entrance. As 

shown in Figure 7.1, this project expands the 

existing parking area by 10 parking spaces by 

adding a second row of parking. The proposed 

location of the new parking spaces was landscaped 

as part of the original parking lot construction; 

however, the plantings have been destroyed by 

unsanctioned parking in that area when the existing 

parking spaces are full. 

The project is located entirely on refuge lands. The 

project would use permeable pavement, as was 

done for the existing parking spaces. Design and 

construction costs are estimated to be $31,000. 

Annual maintenance costs for the new parking are

estimated to be $500. The project is not in a 

floodplain and does not affect wetland areas. The 

project would increase the amount of paved area by 

less than 25 square yards. 

Support rail trail connections. The three rail trail 

projects and their relationship to enhancing access 

to the refuge are as follows.

1. Assabet River Rail Trail. A section of Assabet 

River Rail Trail (ARRT) runs along the 

northwest boundary of the refuge. A one-mile 

section between the refuge’s North Entrance 

and downtown Maynard is currently unpaved 

but is maintained and is actively used by 

bicyclists and walkers. The final design of that 

section and the design of its extension farther 

north through Maynard and into Acton is 

underway. This Maynard section of rail trail 

travels through the highest density of 

populations near the refuge and provides the 

best connectivity to the refuge of the three rail 

trails.

There is an existing, paved segment of the 

ARRT in place between Hudson and 

Marlborough. The trailhead in Hudson is about 

five miles from the refuge’s North Entrance and 

four miles from the Main Entrance. 

Connectivity to the North Entrance is unlikely 

since a segment of the old rail line between the 

Hudson trailhead and the refuge’s North 

Entrance is privately owned, but connectivity to 

the Main Entrance via the Central Mass Rail 

Trail alignment may be possible in the long 

term.

2. Central Mass Rail Trail. The proposed 

Central Mass Rail Trail is promising for its 

connectivity with Sudbury neighborhoods to the 

southeast of the refuge, and to the trailhead for 

the Hudson section of the Assabet River Rail 

Trail. The segments of Central Mass Rail Trail 

alignment near the refuge are controlled by the 

Massachusetts Department of Conservation and 

Recreation. Initial environmental permitting 

investigations of the rail trail has recently 

begun; however, there are no funding 
Candidate Alternatives Table 7.1: Candidate Alternatives 

Description Transportation Issues and Challenges Benefits of Implementation PaProvide wayfinding signage to refuge 

Install directional signs on area roadways

There has never been any wayfinding signage external to the refuge. 

Provide better guidance for first-time visitors. More awareness 

of the refuge for other drivers. 

SuMa

Improve visibility of the Hudson Road crosswalk 

Trim vegetation and use in-street pedestrian sign

Drivers’ view of pedestrians is limited. Provide a safer environment for pedestrians. Su

Encourage use of state forest parking on Sudbury Road to access the refuge 

Mark trail connection to Patrol Road/White Pond Road intersection. Note parking on refuge maps. 

There is limited parking within refuge. Quick access to the interior of refuge. Lessens need to 

construct parking. 

DC

Expand parking lot at Main Entrance 

Add second row of parking spaces 

Popular parking area sometimes fills to capacity. Additional parking capacity (10 spaces) in busy area of refuge. Su

Support rail trail connections – Assabet River Rail Trail 

Advocate for construction of ARRT in Maynard and Acton. Market access via existing (unpaved) sections. 

Multimodal access to refuge Facilitates non-motorized access. Connectivity with downtown 

Maynard and South Acton. 

AcAR

Support rail trail connections – Central Mass Rail Trail 

Advocate for planning, design and construction of CMRT in Sudbury 

Multimodal access to refuge Facilitates non-motorized access. Connectivity with Sudbury 

neighborhoods to east. Link to ARRT trail head parking in Hudson. 

SuCM

Support rail trail connections – Bruce Freeman Rail Trail 

Advocate for planning, design and construction of BFRT in Sudbury and Framingham 

Multimodal access to refuge Facilitates non-motorized access. Connectivity with Central 

Mass Rail Trail. 

SuBF

Modify signage at Main Entrance gate 

Replace existing signs. Install new ARNWR sign. 

Visitor Center not readily apparent to first-time visitors. Visitors unsure of when gate closes. 

Reduces visitor confusion at gate. Better awareness of Visitor Center and trail opportunities. 

 

Provide advance entrance signs on Hudson Road 

Install ARNWR sign at entrance and advance signs on both approaches 

Entrance driveway is not readily visible, particularly at night. Safety concerns for drivers turning into refuge. 

Improved safety at entrance. Fewer sudden turns by vehicles entering refuge. Reflective signs make it easier to see entrance at night. 

Su

Move entrance driveway at Hudson road to the east 

Construct new driveway and sidewalk path where path is currently. Remove existing driveway pavement. 

Safety concerns for drivers turning into refuge. Improved sight distance for drivers eastbound along Hudson 

Road and for drivers exiting refuge. 

Su

Create eastbound left-turn land pocket at entrance road driveway 

Widen Hudson Road and create turn lane 

Safety concerns for drivers turning into refuge. Allows through traffic on Hudson Road to bypass vehicles 

turning into refuge. 

SuDF

Reconstruct North Entrance access road 

Complete reconstruction and widening of road from entrance to 

parking area (1,000′) 

Road surface not maintained since before refuge established and is in “failed” condition. Road provides only access to newly constructed parking area. 

Improved access to parking area. Better accommodation of 

bicyclists, walkers, and vehicles. 

Su

Reconstruction of Roads and Ways – Patrol Road 

Reconstruct 0.8 miles of paved road at reduced width 

Surfaces of roads and ways not maintained since before refuge was established. 

Maintains usability for bicyclists. Maintains vehicle access to Air Force parcel. 

Sto

Reconstruction of Roads and Ways – White Pond Road 

Recontruct1.7-mile paved road 

Surfaces of roads and ways not maintained since before refuge was established. 

Maintains usability for bicyclists. Sto

DCR = Massachusetts Department of Conservation & Recreation DFS = Massachusetts Department of Fire Services
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Candidate Alternatives 7-4

Table 7.1: Candidate Alternatives (continued) 

Description Transportation Issues and Challenges Benefits of Implementation Partners Implementation Cost Annual O&M Cost

Reconstruction of Roads and Ways – Harry’s Way

Reconstruct paved (0.4 mile) and gravel (1.5 mile) segments 

separately

Surfaces of roads and ways not maintained since 

before refuge was established.

Maintains usability for bicyclists. Stow, Maynard, Sudbury $580,000 $35,000

Reconstruction of Roads and Ways – Taylor Way

Reconstruct 1.8-mile gravel road

Surfaces of roads and ways not maintained since 

before refuge was established.

Maintains usability for bicyclists. Maynard $480,000 $38,000

Install electric vehicle charging station at Visitor Center

Charging station for visitor vehicles

Encourages visitation, provides educational opportunity, and is 

consistent with USFWS goals to reduce carbon footprint.

Maynard $11,6000 Negligible

Vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian count system

Software and 10 portable counters

There are no data for utilization of trails and parking. 

Visitation is recorded only at Visitor Center, which is 

open 4 days per week.

Provides information on magnitude and pattern of use for 

trails, parking, and roads. Provides more accurate count of 

visitation.

$6,000 $200

Electronic kiosk at Visitor Center

Install i-Sportsman system

Lack of data about visitation and visitor experiences. Provides visitors information when Visitor Center is closed, 

collects information about visitor characteristics, and helps 

manage hunting activities.

$15,000 - $40,000 $1,500

Kiosk at the northern end of Winterberry Way

Construct standard information kiosk

Location of trail crossings, and arrival location for

many first-time visitors.

Provides visitor information at key location. $2,000 $100

Maintenance of Sandbank trail canoe launch

Install block mat system

Erosion is an ongoing maintenance issue. Maintenance issue eliminated. Sudbury $15,000 Negligible

Accessible canoe launch at Barron Fishing Access Site

Add dock and EZ Launch system to existing fishing dock

Existing canoe launch is not handicap accessible . Expands the refuge experience for visitors who are mobility 

impaired.

Maynard $31,000 $100

Improve handicap accessibility along Carbary’s Trail

Construct 10’ wide permeable concrete path

No accessible route to Barren Fishing Access Site. Expands the refuge experience for visitors who are mobility 

impaired.

Maynard $85,000 $600

Improve handicap accessibility along Puffer Pond Trail

Construct 6’ wide permeable concrete path

Limited accessible routes in refuge near water. Expands the refuge experience for visitors who are mobility 

impaired.

Maynard, Sudbury $150,000 $1,100

Procure electric shuttle vehicle

Purchase multi-passenger, accessible electric vehicle for on-refuge 

use

There is no mobility assistance service available at 

refuge. Options for transporting school groups to 

learning sites within refuge is limited.

Provides option for mobility assistance. Enhances opportunities 

for educational outreach to school groups. 

$32,000 $500
N

0 20 40 Feet

ASSABET RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

transportation study

Figure 7.1

Additional Parking at Main Entrance

Add 10 Parking Spaces

• Permeable Pavement

Existing

PATROL ROAD

Parking

WINTERBERRY WAY
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Candidate Alternatives 7-6

commitments for construction at this time and 

any substantial use of the rail trail for accessing 

the refuge should be considered a long-term 

potential. It is important to note that the Central 

Mass Rail Trail is located along the south 

boundary of the refuge’s south parcel and 

bicycling is not a permitted use in the south 

tract. To provide access for bicyclists to the 

Visitor Center in the north tract, 

accommodation for bicyclists in the south tract 

would need to be considered. 

3. Bruce Freeman Rail Trail. The Bruce 

Freeman Rail Trail is proposed to follow a 

25-mile north-south route from Lowell to 

Framingham. The northerly section has been 

constructed and the southerly section is under 

design. The remaining section, through 

Sudbury, continues to be advocated for by the 

Friends of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail and 

others, but right-of-way acquisition is 

incomplete and no design work is underway. 

Unlike the other two rail trails, the Bruce 

Freeman Rail Trail would not be adjacent to the 

refuge. Should the Sudbury segment be 

constructed, the closest it will be to the refuge 

is about 3.5 miles via streets with no dedicated 

bicycle lanes. Nonetheless, the Bruce Freeman 

Rail Trail does connect with the Central Mass 

Rail Trail and would thus provide additional 

connectivity to the refuge for bicyclists.

Advocacy for the advancement of the planning and 

design of the Assabet River Rail Trail, the Central 

Mass Rail Trail, and the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail 

is generally supported by the public, refuge 

partners, and refuge staff as a means of connecting 

to nearby neighborhoods and encouraging nonmotorized access to the refuge. They have no 

physical impact on the refuge and no direct 

operational costs.

Some marketing opportunities exist today with the 

Assabet River Rail Trail connections and more will 

exist once the rail trail projects are fully realized. 

Brochures for the refuge can be provided at rail trail 

kiosks, and access to the refuge from the rail trails 

can be highlighted in the refuge’s informational 

materials.

Modify signage at Main Entrance gate. 

Recommendations to address signage issues at the 

Main Entrance gate are detailed in a separate 

technical memorandum (see appendix). The 

primary purpose of the signs is to reduce the 

uncertainty by first-time visitors as to whether they 

should proceed through the gate on Winterberry 

Way or park in the adjacent parking lot. The cost of 

the project is estimated to be $4,800 with nominal 

costs for annual operations and maintenance. All of 

the work would be on USFWS property and no 

coordination with other agencies would be required. 

Provide advance entrance signage on Hudson 

Road. This is one of three options to address safety 

concerns at the refuge’s Main Entrance related to 

through-traffic drivers on Hudson Road being 

unprepared for vehicles slowing to turn left into the 

refuge. The project consists of an entrance sign 

where Winterberry Way meets Hudson Road, and 

advance signs (e.g., ASSABET RIVER WILDLIFE 

REFUGE, NEXT LEFT) on both approaches. 

Details of the sign recommendations are provided 

in the memorandum that also discusses 

recommendations for signs at the Main Entrance 

gate. The cost for designing, manufacturing, and 

installing the reflective signs is estimated to be 

$2,000. The project would involve working with the 

Town of Stow and the Town of Sudbury since the 

signs would be in public rights of way. 
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Candidate Alternatives 7-7

Move the entrance driveway at Hudson Road to 

the east. This second option for addressing safety 

concerns at the main Entrance is illustrated by 

Figure 7.2. The project would relocate the refuge 

entrance road about 300 feet to the east onto what is 

currently state forest property, to where the 

crosswalk on Hudson Road is at present. The new 

alignment would be along the old rail track corridor 

now used for the sidewalk path from Hudson Road. 

A new sidewalk path of pervious pavement would 

be constructed and the crosswalk relocated. The 

pavement for the old driveway section would be 

removed and the area revegetated.

The land for the new entrance road would have to 

be obtained from the Massachusetts Department of 

Conservation and Recreation, subject to approval 

by the state legislature as well as the agencies 

involved. The project would also involve the Town 

of Sudbury as the project covers a section of the 

Hudson Road right of way. 

The project would affect up to 0.6 acres of acres of 

upland forest during construction, although once 

construction is complete the net additional paved 

area would only be about 500 square yards. The 

project would require coordination to maintain 

access for walkers/bicyclists and vehicles during 

construction. The cost of the project is estimated to 

be about $270,000. The costs for maintaining the 

new driveway and path would not be significantly 

different than are the costs for the existing driveway 

and sidewalk path. 

Create an eastbound left-turn lane pocket at the 

Hudson Road entrance driveway. This project 

provides a third option for addressing safety 

concerns at the Main Entrance at Hudson Road. As 

shown by Figure 7.3, a left-turn lane could be 

constructed by widening Hudson Road for about 

650 feet to account for the storage area and taper for 

the lane. 

A topographical survey is required to be certain, but 

it is unlikely that the widening could be 

accommodated entirely within the existing Hudson 

Road right of way. The project would thus involve 

some minor land taking from either the Department 

of Fire Services land on the north side of the road or 

the state forest land on the south side of the road. 

The project would not be in a floodplain and is not 

anticipated to have any impacts on wetlands 

although there are some wetland areas south of the 

road that would have to be marked and protected 

during construction. 

The project would require traffic management to 

maintain traffic flow along Hudson Road during 

construction. The total project cost is estimated to 

be $155,000. There would be no ongoing 

maintenance cost for the refuge since the road is 

owned by the Town of Sudbury. The timeframe for 

the project would be long range, not because of the 

time for planning and construction, but because of 

the need to meet volume-based justification criteria. 

MassDOT standards for left-turn lanes are generally 

based on the volume of turning vehicles and the 

volume of opposing traffic flow and current traffic 

volumes are not high enough to meet those 

warrants.11

This project is an alternative to moving the entrance 

road to the east. Because constructing a left-turn 

lane accomplishes the same objective as moving the 

entrance, but is less costly and does not requires as 

extensive a land acquisition process, this project is 

the preferred of those two options. 

11 See Technical Memorandum #3 for analysis of volume-based warrants.
N

0 50 100 Feet

ASSABET RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

transportation study

Figure 7.2

Relocate Entrance Road

Existing

Parking

Remove

Existing

Driveway

New 24 ́

Entrance Road

Relocate/Realign

5 ́ Path

Connect with

Existing Road

Relocate

Crosswalk

WINTERBERRY WAY

HUDSON ROAD

PATROL ROAD
N

0 50 100 Feet

ASSABET RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

transportation study

Figure 7.3

Left-turn Lane at Main Entrance

Widen Road to add

10 ́ Left-turn Pocket

WINTERBERRY WAY

HUDSON ROAD

PATROL ROAD

650 ́
 Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT 

 

 

Candidate Alternatives 7-10

7.2 Internal Infrastructure Projects 

There are 11 internal infrastructure projects, 

ranging from installing a standard informational 

kiosk, to reconstruction of miles of trails for bicycle 

and pedestrian use. 

Reconstruct the North Entrance access road 

(White Pond Road). The recent project to 

construct a new parking lot at the North Entrance 

did not include replacing the 1,000-foot long 

roadway leading to the parking lot. The roadway is 

in extremely poor condition and the project would 

completely reconstruct the road. The existing paved 

roadway surface is about 14-feet wide. As shown in 

Figure 7.4, the road would be widened to 18 feet to 

better accommodate the mix of vehicle traffic to the 

parking lot and those entering the refuge on foot or 

by bicycle. The widening would increase the paved 

area by about 450 square yards. 

The roadway is along the Maynard/Stow town line 

and is close to the Assabet River. The project is 

estimated to cost $235,000. Average annual costs 

for maintenance are estimated to be about $4,000, 

to account for routine preventive maintenance such 

as crack filling. 

Reconstruction of Roads and Ways – Patrol 

Road. The section of Patrol Road between 

Winterberry Way and White Pond Road is used by 

bicyclists and walkers and also provides primary 

vehicle access to the Air Force parcel in the section 

of the refuge closed to the public. This project 

would reconstruct the 0.8-mile segment by adding 

an overlay to the existing pavement. The roadway is 

currently 18′ wide but the project would pave only 

12′ of width and use the remainder of the existing 

roadway as a shoulder. The roadway would still be 

able to accommodate the occasional use of the road 

by administrative vehicles that now occurs.

All of the work is within the existing roadway area, 

but parts of the road are adjacent to wetland areas 

and it is likely that some culvert work would also be 

required. Most of this stretch of Patrol Road is 

located in Stow, with a short segment at the 

southeasterly end located in Sudbury. The estimated 

cost of the project is $280,000. Average annual 

costs for operations and maintenance are about 

$11,000. 

Reconstruction of Roads and Ways - White Pond 

Road. White Pond Road is used by bicyclists and 

walkers. It is a paved road that is nominally 12′

wide but the footprint of the original road was 

wider and additional pavement exists under a thin 

cover of soil and plant materials. The conditions of 

the pavement vary along the length of the 1.7-mile 

road. The northerly mile of pavement was 

designated as “failed” by the FHWA during the 

2010 road inventory and the rest of the pavement 

was designated as “poor”. 

The entirety of White Pond Road is located in Stow. 

Much of the road abuts wetlands and is in 

floodplain areas. The paving work would remain 

within the existing 12′ road width, but the project is 

likely to include work on several culverts. The 

project cost is estimated to be $670,000. This 

assumes a full depth construction of the “failed” 

section and milling and overlay of the “poor” 

section. Average annual maintenance costs are 

estimated to be $20,000. 

Reconstruction of Roads and Ways – Harry’s 

Way. Harry’s Way is used by bicyclists and 

walkers. It is 1.9 miles long, of which 1.5 miles is 

gravel and 0.4 miles is paved. The paved section 

runs from the Visitor Center to some of the 

ammunition bunkers. The project would extend the 

paved section about a quarter-mile to Kingfisher 

Trail and would maintain the remainder of Harry’s 

Way as a gravel surface. 
N

0 50 100 Feet

ASSABET RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

transportation study

Figure 7.4

Reconstruct North Entrance Access Road

Reconstruct Roadway 

at 18 ́ width

Existing (New)

Parking Lot

PATROL ROAD

WHITE POND ROAD

TAYLOR WAY

HARRY’S WAY

ASSABET RAIL TRAIL
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Candidate Alternatives 7-12

Most of Harry’s Way is located in Maynard. Small 

sections at the north and south ends are located in 

Stow and Sudbury, respectively. There are two 

stream crossings along the gravel section and other 

parts of the gravel section abut wetland areas. The 

project is estimated to cost $580,000. Average 

annual maintenance costs are estimated to be 

$35,000, most of which is for the maintenance of 

the gravel section.

Reconstruction of Roads and Ways – Taylor 

Way. Taylor Way is entirely graveled and wholly 

located in Maynard. There are two stream crossings 

and a section passes through a large wetland area. 

The project would reconstruct the gravel surface for 

the entire 1.8-mile length. The project cost is 

estimated to be $480,000, with annual maintenance 

costs averaging $38,000. 

Install an electric vehicle charging station at the 

Visitor Center. A charging station at ARNWR is 

likely to be well used due to the demographics of 

the gateway communities. The cost for installing a 

charging station is estimated to be $11,600 and 

there would be negligible operating costs if a fee 

were assessed for use of the charging station. The 

Visitor Center is located in the Town of Maynard 

and partnership opportunities may become available 

since the town is part of the state’s Green 

Communities program. 

Vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrians count system. 

The data collection system for the refuge need not 

be overly complex to operate and maintain. Nor 

does the system need to provide real-time data. The 

Trafx vehicle and trail counter system used at some 

other refuges is a flexible data-logging system using 

small, battery operated counters and on-line 

software. The same counter can be used to count 

vehicles or bicycles, and adding an infrared sensor 

allows them to be used to count trail use. The 

vehicle/bike counters are designed to be buried 

along or in a road, and the counters can quickly be 

repositioned as necessary. Battery life is 

approximately one year and the counters have can 

store a year’s worth of hourly counts. 

The cost for the basic package of software and three 

counters is $2,300. Additional counters are $525. A 

system of 10 counters would cost about $6,000. The 

annually operating cost, primarily for the software 

subscription, is about $200.

Install electronic kiosk at Visitor Center. Park

management systems such as i-Sportsman are webbased and provide options for kiosk or smart phone 

use by visitors. The systems can provide visitors 

with updated information about the refuge, print 

maps or informational flyers, collect polling data 

about visitor activities, and manage the issuance of 

permits and revenue collection. The cost of the 

systems depend on the customization of the services 

desired. The implementation costs can range from 

$15,000 to $40,000, and annual costs for software 

updates and modification are estimated to be about 

$1,500. 

Install kiosk at the northern end of Winterberry 

Way. Kiosks are located at the parking lots near the 

three vehicle entrances to the refuge, but some 

visitors travel directly to the terminus of the public 

vehicle access (paved) section of Winterberry Way, 

especially when the Visitor Center is closed. The 

cost to install a standard kiosk is estimated to be 

about $2,000 and would be less if done by 

volunteers. 

Maintenance of Sandbank Trail canoe launch. 

The path leading from Sandbank Trail down to the 

water’s edge is relatively steep and erosion along 

the path and at the shoreline is a maintenance issue. 

One option would be to install along the path a 

layer of crushed gravel and several water bars. 

However, the shoreline erosion is more effectively 
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Candidate Alternatives 7-13

addressed by using an articulating concrete block 

mat system. The project would involve coordination 

with the Town of Sudbury. The cost for the project 

is estimated to be upwards of $15,000. Annual 

maintenance costs would be negligible.

Add accessible canoe launch at Barron Fishing 

Access Site. The figure below depicts the addition 

of an accessible canoe launch to the existing fishing 

pier. A system such as the prefabricated EZ-Launch 

would be used. The accessible transfer system 

includes a sliding bench, grab bars, and a roller 

system to launch and land the canoe. The work 

involves relocating one of the existing piers and 

installing a new one. The project would involve 

coordination with the Town of Maynard. 

The cost for the dock work and canoe launch 

system is estimated to be about $31,000. If the 

project were to be implemented Carbary’s Trail 

would need to be made accessible (see Figure 7.5). 

As noted in the section that follows, the cost to 

make Carbary’s Trail handicap accessible is 

approximately $85,000. 

Example of accessible EZ-Launch system
N

0 50 100 Feet

ASSABET RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

transportation study

Figure 7.5

Accessible Canoe Launch

Construct Accessible 

Path along

Existing Alignment

Accessible Canoe 

Launch added to

Fishing Dock

WINTERBERRY WAY

CARBARY’S TRAIL
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Candidate Alternatives 7-15

7.3 Internal Circulation and Mobility

Projects

The alternatives addressing internal circulation and 

mobility focus on enhancements for those who are 

mobility impaired.

Improve handicapped accessibility along

Carbary’s Trail. Carbary’s Trail is a 500′ long, 

native-surface trail leading from the parking area at 

the terminus of Winterberry Way to the Barron 

Fishing Access Site. Although the fishing pier is 

handicap accessible, the trail is not fully accessible. 

The project would create a 10′-wide permeable 

concrete path. The path would be permeable 

concrete rather than stabilized gravel or stone dust 

in order to minimize future maintenance issues and 

costs. 

The new path would use the entirety of the existing 

10′ trail width, rather than a minimum 6′ width, to 

allow for occasional use by vehicles if so desired. 

Because of the proximity of the path to the 

Winterberry Way parking area, a gate would be 

needed to prevent unauthorized access by motor 

vehicles and bicycles. Carbary’s Trail is located in 

Maynard and is near Puffer’s Pond. The project cost 

is estimated to be $85,000. The annual maintenance 

cost is estimated to average $600. 

Improve handicapped accessibility along Puffer 

Pond Trail. Making both Carbary’s Trail and 

Puffer Pond Trail handicapped accessible creates an 

accessible trail along the water, something not now 

available in the refuge. The project would construct 

the accessible path along the section of Puffer Pond 

Trail to the south of Carbary’s Way. The northerly 

section of Puffer Pond Trail would not be part of 

the project. 

The project for Puffer Pond Trail would be similar 

to the Carbary’s Trail project in that it would use 

permeable concrete, but the path would be only 6′ 

wide since it will be used by pedestrians only. The 

1,600′ length of Puffer Pond Trail that would be 

part of the project is located partly in Maynard and 

partly in Sudbury. The project is estimated to cost 

$150,000, with annual maintenance costs averaging 

about $1,100. 

Procure electric shuttle vehicle. The stakeholder 

process identified that priority uses of a shuttle 

would be for expanding access to sites in the refuge 

for visitors who have mobility impairments, 

transporting school groups to learning sites within 

the refuge, and providing tours for other groups 

rather than as a scheduled circulator or daily visitor 

tours. The preferred vehicle option is an electric 

shuttle that carries fewer than 16 passengers (due to 

driver licensing requirements) and provides 

handicap accessibility. 

An example of such a vehicle is the Moto Electric 

Vehicle. It accommodates 13 passengers plus one 

wheelchair. The batteries provide 40 to 50 miles per 

charge and the range can be extended with an 

optional roof-mounted solar panel. Charging takes 

about 4 to 6 hours and uses standard outlets. Top 

speed is 25 mph and the shuttle can handle (while 

loaded) grades of 20 percent. 
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Candidate Alternatives 7-16

The shuttle is about the same size a large car and 

does not require any special licensing for the driver. 

The cost of the vehicle is about $32,000, including 

delivery and options such as seat belts, solar panel, 

and a roll down vinyl enclosure. Annual operating 

costs would be about $500, not including any costs 

for drivers.

Example of Moto Electric shuttle vehicle
N

0 70 140 Feet

ASSABET RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

transportation study

Figure 7.6

Make Puffer Pond Trail and Carbary’s Trail Handicap Accessible

Construct Accessible 

Path along

Existing Alignment

WINTERBERRY WAY

CARBARY’S TRAIL

PUFFER POND TRAIL
 Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT 

 

 

Transportation Improvement and Enhancement Plan 8-1

8 

Transportation 

Improvement and 

Enhancement Plan

The purpose of this study is to identify near-term 

and long-term transportation enhancements and 

improvements to improve access to, and mobility 

within, the Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge. 

This chapter presents the recommended menu of 

projects and highlights those of higher priority. The 

projects are summarized in Table 8.1 and Table 8.2. 

The location of the projects on the refuge are 

depicted on Figure 8.1. 

8.1 Near-term Opportunities 

Near-term opportunities are projects targeted to be 

implemented within five years. They do not require 

extensive planning, do not have significant physical 

impacts on the refuge habitats, and do not involve 

extensive partnership coordination. 

The highest priority projects include those that are 

safety-related, improve wayfinding, and the 

purchase of an electric shuttle vehicle. The cost for 

these projects totals $45,000. The most expensive 

of the projects is the shuttle vehicle ($32,000). The 

five highest priority projects are as follows. 

 Advance entrance signage on Hudson Road 

This project is an important initial step is 

addressing concerns about traffic safety at the 

Main Entrance. Reflective signs notifying 

drivers of the upcoming entrance turn would be 

installed on both approaches along Hudson 

Road, and a sign would be installed at the 

Winterberry Way driveway. 

 Improve visibility of Hudson Road crosswalk 

This project would make walkers and bicyclists 

more visible to drivers approaching on Hudson 

Road. Vegetation would be trimmed back and 

an in-street pedestrian sign purchased. 

 Vehicular wayfinding signage to the refuge 

There have never been any wayfinding signs 

directing drivers to the refuge. The project 

consists of some 30 signs providing wayfinding 

from local roads to the ARNWR Main Entrance 

and wayfinding from regional highways to the 

ARNWR Main Entrance as well as signs 

marking the refuge’s secondary entrances. 

 
 Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT 

 

 

Transportation Improvement and Enhancement Plan 8-2

 Procure electric shuttle vehicle 

The shuttle would be used to expand access to 

sites in the refuge for visitors who have 

mobility impairments, transport school groups 

to learning sites within the refuge, and provide 

tours for other groups. It could also be used as a 

parking shuttle during larger events. The 

preferred vehicle would not require special 

charging infrastructure and would have fewer 

than 16 seats so as to not require special driver 

licensing. 

 Encourage use of existing state forest 

parking 

Use of the parking lot by refuge visitors will 

provide them with quick access to the interior 

of the refuge. The priority for this project is that 

it may defer the need to construct additional 

parking near the Main Entrance gate. 

In addition to the priority projects, there are several 

projects that can be implemented at little or no cost. 

The following projects could be implemented for a 

combined cost of less than $6,000. 

 Support rail trail connections 

The refuge can take a more active role in 

advocating efforts to move the Assabet River 

Rail Trail, the Central Mass Rail Trail, and the 

Bruce Freeman Rail Trail through the state 

planning, design, and funding process. As the 

trails progress, the refuge can market how the 

trails provide access to the refuge.

 Kiosk at north end of Winterberry Way 

Installing a standard kiosk at the terminus of 

public vehicle access (paved) section of 

Winterberry Way will provide visitors with 

information about options for exploring the 

refuge from there. 

 Signage at Main Entrance gate 

Enhanced signage will reduce uncertainty by 

first-time visitors as to whether they should 

proceed through the gate on Winterberry Way 

or park in the adjacent parking lot. 

The remainder of the near-term projects are of 

somewhat higher cost and will have to be pursued 

opportunistically as funding permits. These projects 

are: 

 Additional parking at Main Entrance – 

Expand existing lot 

This project would double the amount of 

parking at the most popular parking area.

 Maintenance of Sandbank Trail canoe 

launch 

Installation of a block mat system would 

address ongoing erosion problems.

 Vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian traffic 

counters 

The use of portable counters will provide useful 

information not only on total visitation to the 

refuge, but also the utilization of specific trails, 

roads, and parking areas. 

 Electronic kiosk at Visitor Center 

This project will provide visitors information 

when the Visitor Center is closed, will collect 

information about visitor characteristics, and 

help manage hunting activities at the refuge. 

 Electric vehicle charging station 

This project relates well to the education 

mission of the refuge, the carbon-footprint 

reduction goals of the USFWS, and the 

socioeconomic characteristics of the adjacent 

communities.
Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge – 

TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT

Transportation Improvement and Enhancement Plan 8-3

8.2 Large-project Opportunities

There are many larger project opportunities that 

would benefit the ARNWR and its visitors, both 

current and future. These large-project opportunities 

involve substantial construction efforts, have high 

financial cost, and are therefore targeted for 

implementation long range, perhaps as long as 10 to 

20 years.

The highest priority among the large project is to 

reconstruct the North Entrance access road. This

project would improve access to the newly 

constructed parking lot serving that area of the 

refuge. The road is in extremely poor condition yet 

is well used by walkers, bicyclists, and drivers. The 

cost of this project is $235,000.

Improving handicap accessibility is a priority. 

Three projects, improving accessibility along 

Carbary’s Trail, improving accessibility along 

Puffer Pond Trail, and constructing an accessible 

canoe launch, are proposed. They have a total cost 

of $266,000. 

Projects to reconstruct White Pond Road, a section 

of Patrol Road, Harry’s Way, and Taylor Way are 

important but have a high cost. They are the 

principal trails in the refuge and are used by 

bicyclists and walkers. The road surfaces have not 

been maintained since before the refuge was 

established and paved surfaces have deteriorated 

and unpaved surfaces are rutted. The cost to 

reconstruct all of the principal roads and ways is 

about $2 million. The general priority for 

addressing the roads and ways is White Pond Road, 

then Patrol Road, followed by Harry’s Way and 

Taylor Way.

The final large-project opportunity is to widen 

Hudson Road and construct a left-turn lane at the 

Main Entrance driveway. This is one of several 

projects considered to address safety concerns 

related to sometimes high-speed through traffic 

drivers not anticipating the occasional vehicle 

slowing to turn into the refuge. It is the preferred 

choice among the construction options, but the 

project to install ARNWR signs along Hudson 

Road in advance of the driveway is the first step in 

addressing the safety concerns. 
Transportation Improvement and Enhancement Plan Table 8.1: Transportation Improvement and Enhancement Plan Projects: Near Term Opportunities 

Map ID Description Benefits of Implementation Partners Implem

1 Provide advance entrance signs on Hudson Road 

Install ARNWR sign at entrance and advance signs on road 

Improved safety at entrance. Fewer sudden turns by vehicles entering refuge. Reflective signs make it easier to see entrance at night. 

Sudbury, Stow 

2 Improve visibility of the Hudson Road crosswalk 

Trim vegetation and use in-street pedestrian sign

Provide a safer environment for pedestrians. Sudbury, DCR 

3 Provide wayfinding signage to refuge 

Install directional signs on area roadways

Provide better guidance for first-time visitors. More awareness of the refuge for other drivers. 

Sudbury, Stow, Hudson, Maynard 

4 Procure electric shuttle vehicle 

Purchase accessible electric vehicle for on-refuge use 

Provides option for mobility assistance. Enhances opportunities for educational outreach to school groups. 

 

5 Encourage use of state forest parking on Sudbury Road to access the refuge 

Mark trail connection to Patrol Road/White Pond Road intersection. Note parking on refuge maps. 

Quick access to the interior of refuge. Lessens need to 

construct parking. 

DCR 

6 Support rail trail connections – Assabet River Rail Trail 

Advocate for construction of ARRT in Maynard and Acton. Market access via existing (unpaved) sections. 

Facilitates non-motorized access. Connectivity with downtown Maynard and South Acton. 

Acton, Maynard, ARRT friends group 

7 Support rail trail connections – Central Mass Rail Trail 

Advocate for planning, design and construction of CMRT in Sudbury 

Facilitates non-motorized access. Connectivity with Sudbury neighborhoods to east. Link to ARRT trailhead parking in Hudson. 

Sudbury, Stow, Hudson, CMRT friends group 

8 Support rail trail connections – Bruce Freeman Rail Trail 

Advocate for planning, design and construction of BFRT in Sudbury and Framingham 

Facilitates non-motorized access. Connectivity with Central Mass Rail Trail. 

Sudbury, Framingham, BFRT friends group 

9 Kiosk at the northern end of Winterberry Way 

Construct standard information kiosk

Provides visitor information at key location. 

10 Modify signage at Main Entrance gate 

Replace existing signs. Install new ARNWR sign. 

Reduces visitor confusion at gate. Better awareness of Visitor Center and trail opportunities. 

 

11 Expand parking lot at Main Entrance 

Add second row of parking spaces 

Additional parking capacity (10 spaces) in busy area of refuge. 

Sudbury 

12 Maintenance of Sandbank trail canoe launch 

Install block mat system

Maintenance issue eliminated. Sudbury 

13 Vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian count system 

Software and 10 portable counters 

Provides information on magnitude and pattern of use for trails, parking, and roads. Provides more accurate count of visitation. 

 

14 Electronic kiosk at Visitor Center 

Install i-Sportsman system 

Provides visitors information when Visitor Center is closed, collects information about visitor characteristics, and helps manage hunting activities. 

 $15,

15 Install electric vehicle charging station at Visitor Center 

Charging station for visitor vehicles 

Encourages visitation, provides educational opportunity, and is consistent with USFWS goals to reduce carbon footprint. 

Maynard 

DCR = Massachusetts Department of Conservation & Recreation
Transportation Improvement and Enhancement Plan Table 8.2: Transportation Improvement and Enhancement Plan Projects: Large-project Opportunities 

Map ID Description Benefits of Implementation Partners Implem

16 Reconstruct North Entrance access road 

Complete reconstruction and widening of road from entrance to parking area (1,000′) 

Improved access to parking area. Better accommodation of bicyclists, walkers, and vehicles. 

Sudbury, Maynard 

17 Improve handicap accessibility along Carbary’s Trail 

Construct 10’ wide permeable concrete path 

Expands the refuge experience for visitors who are mobility impaired. 

Maynard 

18 Improve handicap accessibility along Puffer Pond Trail 

Construct 6’ wide permeable concrete path 

Expands the refuge experience for visitors who are mobility impaired. 

Maynard, Sudbury 

19 Accessible canoe launch at Barron Fishing Access Site 

Add dock and EZ Launch system to existing fishing dock 

Expands the refuge experience for visitors who are mobility impaired. 

Maynard 

20 Reconstruction of Roads and Ways – White Pond Road 

Reconstruct 1.7-mile paved road 

Maintains usability for bicyclists. Stow 

21 Reconstruction of Roads and Ways – Harry’s Way 

Reconstruct paved (0.4 mile) and gravel (1.5 mile) segments separately 

Maintains usability for bicyclists. Stow, Maynard, 

Sudbury 

22 Reconstruction of Roads and Ways – Patrol Road 

Reconstruct 0.8 miles of paved road at reduced width 

Maintains usability for bicyclists. Maintains vehicle access to Air Force parcel. 

Stow, Sudbury 

23 Reconstruction of Roads and Ways – Taylor Way 

Reconstruct 1.8-mile gravel road 

Maintains usability for bicyclists. Maynard 

24 Create eastbound left-turn land pocket at entrance road driveway 

Widen Hudson Road and create turn lane 

Allows through traffic on Hudson Road to bypass vehicles turning into refuge. 

Sudbury, DCR, DFS 

DCR = Massachusetts Department of Conservation & Recreation DFS = Massachusetts Department of Fire Services 
Fairbank Road

Hudson Road

Sudbury Road

Main Street

Old Marlboro Road

White Pond Road

Assabet River Rail Trail

(Central Massachusetts Rail Trail)

Moore Road

Duton Road

Towhee Trail

Petapawag Trail

Tri-town Trail

Otter Alley

Hill Trail

Pine Garden Trail

Powerline

Trail

Fisher Loop

Fisher Loop

Sweet Fern Trail

Mink Link

Puffer Pond Trail

Patrol Road

Pond White

Road

Harry's Way

Taylor Way

Puffer

Pond

Winterberry

Way

Winterberry

Way

Kingfisher Trail

62 62

117

27

27

117

STOW

HUDSON

MARLBOROUGH

SUDBURY

MAYNARD



N

0 1/4 1/2 Mile

Assabet River NWR

Trails (no bikes)

Roads and Ways (bikes allowed)

Town Boundary

Other Conservation Lands

Trails

Rail Trails

Active, Unpaved

Planned

6

23 16

21 20

5

22

11 10

1 2

24

15

14

12

18

17

9

7

8

19

ASSABET RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

transportation study

Figure 8.1

Project Locations

U.S.

Air Force

Department of 

Fire Services

North

Entrance ntrance

East

Entrance ntrance

Main

Entrance ntrance

FEMA

Area

Closed

to Public o Public


Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

www.vhb.com