Oxbow NWR Final CCP - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Oxbow National 

Wildlife Refuge 

Final Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 

January 2005

This goose, designed by J.N. “Ding” 

Darling, has become the symbol of 

the National Wildlife Refuge 

System 

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

protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife in their habitats for the continuing benefit of 

the American people. The Service manages the 96-million acre National Wildlife Refuge 

System comprised of 544 national wildlife refuges and thousands of waterfowl production 

areas. It also operates 65 national fish hatcheries and 78 ecological services field stations. 

The agency enforces federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores 

significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers 

the Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign governments with their conservation 

efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program which distributes hundreds of millions 

of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state wildlife agencies. 

Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long term guidance for management 

decisions; set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes; 

and, identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program 

planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as 

such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. 

The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and 

maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition. 

Cover photo: Northern Flickers © Bruce Flaig

Table of Contents 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regional Wetlands Concept Plan- Emergency Wetlands Resources Act................... - 9 - 

Our Irreplaceable Heritage - Protecting Biodiversity in Massachusetts, 1998 ....... - 10 - 

Existing Partnerships....................................................................................................... - 10 - 

Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process....................................... - 11 - 

Wilderness Assessment ........................................................................................................ - 12 - 

Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities .................................................................................. - 13 - 

Issues and Concerns Considered Outside the Scope of This Plan ................................. - 14 - 

Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions ..................................................................... - 17 - 

Socioeconomic Setting........................................................................................................... - 17 - 

Refuge Resources.................................................................................................................. - 18 - 

Climate ................................................................................................................................ - 18 - 

Geology and Topography.................................................................................................. - 18 - 

Soils...................................................................................................................................... - 19 - 

Hydrology ........................................................................................................................... - 20 - 

Groundwater Resources ................................................................................................... - 21 - 

Floodplains ......................................................................................................................... - 22 - 

Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... - 22 - 

Water Quality and Quantity............................................................................................. - 23 - 

Biological Resources ............................................................................................................. - 25 - 

Vegetation and Habitat Types......................................................................................... - 25 - 

Invasive or Overabundant Species.................................................................................. - 30 - 

Wildlife Resources................................................................................................................. - 31 - 

Migratory Birds................................................................................................................. - 31 - 

Mammals............................................................................................................................. - 32 - 

Reptiles and Amphibians.................................................................................................. - 32 - 

Fish ...................................................................................................................................... - 33 - 

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

Threatened and Endangered Species................................................................................. - 34 - 

Rare Vertebrate Species .................................................................................................. - 34 - 

Rare Plant Species ............................................................................................................ - 35 - 

Special Designations ............................................................................................................. - 37 - 

Cultural Resources................................................................................................................ - 38 - 

Prehistoric Period.............................................................................................................. - 38 - 

Historic Period................................................................................................................... - 41 - 

Socio-economic Resources.................................................................................................... - 48 - 

Chapter 4: Management Direction.......................................................................................... - 51 - 

Complex Vision ...................................................................................................................... - 51 -

Complex Goals........................................................................................................................ - 51 - 

General Refuge Management .............................................................................................. - 66 - 

Refuge Access and Fees ................................................................................................... - 66 - 

Accessibility........................................................................................................................ - 67 - 

Non-Wildlife Dependent Public Uses............................................................................. - 68 - 

Fire Management .............................................................................................................. - 68 - 

Land Protection ................................................................................................................. - 69 - 

Resource Protection and Visitor Safety......................................................................... - 70 - 

Special Use Permits and Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement ............ - 70 - 

Research ............................................................................................................................. - 71 - 

Chapter 5: Refuge Administration.......................................................................................... - 73 - 

Refuge Staffing ...................................................................................................................... - 73 - 

Refuge Funding ..................................................................................................................... - 73 - 

Refuge Buildings and Facilities........................................................................................... - 74 - 

Step-Down Management Plans ........................................................................................... - 75 - 

Maintaining Existing Facilities ........................................................................................... - 75 - 

Compatibility Determinations ............................................................................................. - 76 - 

Monitoring and Evaluation .................................................................................................. - 77 - 

Adaptive Management.......................................................................................................... - 78 - 

Additional NEPA Analysis................................................................................................... - 78 - 

Plan Amendment and Revision............................................................................................ - 79 - 

Literature Cited......................................................................................................................... - 80 - 

Glossary....................................................................................................................................... - 86 - 

List of Preparers........................................................................................................................ - 96 - 

Appendices.................................................................................................................................. - 98 - 

Appendix A: Relevant Laws................................................................................................... - 100 - 

Appendix B: U.S. Forest Service Content Analysis Team Summary Report ................ - 163 - 

Appendix C: Responses to Substantive Comments............................................................ - 161 - 

Appendix D: Species Lists...................................................................................................... - 175 - 

Appendix E: RONS and MMS............................................................................................... - 203 - 

Appendix F: Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Staffing Chart- 207 - 

Appendix G: Final Compatibility Determinations .............................................................. - 211 - 

Appendix H: Draft Water Quality Report .......................................................................... - 242 - 

List of Tables 

Table 1-1: NAWMP Species Occurring at Oxbow NWR ..................................................- 6 - 

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

Table 3-1: Revenue Sharing Payments for Towns Associated with Oxbow NWR......- 17 - 

Table 3-2: Oxbow Pond Vegetation Communities............................................................- 29 - 

Table 4-1: 2004 Massachusetts Hunting Seasons.............................................................- 63 - 

Table D-1: Birds at Oxbow NWR ......................................................................................- 175 - 

Table D-2: Mammals at Oxbow NWR...............................................................................- 176 - 

Table D-3: Reptiles at Great Meadows NWR..................................................................- 178 - 

Table D-4: Amphibians at Oxbow NWR...........................................................................- 178 - 

Table D-5: Moths at Oxbow NWR.....................................................................................- 179 - 

Table D-6: Butterflies at Oxbow NWR.............................................................................- 186 - 

Table D-7: Dragonflies and Damselflies at Oxbow NWR ..............................................- 187 -

Table D-8: Insects at Oxbow NWR ...................................................................................- 188 - 

Table D-9: Freshwater Mollusks at Oxbow NWR .........................................................- 189 - 

Table D-10: Vascular Plants at Oxbow NWR ....................................................................- 189 - 

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

included for Oxbow NWR...............................................................................................- 203 - 

Table E-2: Projects currently backlogged in the MMS for Oxbow NWR...................- 205 - 

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

Refuge Complex...............................................................................................................- 205 - 

List of Figures 

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

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

Map 3-1: Forest and Land Cover Types (Area 1A Fort Devens).......................................- 26 - 

Map 3-2: Forest and Land Cover Types (Area 1 Fort Devens)..........................................- 26 - 

Map 3-3: Forest and Land Cover Types (Areas 2, 3, and Airfield Fort Devens).............- 27 - 

Map 4-1: Public Use at Oxbow NWR......................................................................................- 58 - 

Map 4-2: Current and Future Hunting Areas on Oxbow NWR .........................................- 61 -

Oxbow NWR: USFWS photo 

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 


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

the Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), which is one of eight refuges 

of the Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex (Complex) (see Map 1-1). 

Concurrently, we are releasing the Final CCPs for Great Meadows 

(Concord and Sudbury Divisions), and Assabet River NWRs. 

We will prepare a separate CCP and Environmental Impact Statement 

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

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

and Nantucket and Mashpee NWRs in 2006. 

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

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

partners were held to identify and evaluate management alternatives. A 

draft CCP and Environmental Assessment (CCP/EA) was distributed in 

July 2003. This CCP presents the management goals, objectives, and 

strategies that we believe will best achieve our vision for the refuge, 

contribute to the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) 

Mission, achieve refuge purposes and legal mandates, and serve the 

American public. 

Refuge Overview 

The refuge is located in north-central Massachusetts, approximately 35 

miles northwest of Boston, MA. The refuge lies within the towns of Ayer 

and Shirley in Middlesex County and the towns of Harvard and Lancaster 

in Worcester County. The refuge consists of approximately 1,667 acres of 

upland, southern New England floodplain forest and wetland communities 

along nearly 8 miles of the Nashua River corridor. 

The refuge is a long, narrow parcel with a north/south orientation. 

Roadways running east/west divide the parcel into three sections. 

The northern end of the refuge abuts the former Fort Devens, 

Moore Army Airfield just south of Massachusetts Route 2A. Shirley 

Road/West Main Street in Ayer separates the northern and middle 

portions of the refuge. Massachusetts Route 2 bisects the middle 

and southern parcels. The refuge’s southern boundary is at Still 

River Depot Road in Harvard, MA. 

The refuge was formed by three land transfers from the former 

U.S. Army, Fort Devens Military Installation, and a recent 

purchase of private land in Harvard, MA. Two of the transfers from 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

- 1 -

- 2 - 


Map 1-1: Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge


the Army (May, 1974 and February, 1988) formed the original 711.03 acre 

portion of the refuge located south of Massachusetts Route 2. The third 

Army transfer occurred in May of 1999, and added the 836.3 acre portion of 

the refuge that is located north of Route 2. Finally, approximately 120 

acres was added to the refuge in April, 2001, with the acquisition of the 

former Watt Farm property along Still River Depot Road in Harvard. 

The primary purpose for which the refuge was created is its “...particular 

value in carrying out the National Migratory Bird Management Program” 

(16 U.S.C. 667B, An Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real Property 

for Wildlife, or Other Purposes, as amended). The refuge’s interspersion of 

wetland, forested upland and old field habitats is ideally suited for this 

purpose. The refuge supports a diverse mix of migratory birds including 

waterfowl, wading birds, raptors, shorebirds, passerines, as well as resident 

mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates. The extensive and 

regionally significant wetlands occurring on and adjacent to the refuge, 

including their associated tributary drainages and headwaters, have been 

listed as a priority for protection under both the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) and the Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986. 

The portion of the refuge south of Route 2 lies within the 12,900 acre 

Central Nashua River Valley Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACEC) designated by the Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental 

Affairs due to its unique environmental characteristics and values (MADEP 

1998). The refuge’s geographic position, accessibility to the local and 

regional communities, and its diverse biological resources also makes it 

highly attractive for natural resource educational or interpretive programs, 

and compatible wildlife dependent recreational uses. An estimated 70,000 

people visited the refuge in 2003. All of this use occurred within the older 

portion of the refuge, south of Route 2. 

Purpose and Need for a CCP 

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

guidance and direction for each refuge over the next 15 years, thus 

achieving refuge purposes and contributing to the mission of the Refuge 

System. The plan identifies what role the refuges play, consistent with 

sound principles of fish and wildlife conservation, in the protection, 

enhancement and restoration of trust resources. 

This plan is also needed to: 

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

wildlife, visitors and facilities; 

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

understanding of the reasons for management actions; 

• ensure management reflects the policies and goals of the Refuge 

System and legal mandates; 


- 3 -

- 4 - 

“To administer a national 

network of lands and waters 

for the conservation, 

management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of 

the fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats 

within the United States for 

the benefit of present and 

future generations of 

Americans.” (Refuge 

Improvement Act; Public 

Law 105-57)–Mission of the 

Refuge System. 


• ensure the compatibility of current and future uses; 

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

revise boundaries to better achieve refuge purposes; 

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

and, 

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

development of budget requests. 

Currently, there is no management plan in place for the refuge that 

establishes priorities or provides consistent direction for managing fish, 

wildlife, habitats, and public uses on these refuges. This plan will help to 

resolve issues related to control of nuisance and invasive species, public 

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

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

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission 

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

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

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

plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American 

people.” 

The Service manages NWRs, waterfowl protection areas, and National 

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

resources to the Service for conservation and protection: migratory birds 

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

mammals. The Service also enforces federal wildlife laws and international 

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

wildlife programs, and helps other countries develop wildlife conservation 

programs. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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

waters set aside specifically for the conservation of wildlife and 

ecosystem protection. The Refuge System consists of 544 

national wildlife refuges that provide important habitat for 

native plants and many species of mammals, birds, fish, 

invertebrates, and threatened and endangered species, 

encompassing over 95 million acres. Refuges offer a wide 

variety of recreational opportunities, and many have visitor 

centers, wildlife trails, and environmental education programs. 

Nationwide, over 34 million visitors annually hunt, fish, observe 

and photograph wildlife, or participate in interpretive activities 

on NWRs. 


Beaver activity: Photo by Marijke 

Holtrop 


In 1997, the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act (Refuge 

Improvement Act) established a unifying mission for the Refuge System, a 

new process for determining compatible public uses, and the requirement 

to prepare a CCP for each refuge. The new law states that the Refuge 

System must focus on wildlife conservation. It further states that the 

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

established, will provide the principal management direction for each 

refuge. 

Laws 

While the Refuge System mission and each refuge’s purpose provide the 

foundation for management, NWRs are also governed by other federal 

laws, executive orders, treaties, interstate compacts, and regulations 

pertaining to the conservation and protection of natural and cultural 

resources (see appendix A for a more complete list of guiding laws). 

A primary law affecting refuge management is the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (Administration Act) which 

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

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

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

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

on managing public uses, and protecting the Refuge System from 

incompatible or harmful human activities to insure that Americans can 

enjoy Refuge System lands and waters. 

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

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

Preservation system. Thus, concurrent with the CCP process, we 

have incorporated a summary of a wilderness assessment into this 

document (see Wilderness Assessment section). 

The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 requires that any recreational use 

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

refuge was established and not inconsistent with other previously 

authorized operations. 

The National Historic Preservation act of 1966 provides for the 

management of historic and archaeological resources that occur on any 

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

American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA), the Wilderness Act of 

1964 and particularly the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) all 

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


- 5 -

Wood Duck: Photo by Bruce Flaig 

- 6 - 


National and Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding 

this CCP 

Gulf of Maine - Ecosystem Priorities 

There are 52 ecosystem teams across the country. The refuge is located in 

the Gulf of Maine ecosystem (see Map 1-2). The ecosystem priorities that 

are applicable to the refuge are: 

• Recover populations and habitats of endangered and threatened 

species. 

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

concern. 

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

of special concern and their habitats. 

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

maintain biodiversity. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

The NAWMP documents the strategy between the United States, Canada 

and Mexico to restore waterfowl populations through habitat protection, 

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

level. Ten regional habitat “joint ventures” are partnerships involving 

federal, state, provincial, tribal nations, local businesses, conservation 

organizations, and individual citizens. Units of the Complex are contained 

within the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture. 

The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture Program identifies seven focus areas in 

Massachusetts. One of these focus areas includes the inland rivers of the 

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

Oxbow NWR is part of this focus area, with nationally significant 

wetlands that support migrating waterfowl. The Program is 

developing a focus area report that identifies important waterfowl 

resources, threats, and conservation recommendations. 

A draft updated NAWMP document is at: 

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

Implementation Framework section of this document species 

priorities are listed for each region. Table 1-1 includes species 

identified in the NAWMP that occur at Oxbow NWR. 

Table 1-1: NAWMP Species Occurring at Oxbow NWR 

Species Continental Breeding Breeding Nonbreeding Nonbreeding 

Priority Importance Need Importance Need 

American Black Duck High Mod. High High High Highest 

Mallard High Mod. Low Moderate Mod. High High 

Green-winged Teal Moderate Mod. Low Mod. Low 

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


Map 1-2: Gulf of Maine Rivers Ecosystem 



- 7 -

- 8 - 


Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plans 

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

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

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

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

based bird conservation plans. The goal of each PIF bird 

conservation plan is to ensure long-term maintenance of healthy 

populations of native landbirds. These plans use information on bird 

population trends, species’ distributions, and the vulnerability of the 

species and their habitats to threats, to rank the conservation 

priority of birds occurring within a particular physiographic area. 

The PIF approach differs from many existing federal and 

state-level listing processes in that it (1) is voluntary and nonregulatory, 

and (2) focuses proactively on relatively common species 

American Goldfinch: Photo by Sandy in areas where conservation actions can be most effective, rather 

Selesky 

than local emphasis on rare and peripheral populations. A 

Landbird Conservation Plan for the southern New England 

physiographic area was completed in 2000, which includes all of eastern 

Massachusetts. This plan identifies 72 priority breeding bird species, 9 

priority winter species, and 7 major habitat types as priorities for 

conservation in this area. Of the priority species for this physiographic 

area, at least 21 of the priority breeding species have been recorded as 

occurring on the refuge and 1 of the 9 wintering species have been recorded 

as wintering on the refuge. In the plan, focal species are selected for each 

habitat type and used in developing population and habitat objectives. 

Implementation strategies and management guidelines for achieving these 

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

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

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

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

recommended in the southern New England Bird Conservation Plan will 

help direct landbird management on the refuge. 

The North Atlantic Regional Shorebird Plan (NARSP), developed in 2001, 

identifies 38 priority shorebird species based upon a national scoring 

system that assesses population trends, relative abundance, threats and 

distribution patterns. The Service has recorded 4 of these species as 

occurring on the refuge. The NARSP builds upon the information in the 

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (USSCP). The USSCP is a partnership 

involving organizations throughout the United States committed to the 

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

ensure that adequate quantity and quality of habitat is identified and 

maintained to support the different shorebirds that breed in, winter in, and 

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



based upon the latest population and habitat information available. The 

revised list included 7 highly imperiled shorebird taxa and 23 taxa of high 

concern. The refuge supports 2 species of shorebirds of high concern. 

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

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

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

of 32 species listed, 6 of these have been recorded as occurring on the 

refuge. 

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

PIF BCR 30 NARSP USSCP 

Species Priority Wintering Conservation Priority High 

Breeding 

Concerns Shorebird Concern 

Blue-winged warbler � � 

Wood Thrush � � 

Baltimore Oriole 

Scarlet Tanager 

� � 

American Woodcock � � � 

Rose-breasted 

Grosbeak 

� 

Chimney Swift � 

Eastern Woodpewee 

� 

Black-and-white 

Warbler 

� 

Hairy Woodpecker � 

Eastern Towhee � 

Purple Finch � 

American Black 

Duck 

� � 

Canada Warbler � � 

Whip-poor-will � � 

Sharp-shinned Hawk � 

Pied-billed Grebe � 

Short-eared Owl � � 

Osprey � 

Great Blue Heron � 

Killdeer � 

Solitary Sandpiper � � 

Spotted Sandpiper � 

Least Sandpiper � 

Regional Wetlands Concept Plan- Emergency Wetlands Resources Act 

In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act to 

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

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

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

Northeast Regional Office of the Service completed a Regional Wetlands 


- 9 -

The Nashua River: Staff Photo 

- 10 - 


Concept Plan to identify wetlands in the region. The Regional Plan 

identifies a total of 850 wetland sites and complexes in the region, two of 

them are within the Complex acquisition boundary. 2,000 acres of wetlands 

associated with the Nashua River were identified as being regionally 

valuable for wildlife, fisheries, recreation and water quality, quantity and 

flood control. 

Our Irreplaceable Heritage - Protecting Biodiversity in Massachusetts, 

1998 

This report recommends that the State develop a biodiversity protection 

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

identifies and describes eight types of natural communities that may 

require immediate conservation attention because of their potential 

vulnerability and large number of rare species they contain. Seven of the 

eight communities listed in the report occur within the Complex boundary. 

Existing Partnerships 

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

volunteers, we receive significant help from the following partners: 

Freedom’s Way Heritage Association 

Friends of the Oxbow NWR 

Harvard Conservation Trust 

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

Fisheries and Wildlife (MassWildlife) 

Nashua River Watershed Association 

Oxbow Associates 

The Trust for Public Land 

The Friends of the Oxbow NWR provide considerable time and 

effort toward accomplishment of refuge and Service goals. They 

participate in projects that lead to: land protection/acquisition, 

environmental education and outreach, provision of public use 

opportunities, such as guided interpretive walks, trail maintenance and 

kiosk maintenance/supplies, and meeting biological goals, such as assisting 

with surveys and habitat restoration. During fiscal year 2003, Friends of 

the Oxbow NWR contributed 1,301 hours of volunteer time on the refuge. 


Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process 

Chapter 2: The Comprehensive Conservation Planning 

Process 

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

each NWR, we began the planning process in 1999. We started by forming 

a core planning team of refuge staff and Service planners from the regional 

office. We placed a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS in the January 1999 

Federal Register to officially kick-off our planning effort for all eight of the 

Complex refuges. 

First, we collected information on our biological and habitat resources. 

While in the process of collecting information, we initiated the public 

scoping and involvement part of the process. We held meetings with each 

town’s Board of Selectmen and state and federal agencies. Many of these 

groups provided information on natural resources and public uses on 

refuges in the Complex. In February of 1999, 

we held open houses in central locations to 

provide an opportunity for public comment 

on different issues including current and 

future management strategies, land 

protection and public uses. We were pleased 

with the participation at many of our 

meetings, which ranged from 30 people to 

over 100. 

We recognized that attending our open 

houses would be difficult for many and 

designed an Issues Workbook to encourage 

additional comment. Over 8,000 people 

representing a variety of interests received 

workbooks. Workbooks were also available 

at open houses and at the refuge 

headquarters. We received over 660 

responses. 

Using the information collected from our 

partners and through public comment we 

identified significant issues to be addressed in the plan. In August of 1999, 

we distributed a Planning Update to everyone on our mailing list 

describing the key issues identified for each refuge. 

Once key issues were determined and refined, we developed alternative 

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

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

reasonable range of alternatives was identified, we evaluated the 

environmental consequences of each alternative. 


- 11 -

- 12 - 

Wild Indigo: Photo by Marijke Holtrop 


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

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

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

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

Massasoit NWRs. Additional issues and a need for more information 

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

well. 

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

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

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

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

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

individual comments. We utilized the CAT report and comment database 

to develop a list of substantive comments that required 

responses. Editorial suggestions, along with general 

notes of concurrence with or opposition to certain 

proposals that did not contain factual arguments 

were 

noted and included in the decision making process, but 

do not receive formal responses. We have included 

our responses to requests for additional information 

or 

clarification, provisions of additional information, and 

specific concerns as Appendix C. We have made 

changes to the CCP where appropriate. 

The 

final product of the process is three stand-alone 

CCPs, one for each refuge. Implementation of the CCP can occur once the 

Finding of (No) Significant Impact (FONSI) is signed. 

We 

will evaluate our accomplishments under the CCP, each year. 

Monitoring or new information may indicate the need to change our 

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

likely require modification and specification of the wildlife and habitat 

management strategies. We will modify the CCP documents and associated 

management activities as needed; following the procedures outlined in 

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

every 15 years or sooner if necessary. 

Wilderness Assessment 

The 

planning team conducted a Wilderness Assessment, as required under 

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

ownership were suitable to be proposed for designation as a Wilderness 

Area. During the inventory stage, we determined that the refuge does not 

fulfill the eligibility requirements for a Wilderness Study Area as defined 

by the Wilderness Act. The refuge and surrounding area has been altered 

in some way by man, with the imprint of man’s work generally noticeable. 

The area is less than 5,000 contiguous acres, and is not of sufficient size as 


Purple Loosestrife: Photo by 

Paul Buckley 


to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition. 

Furthermore, permanent roads are contained within most of the areas 

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

not analyzed further in this document. 

Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities 

Issues, 

concerns, and opportunities were brought to the attention of the 

refuge planning team through early planning discussions with local 

governments, state, and federal representatives, and through the public 

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

open houses and in writing, through Issues Workbooks and individual 

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

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

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

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

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

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

attempt to balance the competing opinions regarding important issues. 

Habitat 

and wildlife management 

Many 

people were interested in our management programs. We have 

begun additional surveys and inventories to collect baseline information 

on 

the refuge. Our efforts at these refuges will help us develop a habitat 

management plan which will provide a detailed description of our goals 

and objectives for habitat management on the refuge. 

Individuals 

and groups expressed a great deal of interest in how we 

manage Blanding’s turtles and migratory birds and upland habitats. 

Additionally, interest was expressed in creating an additional wildlife 

passage under Route 2 at the refuge. 

Control 

of invasive, injurious, and overabundant plant and animal 

species 

Invasive 

species, including common reed and purple loosestrife, are a 

concern. These species limit the productivity of wildlife habitat. 

Management to control invasive species was mentioned as a watershed- 

wide priority to some conservation associations. We will continue efforts 

to control known invasives on the refuge. 

Hunting 

Requests 

were made at public meetings and through written comments 

both to allow and not to allow deer hunting on the refuge. Currently, the 

refuge allows hunting for migratory birds (American woodcock), big game 

(turkey), and upland game (ruffed grouse, rabbit and squirrel). There have 


- 13 -

- 14 - 

Bullfrog: Photo by Ken Andrews 


been suggestions to provide additional lawful hunting opportunities on the 

refuge to control deer populations and deter poaching. Cooperation with 

local towns and hunting groups was a suggestion. Others oppose hunting 

of any kind on the refuge. 

Management 

of public use and access 

The 

refuge has high visitation numbers. We 

estimated use at the refuge to be 70,000 visits in 2003. We do not have a 

consistent process for collecting and documenting visitation at all sites. 

Several non-wildlife dependent recreational activities and some 

unauthorized activities occur on the refuge. Some visitors use trails at the 

refuge for dog walking, jogging and illegally for bike riding. 

Resource 

Protection and Visitor Safety 

Many 

people voiced concern regarding additional protection for cultural 

and historical resources. Other concerns included the need to control 

poaching, trespassing and other refuge regulations violations. 

Infrastructure 

and operations and maintenance 

The 

Complex Headquarters and Visitor 

Contact Station is located in Sudbury, MA. 

Residents near Oxbow NWR are anxious to 

have a visitor contact station/education 

center closer to their refuge. Many people 

requested a visitor center at Fort Devens in 

an effort not to build on the refuge itself. The 

need for environmental educational 

programs in local schools as well as 

additional interpretive opportunities where 

the public can learn about the refuge was 

raised. 

We 

heard from some people that the Complex doesn’t have the resources 

and staff needed to support programs and maintenance of the refuge. 

Issues and Concerns Considered Outside the Scope of This Plan 

Some 

towns wish to develop water supply wells on refuge property. 

Some 

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

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

study by the Massachusetts Office of Water Resources identified that 

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

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



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

due to the wells, or access to the wells, could occur. 

Chemical control of mosquitoes on NWRs nationwide is being evaluated 

by the Service. 

The Service has developed a draft national mosquito policy for refuge 

managers to apply when determining how and when mosquito populations 

may be managed on lands administered within the Refuge System. The 

science-based draft policy indicates that mosquito populations will 

essentially be allowed to function unimpeded as part of the wetland 

ecosystem. Mosquito populations may be reduced in certain circumstances 

and we work with state and local public health departments and mosquito 

abatement agencies to monitor and if necessary contain mosquito-borne 

diseases. Mosquito spraying to control larval mosquitoes on the refuge 

does not occur. Any future Service policy will be applied to Oxbow NWR. 


- 15 -

- 16 - 


(This page intentionally left blank) 


Refuge Sign: Staff photo 

Chapter 3: Refuge and Resource Descriptions 


Socioeconomic Setting 

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

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

refuge lands located within their jurisdiction. Money for these payments 

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

sale of other Refuge System resources, and from Congressional 

appropriations. The Congressional appropriations are intended to make up 

the difference between the net receipts from the Refuge Revenue Sharing 

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

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

Congress may or may not appropriate sufficient funds to make full 

payment. 

The Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments are based on one of three 

different formulas, whichever results in the highest payment to the 

local taxing authority. In Massachusetts, the payments are based on 

three-quarters of one percent of the appraised market value. The 

purchase price of a property is considered its market value until the 

property is reappraised. The Service reappraises the value of refuge 

lands every five years, and the appraisals are based on the land’s 

“highest and best use”. On wetlands and formerly farmland-assessed 

properties, the full entitlement Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments 

sometimes exceeds the real estate tax. In other cases, Refuge Revenue 

Sharing payments may be less than the local real estate tax. 

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

municipality, must be considered in assessing the financial impact on the 

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

system and little extra demand on roads, utilities, police and fire protection, 

etc. Additionally, local communities may receive benefits, such as increased 

tourism revenues from visitors. The owner of land adjacent to refuge land, 

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

responsibilities of private land ownership. The refuge controls uses only on 

the properties it owns. 

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

Ayer Harvard Lancaster Shirley 

2003 $918 $16,677 $6 $748 

2002 $956 $17,351 $7 $778 

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

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


- 17 -

- 18 - 


Ayer Harvard Lancaster Shirley 

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

Refuge Resources 

Climate 

Climatic conditions at the refuge are strongly influenced by maritime, 

Atlantic Ocean processes and weather patterns. The annual range in 

temperature is broad, with moderately hot summers and cold winters. 

Precipitation is distributed throughout the year. Seasonally, precipitation is 

greatest fall through the spring, and least during the summer. The average 

number of days with snow on the ground is 50 to 60 days. 

The average annual temperature is 48.0 degrees Fahrenheit. January, the 

coldest month, has an average daily temperature of 24.3 degrees F. In July, 

the warmest month, the daily temperature averages 71.2 

degrees F. The average, annual precipitation is 44.66 inches, 

with the greatest monthly average occurring in November 

(4.27 inches), and the lowest monthly average occurring in 

February (3.21 inches). 

Wind speed averages approximately 10 mile per hour on an 

annual basis. Velocities in excess of 40 miles per hour are 

not uncommon during summer thunderstorms or winter 

blizzards. Both tornados and hurricanes impact the area on 

infrequent intervals (U.S. Department of Justice 1995). 

Geology and Topography 

Oxbow NWR and the surrounding area has a glaciated 

topography which has produced landform characteristics of 

ice sheet impacts such as drumlins, kames, kame terraces, 

outwash plains, kettle-holes, glacial lake beds and eskers. 

Underlying the glacial deposits is metamorphic, 

Forest habitat: Photo by Karla Thompson sedimentary and granitic bedrock. Unconsolidated glacial 

deposits cover most of the bedrock, leaving little bedrock 

outcropping on the refuge. Topography ranges from the 

Nashua River, along with its associated wetlands and floodplains at 

approximately 200 feet above mean sea level to hilly uplands at 

approximately 330 feet elevation. Along the transition zone between the 

Nashua River floodplain and the adjacent upland, there is generally a fairly 

steep incline which divides these two areas. The majority of the refuge 

consists of the river riparian zone, its adjoining wetlands and low floodplain 

lands (Roberts 1995). 



The surface geology of the refuge consists of glacial, alluvium, and swamp 

deposits overlaying bedrock. Glacial and post-glacial erosion and deposition 

during the Wisconsin period ice age shaped surficial geology approximately 

17,500 years ago. In upland areas, glacial activity resulted in a moderately 

thick layer of glacial till consisting of a heterogeneous mix of clay, silt, sand, 

gravel and boulders, with occasional bedrock outcrops. Other glacial 

deposits include layers of well-sorted fine to coarse sand, fine gravel and 

boulders along with layers of fine sand and silt (Roberts 1995). 

Alluvium and swamp deposits overlie glacial deposits on much of the area. 

Alluvium is light gray to white fine sand and silt with minor gravel. It is 15 

feet thick in some areas and primarily found underlying the Nashua River 

Valley floodplain. Swamp deposits are composed of muck, peat, silt and 

sand overlying or mixed in with the alluvium (Roberts 1995). 

Bedrock is a complex of metamorphic and granitic rocks of the Paleozoic 

age. Composition ranges from meta-siltstone through phyllite, slate and 

schist. An intrusive igneous body, the Ayer granodiorite and meta-quartzite 

also exist. Most contacts between formations are faults, striking northwest. 

The area was historically depressed under glacial loading and is rebounding 

(Roberts 1995). 

Soils 

The soils of the refuge are comprised of three generalized types. Nashua 

River floodplain soils are predominately the poorly drained Winooski- 

Limerick-Saco map unit. To the east of the Nashua River floodplain, where 

the majority of the refuge lies, the soils are the excessively drained outwash 

plain Hinckley-Merrimac-Windsor map unit. The well to moderately 

drained upland soils of the Paxton-Woodbridge-Canton map unit are west 

of the Nashua River floodplain, adjacent to the refuge. 

The soils of the Winooski-Limerick-Saco map unit are very deep, nearly 

level soils that are moderately well drained, poorly drained, and very poorly 

drained on the floodplain of the river. This map unit consists of broad areas 

and small depressions. The soils formed in alluvium deposited by the flood 

waters of the Nashua River. The high water table is at the surface for the 

Saco soils, 6" for the Limerick soils, and between 1 ½ to 3 feet for the 

Winooski soils. 

The soils of the Hinckley-Merrimac-Windsor map unit, which are primarily 

the upland soils of the refuge, are very deep, nearly level to steep soils that 

are excessively drained and somewhat excessively drained on the outwash 

plain. This map unit consists of broad plains and rolling to steep areas 

scattered throughout the survey area. The soils formed in water-sorted 

deposits of glacial outwash. Hinckley soils have a loamy surface underlain 

by stratified sand and gravel. Merrimac soils typically consist of 2 feet of 


- 19 -

- 20 - 

Sunset: Photo by Deborah 

Dineen 


loamy material over sand and gravel and Windsor soils are typically sandy 

throughout. 

The soils of the Paxton-Woodbridge-Canton map unit include deep, nearly 

level to steep soils that are moderately well to well drained. These soils are 

predominately upland soils of hills and ridges. Paxton soils are gently 

sloping to steep with slow to very slow permeability. Woodbridge soils are 

nearly level to steep, and are predominately found on hill or drumlin tops. 

Canton soils are also gently to steeply sloping and well drained. However, 

they are most often associated with the toe of slopes, and have moderately 

rapid to rapid permeability (USDA 1985). 

Hydrology 

The hydrology of the refuge is essentially that of the Nashua River. All 

refuge lands are located along 7.5 miles of the Nashua River drainage. The 

Nashua River flows south to north, drains approximately 538 square miles, 

and is a major tributary of the Merrimack River system. The main stem of 

the Nashua River flowing through the refuge is formed by two branches: 

the north Nashua River, which originates west of Fitchburg, MA, and the 

south branch, which flows out of the Wachusett Reservoir. These two 

branches join at Lancaster, MA to the south of the refuge. Much of this 

section of the Nashua River is characterized by low gradient, slow moving 

water with numerous backwaters and wetlands. Primary tributaries of the 

Nashua River within its course through the refuge include: New Cranberry 

Pond Brook, Slate Rock Pond outlet, Phoenix Pond outlet (Catacoonamug 

Brook), Trout Brook, Willow Brook (a tributary of Nonacoicus Brook), 

Nonacoicus Brook, Morse Brook, Walker Brook, and Mulpus Brook. 

The nearest, long-term U.S. Geological Survey gauging station on the 

Nashua River is located downstream of the refuge at Pepperell, MA. 

Flow records have been made at this station for 33 years (23,376 daily 

flow records). The average daily flow over this period of record is 583.5 

cubic feet per second. 

Numerous small freshwater ponds, vernal pools and wetlands are 

associated with this stretch of the Nashua River. Many small ponds along 

the river’s course were formed by glaciers; others, e.g. oxbow wetlands, 

were formed as portions of the river have become silted, and the river’s 

course changed, leaving these cut-off oxbows. Between the northernmost 

section of the refuge and the middle section, there is a dam, the 

privately owned Ice House Dam just below Shirley Road on the Nashua 

River. This dam has some impounding influence on the river, at least as 

far upstream as Route 2, and perhaps further upstream toward the 

southern part of the refuge. 


Groundwater Resources 


The groundwater hydrology of the refuge and the surrounding area is 

largely defined by topography and the distribution and saturated thickness 

of high conductivity glacial outwash deposits within the Nashua River 

valley and low conductivity glacial till deposits in the upland areas. This 

distribution of unconsolidated sediments results in steep hydraulic 

gradients in the upland areas with a general flattening of the water table 

within the regions of glacial outwash. Maintaining the base flow of the 

rivers and streams, groundwater flows from hills toward valleys, and 

discharges into streams, rivers, wetlands, and ponds. An extensive sand 

and gravel glacial outwash aquifer underlies most of refuge on the former 

North Post, the eastern portion of Main Post, and the northeastern corner 

of South Post, in addition to contiguous areas in adjacent towns (U.S. Army 

1995). 

The most productive parts of the aquifer (the high yield aquifer) are 

associated with the Nashua River and its tributaries. The glacial outwash 

deposits present in these high transmissivity areas are major sources of 

potable water for Devens and the towns of Shirley and Ayer. In most areas 

where the glacial outwash aquifer is not present, fractured bedrock 

resources supply water to single-family domestic wells (U.S. Army 1995). 

The Devens water supply is provided by the McPherson Well on North 

Post, the Grove Pond Wellfield in the northeastern corner of Main Post, 

and the Patton and Sheboken Wells located, respectively, northeast and 

southwest of the mirror lakes in the southern portion of Main Post. 

Groundwater in the vicinity of Devens is designated Class I groundwater 

by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) 

and is considered to be a potable source of water. In general, the water 

within the main aquifer of Devens is moderately hard, requires minimal 

treatment and, based on tests at individual supply wells, and has met all 

MADEP water quality standards, with the exception of those for sodium 

(U.S. Army 1995). 

The town of Ayer operates two wells on the southern shore of Grove Pond, 

to the east of the Devens Grove Pond Wellfield. In the past, these wells 

have functioned as a backup to Ayer’s main water supply wells, which are 

located adjacent to Spectacle Pond in Ayer, east of Devens. The total rated 

capacity of the two wells is approximately 2 million gallons per day (MGD) 

(U.S. Army 1995). 

The Shirley Water Supply District maintains two wells in the vicinity of the 

refuge. The Patterson Road Well, located in Shirley along Morse Brook 

due west of the McPherson Well, supplies approximately 225,000 gallons 

per day (GPD). Further west, the Catacoonamug Well supplies 


- 21 -

- 22 - 


approximately 62,000 GPD. A supply well, operated by MCI-Shirley, is 

located in Shirley on the west side of the Nashua River, due west of 

Jackson Gate. This well is capable of supplying 720,000 GPD to the 

correctional facility. The extent of this zone is limited to the west side of the 

Nashua River (U.S. Army 1995). 

Public water supply for the town of Harvard is provided by a pair of 

bedrock wells of limited capacity (one active well with an estimated 

maximum pumping rate of 43,000 GPD and a backup well with an estimated 

maximum pumping rate of 28,000 GPD). A third bedrock well, which pumps 

at less than 1,200 GPD, serves Harvard’s Department of Public Works 

building and one private residence (U.S. Army 1995). 

Floodplains 

The estimated 100-year floodplain in the vicinity of the Oxbow NWR has 

been delineated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

The 100-year floodplain is most extensive along the Nashua River, reaching 

its greatest width in the refuge south of Route 2. The floodplain is also 

fairly wide along the stretch of the Nashua River near portions of the 

refuge within the former North Post (U.S. Army 1995). 

Air Quality 

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

available from the MADEP, Air Assessment Branch. The report contains 

data for several different pollutants: ozone (O 3 ); sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ); 

nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (10 

microns (PM10) and 2.5 microns (PM2.5)). Data for O 3 and PM2.5 is 

available from the monitoring site in Stow; SO 2 , NO 2 , CO and PM10 data 

are from Worcester. Massachusetts levels for CO, SO 2 , PM2.5, and PM10 

are below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) standards 

for these pollutants. 

There are two ozone standards based on two different averaging 

times, 1-hour and 8-hour. For almost two decades prior to 1997, the 

standard for ozone had been 0.12 parts per million (ppm) averaged 

over one hour. In 1997, USEPA set a new stricter ozone standard of 

0.08 ppm averaged over an eight-hour period. Industry groups filed 

suit against USEPA following promulgation of the standard. In 

February 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the USEPA’s 

Eastern Bluebird: Photo by authority for setting the new health-based ozone and particulate 

Bruce Flaig 

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

District of Columbia upheld the standards themselves. However, 

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

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

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

ozone levels throughout the State. Massachusetts has violated the 1- 


River: USFWS photo 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nonattainment for the 8-hour standard. 

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

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

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

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

decreasing toward better quality since 1988. 

Massachusetts has made significant progress in attaining the CO standard 

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

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

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

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

Springfield, Waltham, and Worcester were redesignated to attainment of 

the CO standard by the USEPA in 2002. 

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

mercury from atmospheric sources outside the northeast region (see for 

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

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

of fish in New England above the 1 ppm standard established by the U.S. 

Food and Drug Administration (USFDA). 

The annual average concentration of lead in the air decreased substantially 

since 1985 from more than 300 ug/m 3 to less than 0.05 ug/m 3 (the annual 

average NAAQS for lead is 1.5 ug/m 3 ). Massachusetts is well below the 

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

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

2000). While air quality concentrations of lead have dramatically decreased, 

there may still be concern regarding residual lead levels in soils along 

heavily traveled roadways deposited prior to the change to unleaded 

gasoline usage. 

Water Quality and Quantity 

The waters of the Nashua River have been designated as Class B, 

warm water fisheries by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

Class B waters are defined as being suitable for “protection and 

propagation of fish, other aquatic life, for wildlife, and for primary 

and secondary contact recreation” (MADEP 1998a). Although 

vastly improved in water quality character, the Nashua River has 


- 23 -

- 24 - 


had a long history of water quality degradation. Through the 1960s and 

early 1970s, paper manufacturing facilities in Fitchburg and Pepperell, 

inadequately treated municipal wastewater in Fitchburg, Leominster, 

Clinton, and Ayer, and combined sewer overflows in Fitchburg and 

Leominster contributed to severe pollution of the river. While the water 

quality of the river has improved dramatically with closing of some of these 

facilities and the institution of advanced waste water treatment at others, 

impacts on aquatic biota and elevated bacteria levels remain problematic 

(MADEP 1998b). 

The mainstem of the Nashua in its reach through the refuge is included in 

the State’s list of impaired waters due to organic enrichment and low 

dissolved oxygen levels. Grove and Plow Shop Ponds, which are the origin 

of Nonacoicus Brook just above the refuge boundary, are listed as impaired 

due to heavy metal contamination. Mirror Lake, a kettle-hole pond located 

within the former Ft. Devens Main Post is also listed as impaired due to 

heavy metals (MADEP 1999). Mirror Lake is recharged by ground water, 

and does not have an apparent surface water inlet or outlet. We do not 

currently believe water quality within Mirror Lake would have an impact 

on the refuge. 

The Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MADPH) has issued a 

fish consumption advisory for Mirror Lake due to elevated levels of 

mercury in fish tissue (MADPH 1999). There is also an earlier, state-wide 

interim fish consumption advisory for mercury that encompasses all fresh 

waters of the State. It is directed to pregnant women only. The general 

public was not considered to be at risk in this state-wide advisory (MADPH 

1994). 

A recent study by the Service examined heavy metal exposure in benthic 

invertebrates from Grove Pond, Plow Shop Pond and Nonacoicus Brook. 

The study found that freshwater mussels (the eastern elliptio, Elliptio 

complanta) collected from Nonacoicus Brook near its confluence with the 

Nashua River contained elevated levels of chromium (5.07 ug/g). Mussel 

tissue concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, mercury, methyl mercury and 

lead were found to not be elevated in comparisons with studies conducted 

elsewhere. However mussels tested from Nonacoicus Brook near the 

Nashua River exhibited higher levels of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, 

mercury and lead compared to samples at the inlet and outlet of Plow Shop 

Pond (USFWS 2000a). 

In 1994, a 2.5 mile section of the Nashua River in the Fort Devens area was 

surveyed by the Service to check levels of contaminants in fish tissues. 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane 

(DDT) and mercury were found in fish tissues; as well as chlordane 

compounds and dieldrin. Chromium, arsenic, cadmium, lead and selenium 

were also detected at elevated levels in fish tissue. This report recommends 

separate evaluation of the contaminant concentrations in fish from the Fort 


Bare branches: Photo by John 

Grabill 


Devens section of the Nashua River by human health risk assessors. 

“Based on fish carcass and whole body analytical results, receptor groups 

that consume fish organ tissue or use the entire fish in meals may be at 

greater risk from some contaminants” (USFWS 1997). 

Portions of the MADEP’s Nashua River basin 1998 Water Quality 

Assessment Report (MADEP 2001) focusing on the mainstem of the 

Nashua from the confluence of the north and south branches to 

Squannacock River (including Still River, Nonacoicus Brook and Mulpus 

Brook) are attached as Appendix H to provide a synoptic view of water 

quality in these streams. 

Biological Resources 

Vegetation and Habitat Types 

Oxbow NWR is located within the southern edge of the northern 

hardwoods forest region. The refuge is primarily a riparian community 

consisting of forested wetlands, shrub swamps and oxbow ponds. The 

Nashua River flows through a broad, low gradient floodplain with 

extensive wetlands. The floodplain extends up to 1,650 feet in width. 

Hardwood forests occur along the slopes of the floodplain valley. 

A complete habitat cover type map is currently being produced in 

accordance with the National Vegetation Classification System 

(NVCS), and vegetation surveys have not been conducted on all 

refuge property. However, the vegetation of portions of the refuge 

has been examined by a number of surveys. The University of 

Massachusetts has conducted a plant community and vegetation 

analysis on portions of the Nashua River floodplain and surveys for 

rare plant species have been conducted (Searcy et al. 1993; Searcy 1994; 

and U.S. Army undated). 

While the majority of work done to date has focused on wetland plant 

communities, the Fort Devens Natural Resource Management Office 

(NRMO) prepared a forest cover and condition inventory that included 

what is now the portions of the refuge north of Route 2 (see Maps 3-1 

through 3-3). A broad description of these uplands is that they are 

primarily comprised of mixed oak-hardwoods, white pine-hardwoods, 

cherry-aspen hardwoods, red maple, shrub-land, and old field habitat (U.S. 

Army undated). The forest-stand condition indices reported in the Army 

inventory maps are likely to be outdated at this time. 

The University of Massachusetts surveyed both wetland and upland plant 

communities along the Nashua River on the refuge north of Route 2 

(Searcy et al. 1993). The study describes and evaluates upland forest and 

wetland plant communities within these areas of the refuge. The upland 

communities included two rich mesic forests, an oak-hardwood forest and a 


- 25 -

- 26 - 


Map 3-1: Forest and Land Cover Types (Area 1A Fort Devens) 

Map 3-2: Forest and Land Cover Types (Area 1 Fort Devens) 

Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge 

Code Type Acres 

OH Oak-Hardwood 64.5 

OM Mixed Oak 7.0 

WH White Pine-Hardwood 138.7 

RM Red Maple 17.4 

GC Golf Course 5.7 

U Developed Lands 35.4 

PEM Wetlands 11.0 

Total 279.7 


OH Oak- 

Hardwood 

23.6 


WH White Pine- 

Hardwood 

30.6 


PA Aspen- 

Hardwood 

6.2 

WP White Pine 10.2 

GF Grasses-Forbs 2.5 

PEM Wetlands 7.2 

PSS1 Wetlands 2.5 

Total 125.9


Map 3-3: Forest and Land Cover Types (Areas 2, 3, and Airfield Fort Devens) 


OH Oak-Hardwood 42.6 


WO White Pine-Oak 77.2 

WH White Pine-Hardwood 7.2 


WP White Pine 32.6 

RP Red Pine 10.2 

PP Pitch Pine 7.2 

PA Aspen 24.4 

BC Cherry-Aspen- 

Hardwood 

73.0 


BR Shrubs 20.4 

Airfield 176.0 

FB Filter Beds 31.6 

NV No Vegetation 5.5 

PSS1 Wetland 25.1 

PFO1 Wetland 13.6 

PEM Wetland 2.5 

River Wetland 23.4 

Total 862.3 


- 27 -

- 28 - 

Buttonbush and purple loosestrife: 

Photo by Sandy Selesky 


white pine-hardwood forest. The wetland plant communities examined were 

classified as a red maple swamp, a southern New England floodplain, acidic 

seepage, and two types of oxbow pond communities. A detailed summary 

table providing a listing of the 174 plant taxa found in these communities, 

and their densities and percent cover are provided in Searcy et al., 1993. 

In 1994, the portion of South Post which is adjacent to the Nashua River 

was more intensely surveyed. This area is directly west of the refuge. 

Although it is not on the refuge, many of the characteristics and features of 

the west side of the river also apply to the east side of the river, which is in 

the refuge. This includes the identification of this area as a southern New 

England floodplain forest, which is a high priority habitat for protection in 

Massachusetts. The floodplain area of this stretch of the Nashua River is 

flatter, wetter, and generally supports a larger more continuous area of 

forested wetlands (Searcy et al. 1994). 

Oxbow Ponds 

In 1995, the vegetation of the oxbow ponds and sloughs along the western 

floodplain of the Nashua River south of Route 2 were inventoried and 

classified as a result of a contract between the Fort Devens Military 

Reservation and the University of Massachusetts (Hickler 1995). The 

majority of the oxbows lie west of the Nashua River and are not on the 

refuge, however there are oxbows on the eastern floodplain which are on 

the southern half of the refuge. The characteristics and floristic inventories 

of the western oxbows can be extrapolated to the oxbows that lie east of the 

river, with caution. 

Oxbow ponds are formed when a river cuts through the neck of 

a meander, leaving behind a section of river channel which 

forms a pond with a characteristic oxbow shape. One of the 

unique characteristics of these oxbow communities is the almost 

complete turnover of species composition between vegetation 

zones within one or two meters of each other. The oxbow 

communities have a higher variety of plant species than the 

adjacent upland, but more than half of those species are limited 

to only one or two oxbow ponds. Therefore, each pond 

individually contributes unique plant species to the overall 

biological diversity of the oxbow pond system. The oxbow 

communities were classified as four major vegetation types: 

common buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) swamp, wet 

meadow, deep marsh, and open-water aquatic. 

Common Buttonbush Swamp 

Ten of the 15 ponds studied were buttonbush swamps with a 

well developed border of common buttonbush and a few 

associated forb species and tree seedlings. 


Vernal Pool: Photo by Rob Vincent 

Wet Meadow 


Seven of the 15 ponds supported wet meadow communities. The wet 

meadow communities have many grass and forb plant species that vary 

widely between ponds and within meadows on a single pond. The most 

frequently occurring species in the wet meadow are cutgrass (Leerzia 

oryzoides), swampcandle (Lysimachea terrestris), common arrowhead 

(Sagittaria latifolia), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), and needle rush 

(Eleocharis acicularis). 

Deep Marsh 

Deep marsh communities occur either as a band between meadow 

communities and open water, or covering large areas on shallow ponds. 

Deep marsh is characterized by emergent species along with floating 

leaved and submersed species. Pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata) is the 

most characteristic species, forming dense floating mats over large 

expanses on many of the ponds. 

Open Water Aquatic 

There are three aquatic cover types which are delineated by water depth. 

Shallow water areas are characterized by a dense cover of coontail 

(Ceratophyllum demersum), followed by a zone lacking emergent species 

with a small amount of watermeal (Wolffia spp.), and a second variety of 

coontail (Ceratophyllum echinatum). The deepest aquatic cover type is 

distinguished by a high frequency of pondweed (Potemogeton pusillus) and 

yellow water lily (Nuphar variegatum) (Hickler 1995). 

A general description of the types of oxbow pond communities (with a 

cross-reference to the most similar NVCS designation) is provided in Table 

3-2. 

Table 3-2: Oxbow Pond Vegetation Communities 

Type of Oxbow Community NVCS Cross-reference 

Buttonbush Swamp Palustrine Cephalanthus occidentalis shrub thickets 

Wet Meadow Palustrine medium tall graminoid vegetation 

Deep Marsh Mixed marsh emergents community type: RI 

Lacustrine emergent community:ME 

Vernal Pools 

Vernal pools are a priority habitat type within the State of 

Massachusetts. Many vernal pools have been identified on Oxbow 

NWR, associated with the river floodplain and the adjacent forested 

wetlands. Vernal pools are temporary freshwater depressions which 

hold spring rains and snow-melt waters, and then typically dry out 


- 29 -

- 30 - 

Purple loosestrife: Photo by Karla 

Thompson 


during late summer. Vernal pools are critical breeding habitat for 

amphibian and invertebrate species due to the lack of predatory fish. The 

vernal pools of Oxbow NWR are confirmed breeding habitat for the state 

watch-listed spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) and bluespotted 

salamander (Ambystoma laterale), which is a state species of 

special concern. 

Biodiversity 

The Friends of the Oxbow NWR conducted a series of twenty six field trips 

on the refuge from March through October, 2000 (Friends of Oxbow 2000). 

All field trips were within the portion of the refuge located south of Route 

2. These events were led by naturalists with expertise in the identification 

and ecology of a variety of biota. Eleven of these events examined a variety 

of plant groups including: lichens (27 species recorded), grasses and sedges 

(9 species reported), trees (39 species reported), shrubs/vines (47 species 

recorded), ferns/fern allies (32 species found), fungi/mushrooms (32 species 

reported), herbaceous plants/wildflowers (100 species), mosses (67 species 

reported), and liverworts (8 species recorded). A complete listing of species 

recorded during these biodiversity program events and by other 

observations on the refuge is provided in Appendix D. To date, 352 species 

of plants have been identified on the refuge, including 8 species that are on 

the Massachusetts state list of endangered (SE), special concern (SC) or 

watch-list (WL) of rare plants. 

Invasive or Overabundant Species 

Common reed (Phragmites australis) has invaded a portion of wetlands of 

Oxbow NWR. Planning to determine its rate of spread and the most 

effective means of control has been initiated. 

Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) is another extremely invasive 

plant species which threatens portions of the wetland habitats of the 

refuge. No formal surveys to determine the rate of spread have been 

conducted. The refuge has released Galerucella sp. beetles and 

Hylobius transversovittatus weevils as biological control agents. The 

Galerucella beetles are leaf-eating beetles which feed on the leaves 

and the new shoot growth of purple loosestrife, weakening the plant 

until it eventually is removed or reduced. Hylobius tansversovittatus 

is a root-boring weevil that deposits its eggs in the lower stem of 

purple loosestrife plants. The hatched larvae feed on the root tissue, 

destroying the plant’s nutrient source for leaf development, which in 

turn leads to the destruction of the mature plant. 

Additional plant species that are considered to be invasive, and that require 

monitoring on the refuge include: spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), 

glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), Oriental bittersweet (Celastrus 

orbiculatus), and autumn olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia). 


Wildlife Resources 

Migratory Birds 


Comprehensive inventories for wintering, breeding and migratory 

birds have not been conducted for all avian species groups at the 

refuge. However, an impressive record of bird species using the 

refuge has been developed by staff and expert volunteer birders. A 

complete listing of bird species identified on Oxbow NWR to date is 

provided at Appendix D. In addition, the refuge staff initiated 

breeding American woodcock, land-bird and marsh-bird surveys on 

the Oxbow NWR in 2000. The latter two surveys follow regional 

American woodcock at Oxbow NWR: Service sampling protocol and contribute to regional and national 

Staff photo 

databases. The annual breeding season American woodcock 

(Scolopax minor) surveys also utilize standardized protocols, but 

are not currently a part of a regional or national series of observations. 

Great blue heron: 

Photo by David 

Margaretos 

The wetlands and open water bodies of the refuge provide important 

migration, feeding and nesting habitat for waterfowl species including 

American black duck (Anas rubripes), wood duck (Aix sponsa), mallard 

(Anas platyrhynchos), and green-winged teal (Anas crecca). 

The wetlands along the Nashua River and its tributaries have been 

identified as a priority for protection under the NAWMP and the area is 

within one of the seven focus areas for the State of Massachusetts under 

this plan. Priority waterfowl species identified include American black 

duck, wood duck, and mallard, which nest on the refuge in upland habitat 

surrounding wetlands that provide brood raising habitat (USFWS 1992). 

The Service Northeast Region Marshbird Callback Survey was conducted 

at the refuge for the first time in 2000. This survey follows a national 

protocol which will assist with the monitoring of marshbirds throughout the 

nation. The Marshbird Callback Survey specifically targets the secretive 

birds of wetlands that are generally missed during landbird surveys. The 

initial survey focused on the southern third of the refuge but will be 

expanded to include the newly acquired northern properties. Great blue 

heron (Ardea herodias), green heron (Butorides virescens) and blackcrowned 

Night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) have been observed on the 

refuge (Appendix D). 

The Service Northeast Region Landbird Breeding Survey conducted on 

the refuge is similar to the National Breeding Bird Survey in which 

singing males are recorded at designated points along a route that 

traverses the refuge during the breeding season (May-July). This survey 

was initiated in the spring of 2000 and resulted in an initial species list of 

breeding land birds. The land bird survey is designed to continue for at 

least five years, at which time the data will be analyzed to determine the 


- 31 -

- 32 - 


frequency at which the subsequent surveys need to be conducted to 

accurately monitor refuge populations. 

Mammals 

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

mammals. However, 30 species of mammals have been identified by sight, 

sign or tracks on the refuge, including the presence of four bat species that 

need further confirmation (Friends of Oxbow 2000). A listing of these 

species is provided at Appendix D. In 1992, a small mammal survey was 

conducted on portions of the adjacent Fort Devens Military Reservation. 

Most of the areas that were sampled were in or adjacent to wetlands 

habitat in an effort to obtain specimens of the southern bog lemming 

(Synaptomys cooperi) and water shrew (Sorex palustris). Previously, a 

water shrew was captured in 1986, but in 1992 neither of these two 

mammals were captured (Thomas 1992). Mammals known to occur on the 

adjacent Fort Devens property may also occur on the refuge given the 

similarity in habitats (Appendix D). 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Comprehensive inventories of anurans have been conducted. Additional 

surveys of amphibians and reptiles have not been conducted. However, 

observations by refuge staff, a long-term series of investigations regarding 

Blanding’s turtles (Emys blandingii) and the Friends of the Oxbow NWR 

Biodiversity-2000 program have resulted in the compilation of a list of 17 

reptile and 15 amphibian species occurring on the refuge. The species 

known to occur on the refuge include 4 reptiles and 1 amphibian species 

that are listed as threatened or of special concern by the Massachusetts 

Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (Mass Wildlife), Natural Heritage and 

Endangered Species Program (NHESP). State listed species of special 

concern are: spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata), wood turtle (Glyptemys 

insculpta), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), and bluespotted 

salamander. The Blanding’s turtle is listed as state 

threatened. 

The Service Northeast Region Anuran Call Count Survey is 

designed to identify breeding frog and toad species of the refuge 

and monitor their populations. The survey began in the spring of 

2000 and focused on the southern third of the refuge, then was 

expanded to include the northern portions of the refuge. Surveys 

Leopard frog: Photo by Sandy were originally completed by staff and are now done by volunteers. 

Selesky 

A complete list of reptiles and amphibians at Oxbow NWR is 

located in Appendix D. 


Fish 


Fish species documented in the main stem of the Nashua River include: 

largemouth bass (Micropterus salmonoides), smallmouth bass 

(Micropterus dolomieui), brown and yellow bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus 

and Ictalurus natalis), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), chain pickerel 

(Esox niger), redfin pickerel (Esox americanus americanus), bluegill 

(Lepomis macrochirus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), black crappie 

(Pomoxis nigromacultus), white perch (Morone americana), white sucker 

(Catostomus commersoni), blacknose dace (Rhinichtys atratulus), spottail 

shiner (Notropis hudsonius), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), 

tesselated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), fallfish (Semotilus corporalis), 

common shiner (Notropis cornutus), slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) and 

goldfish (Carassius auratus) (MassWildlife 1974 and MADEP 1993). 

Native brook trout are found in Walker Brook (Town of Shirley 1996). The 

Squannacook River, which flows into the main stem of the Nashua River 

just north of the refuge, supports wild brook and brown trout (Salvelinus 

fontinalis and Salmo trutta) populations, and also gets stocked with brook, 

brown, rainbow (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and tiger trout (Salmo trutta x 

salvelinus fontinalis) (MassWildlife 1974). It is likely that some of these 

trout find their way into the main stem of the Nashua River. The fish 

species found in the Nashua River in its course through the refuge are 

listed in Appendix D. 

In 1994, a 2.5 mile section of the Nashua River in the Fort Devens area was 

surveyed by the Service to check levels of contaminants in fish tissues 

(USFWS 1997). PCBs, DDT and mercury were found in fish tissues; as well 

as chlordane compounds and dieldrin. Chromium, arsenic, cadmium, lead 

and selenium were also detected at elevated levels in fish tissue. This report 

recommends separate evaluation of the contaminant concentrations in fish 

from the Fort Devens section of the Nashua River by human health risk 

assessors. “Based on fish carcass and whole body analytical results, 

receptor groups that consume fish organ tissue or use the entire fish in 

meals may be at greater risk from some contaminants.” 

As part of the large scale plan for fish restoration in the Merrimack River, 

the Nashua River Watershed is a current and future release location for 

river herring. Anadromous fish restoration is a cooperative effort among 

state agencies including the Massachusetts Division of Marine Resources, 

MassWildlife, and federal agencies including the Service, National Marine 

Fisheries Service and U.S. Forest Service. The Nashua River is considered 

a self-sustaining river in that it has existing fish passage facilities at dams 

which need to be modified or improved as part of the plan. This watershed 

will also be monitored and evaluated to ensure effective and efficient 

upstream and downstream passage of fish. Fish that would benefit from 

this effort include the river herring (Alosa pseudoharengus), American 

shad (Alosa sapidissima) and American eel (Anquilla rostrata). 


- 33 -

- 34 - 

12-Spotted skimmer: 

Photo by Sandy Selesky 


Invertebrates 

With the exception of a 1994 inventory of moths, no formal surveys have 

been conducted on the refuge for invertebrate groups. However, the 

Friends of the Oxbow NWR Biodiversity-2000 Program, and other 

observations, have resulted in the compilation of a list of species that 

utilize the habitat resources of the refuge. This inventory list includes 9 

freshwater mollusks species, one of which, the Triangle floater 

(Alasmidonta undulata), is a listed as a species of concern by the State 

due its low population numbers, 32 species of butterflies, 22 species of 

dragonflies and damselflies, and 57 other species of insects. 

In 1992 and 1994, entomologists from the Lloyd Center for 

Environmental Studies inventoried moth species on the refuge (Mello 

and Peters 1993; Mello and Peters 1994). A total of 246 species of moths 

were recorded on the refuge. Observations of moths on the refuge were 

also made during the Friends of the Oxbow NWR Biodiversity-2000 

Program. A total of 134 species were recorded, including 84 species not 

observed during the earlier inventories (Appendix D). 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Rare Vertebrate Species 

The Service has not conducted comprehensive surveys for threatened and 

endangered species on the refuge. The NHESP has identified the state 

endangered pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) as occurring on the 

refuge, as well as the state threatened Blanding’s turtle. The blue-spotted 

salamander, which is dependent on the vernal pools of the refuge, is a state 

species of special concern. 

The pied-billed grebes in the Northeast breed in ponds, sloughs and 

marshes, along marshy edges of rivers, lakes and reservoirs. They prefer 

wetlands that are less than 5 hectares with abundant aquatic bed 

vegetation and open water interspersed with robust emergent vegetation. 

Breeding locations are scattered through much of the Northeast and are 

more localized and less abundant than in other regions of the U.S. In 

Massachusetts the pied-billed grebe is a local breeder throughout the 

State, but because of its rarity, the State has listed it as endangered in 

Massachusetts. The pied-billed grebe is identified by the Service as a 

migratory non-game bird of management concern in the Northeast which is 

representative of a biological community that is threatened in the 

Northeast. The greatest threat to the northeast pied-billed grebe 

population is the alteration and loss of wetland habitat through draining, 

dredging, filling, pollution, acid rain, agricultural practices, and siltation. 

(USFWS 2000b). 


Blanding’s turtle surfacing: Photo 

by David Flint 


The spotty, low-density distribution of the Blanding’s turtle is centered in 

the Great Lakes region with disjunct populations in southeastern New 

York, eastern New England and Nova Scotia. In New England, this turtle 

is found in eastern Massachusetts, southern New Hampshire and southern 

Maine. There are only seven known nesting sites in Massachusetts. 

Blanding’s turtles were found at the refuge in 1986, when 

a female and tracks were located by Brian Butler. Since 

that time, the population has been continually monitored. 

Individual turtles are uniquely identified with marginal 

shell notches, which allow for the calculation of local 

population size. Butler has estimated that approximately 

25% of nesting females are new each year. This indicates a 

thriving population and is impressive for most species but 

is especially significant for the Blanding’s turtle, given 

that females do not breed until they are about 12 years 

and predation on eggs are two factors limiting Blanding’ 

old. Habitat loss s 

turtles. Historical photos and records indicate that approximately 50% of 

the amount of habitat that historically was available for nesting turtles has 

been lost, due to the encroachment of shrubs and trees through natural 

succession. A high level of egg loss, as a result of fox and raccoon eating the 

eggs, has been a problem in many areas. During this vulnerable time, 

nesting areas are activity monitored and protected to reduce predation and 

human disturbance until the eggs hatch (Brian Butler, personal 

communication, Oxbow Associates, Lunenberg, MA) 

In Massachusetts, the blue-spotted salamander is a species of special 

concern and occurs predominantly within Middlesex and Essex counties 

and in the adjacent eastern towns of Worcester County. This ‘mole’ 

salamander requires moist, moderately shaded environments, favoring 

northern hardwood/hemlock forests. The blue-spotted salamander requires 

vernal pools for breeding and egg laying, as well as the survival of their 

larvae until they metamorphose into air-breathing adult salamanders. The 

major threat to this species and other salamanders is the loss of wetland 

habitat to draining and development. Some population declines may also be 

attributed to sample over collection, foot and road traffic and pesticides or 

other toxic chemicals (MassWildlife undated). 

Rare Plant Species 

Although a complete plant inventory has not been conducted for the refuge, 

four rare plant species are known to occur on the refuge. Another three 

rare plants occur immediately adjacent to the refuge in habitat similar to 

that of the refuge. Because of the similarity of habitat on both sides of the 

river, there is potential that these state-listed rare plants also occur on 

refuge property. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has listed ovate 

spike-sedge (Eleocharis obtusa var. ovata) as endangered. Three 

populations of ovate spike-sedge occur along this stretch of the Nashua 


- 35 -

- 36 - 


River floodplain. The largest population of ovate spike-sedge is on the 

refuge. There are four other areas that have been identified as potential 

habitat for this species along the floodplain, with one of these areas 

occurring on the refuge (Hunt 1991). 

Climbing fern (Lygodium palmatum) may be abundant where it is found, 

however populations are rare and localized, making this a species of special 

concern in Massachusetts. Climbing fern does not have the characteristic 

shape of most ferns. It is an evergreen, ivy-like plant which sprawls over 

the ground or climbs clockwise short distances up shrubs and coarse herbs. 

This fern grows in moist pine-oak-maple woods with an open understory, 

moist thickets and stream margins (MDFW undated). 

Wild black currant (Ribes americanum) typically occurs in floodplain 

thickets and swampy woods of the Northeast. This species has been 

delisted but remains on Massachusetts’ watch list. A single plant was 

located on the northern half of the refuge within additional suitable habitat 

for this species to expand (Hunt 1991). 

A single location of northern wild senna (Senna hebecarpa) is known to 

occur on the northern portion of the refuge. Field inspection in 2000 

indicated the plants were doing well, but that shrubby overgrowth should 

be periodically cleared to enhance habitat conditions for the northern wild 

senna (Dr. William Brumback, New England Wildflower Society, October 

2000, personnel communication). 

Small bur-reed (Sparganium natans L.) occurs in shallow water 

throughout northern New England, but is listed as endangered in the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Small bur-reed is known to occur in only 

one area of the refuge. This area was initially located in 1993, with a more 

intensive follow up survey in 1994 for more areas of small bur-reed. No 

additional areas of small bur-reed were located in 1994, and there was a 

decline in the patch size of the small bur-reed found in 1993. This may have 

been caused by an actual decline in individual plants, an increase in water 

level in 1994, or an algal bloom in 1994 which made it difficult to estimate 

the percent coverage of the small bur-reed (Searcy et al. 1994) 

The range of small beggar-ticks (Bidens discoidea) is from Massachusetts 

to Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Louisiana, and Texas. This species typically 

occurs in buttonbush swamps, ponds, oxbows, forested swamps and other 

wetlands. In Massachusetts, small beggar-ticks are currently known to 

occur at four sites. One site of small beggar-ticks occurs adjacent to the 

refuge, with suitable habitat identified adjacent Nashua River floodplain 

(Hunt 1991). 

Bicknell’s cranesbill (Geranium bicknelli) typically occurs in the dry rocky 

woods of eastern Massachusetts; however the two areas that were 

identified adjacent to the refuge occur in wetlands. The species is scattered 



in western Massachusetts and it is unclear whether or not the population 

found adjacent to the refuge is native (Hunt 1991). Bicknell’s cranesbill is 

on the state species watch list. 

Northern blazing star (Liatris borealis) is found in dry clayey or sandy 

soils in open woods and clearings throughout New England. Although 

formerly common in Massachusetts, this species is now only abundant in 

southeastern portions of the State. Two small populations were identified in 

disturbed sandy soil adjacent to the refuge and it is possible that this 

species may also occur in similar habitat on the refuge (Hunt 1991). 

Special Designations 

Morning fog on the river: Photo by Sherry Fendel 

The Oxbow NWR and the Nashua River corridor are listed as a priority for 

protection under both the NAWMP and the Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986. 

The refuge and the Nashua River corridor are also 

included with the USEPA’s priority wetlands of New 

England. The eight mile length of the refuge is a key 

component of the Nashua River Watershed 

Association Nashua River Greenway Designation. 

The portion of the Oxbow NWR south of Route 2 lies 

within the 12,900 acre Central Nashua River Valley 

ACEC designated by the Massachusetts Secretary of 

Environmental Affairs due to its unique environmental 

characteristics and values (MADEP 1998). 

Oxbow 

NWR, Devens Reserve, Bolton Flats Wildlife 

Management Area, the Nashua Greenway, Lancaster State Forest and 

other lands along the Nashua River have been designated as a 

Massachusetts Important Bird Area (IBA) for their significance to 

grassland species, several of which are identified under the PIF plan as 

priority species. Species present include grasshopper sparrow 

(Ammodramus savannarum), vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus), 

upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda), bobolinks (Dolichonyx 

oryzivorus), and whip-poor-wills (Caprimulgus voviferus), and others. 

IBAs provide essential habitat for at least one or more species of breeding, 

wintering or migrating birds. The program highlights these important 

areas, but is not regulatory in nature. The primary goals of the program 

are listed below. 

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

the preservation of significant bird populations or communities. 

• To provide information that will help land managers evaluate areas 

for habitat management or land acquisition. 


- 37 -

- 38 - 

Painted turtle: Photo by David Flint 


• To activate public and private participation in bird conservation 

efforts. 

• To provide education and community outreach opportunities.” 

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

Cultural Resources 

Prehistoric Period 

The earliest evidence of human occupation of the Nashua River drainage 

dates from the paleoindian period (12,500-9,000 Before Present (BP)). The 

landscape during this time is characterized as postglacial with oak and 

spruce beginning to repopulate the area. This time period is when people 

first moved into the Northeast. Archaeological data for this period near the 

refuge consists of a single fluted point found on the surface adjacent to a 

small pond in Lancaster (Anthony 1978). No diagnostic artifacts have been 

directly associated with the river itself. 

During the warmer and drier climate of the Early Archaic (9,000- 7,500 

BP), the pine-hardwood forest would have seasonally made available 

resources that would be predictable and abundant. Some archaeological 

evidence suggests that a complex multi-site settlement system had been 

established by this period, with different site locations indicating 

exploitation of varied resources and environmental settings (Johnson 1984; 

Ritchie 1984). Populations probably increased during this period, although 

known sites are poorly represented in the archaeological record. Only ten 

sites from the Early Archaic period have been identified in this area, 

however, with further testing, more should be identified. 

The population was slightly higher during the Middle Archaic (7,500-5,000 

BP) in this region. The distribution of Middle Archaic sites indicates that 

seasonal settlement systems were firmly established (Glover 1993). Sites 

have been located along Muddy Brook and the Wachusett Reservoir at the 

headwaters of the Nashua River in West Boylston. Middle Archaic artifacts 

have also been found in Leominster, however, the site density is less than 

what is found along the Concord and Assabet drainage areas. By this time, 

the present seasonal migratory patterns of many bird and fish 

species had become established (Dincauze 1974) and important 

coastal estuaries were developing (Barber 1979). 

Late Archaic period (5,000-3,500 BP) settlement in the Merrimack 

River basin has been documented at a number of site locations 

along most of the drainage’s principal water courses in 

Massachusetts and New Hampshire. The large number of sites and 

artifacts attributed to the Late Archaic period, coupled with the 

high density of sites and their occurrence in a wide range of 

habitats, has been interpreted as reflecting a dense population 

intensively exploiting an extremely broad spectrum of resources 



(Dincauze 1974; Ritchie 1985). Increase in occupation could be a possible 

correlation 

with a period of climatic warming beginning approximately 

5,000 years ago (Funk 1972). Single and multi-component campsites 

were used for seasonal resource procurement activities. Sites from the 

Late Archaic are well represented in the refuge area. The majority of 

the sites in the refuge area appear to represent single or 

multicomponent campsites utilized for seasonal resource procurement 

activities. There are also a few quarry sites in the area that were used 

for raw material procurement (Glover, 1993). 

The Transitional Archaic period (3,600-2,500 BP) was characterized in 

this area by the introduction of steatite (soapstone) vessels, and 

eventually ceramics, toward the end of this period (O’Steen 1987). 

Steatite vessels ceased to be manufactured with the introduction of 

ceramic technology; however, steatite was still used for making stone 

pipes (Ritchie 1985). Transitional Archaic sites in the refuge area are 

rare. Slightly more common, but still under represented, are Early 

Woodland sites. 

Wild mushroom: Photo by Marijke 

Holtrop 

The Early Woodland period (3,000-1,600 BP) is generally under 

represented in the regional archaeological record suggesting a 

population decline and/or poorly documented tool assemblages. Evidence 

for Woodland occupation of the Nashua River drainage comes from a small 

number of Early Woodland period sites. Along with a suspected Early 

Woodland deposition at several Late Archaic sites, diagnostic Meadowood 

and Rossville projectile points have been identified in two private 

collections (Glover 1993). 

Middle Woodland period (1,650-1,000 BP) sites are more common 

indicating an increase in population, which is observed throughout New 

England. During this period, in this region, there were extensive longdistance 

social and economic interaction spheres. Horticulture appeared 

during this time and ceramics were commonplace. There was also a lot of 

movement from people traveling throughout the Northeast at this time. 

The Middle Woodland period activity in the Nashua drainage is 

represented solely at the Reedy Meadow Brook site in Pepperell. The 

deposition included diagnostic Fox Creek and Jack’s Reef projectile points 

which were found in association with local and exotic stone debris including 

materials from Labrador and Pennsylvania (Mahlstedt 1985). 

The Late Woodland period (1,000-450 BP) in this region is marked by an 

increase in ceramic production through improvements in technology. Some 

populations may not be engaged in horticulture however. The Late 

Woodland populations appear to be moderate around the refuge. Coastal 

areas and semi-permanent settlements seemed to have been preferred and 

larger groups lived in fortified villages. Late Woodland period artifacts 

represented in the archaeological record include triangular levanna points, 


- 39 -

- 40 - 

Mallard with ducklings: Photo by Joseph Rhatigan 


cordwrapped stick impressed and incised collared ceramic vessels, and 

increasing amount of local stone materials used (MHC 1985). 

By the Contact Period (450-300 BP), the Nipmuck Nation was established 

in the refuge region. Their settlement consisted of semipermanent villages 

focused on river drainages and tributary systems. Political, social and 

economic organizations were relatively complex and underwent rapid 

change during European colonization. Groups during this time, and most 

likely earlier times, were attracted to the anadromous fish runs in the river. 

The area around Harvard contained permanent camps along the river, as 

well as smaller, temporary camps adjacent to the natural ponds. This 

region, particularly the northern and western sections toward New 

Hampshire and Vermont, also falls within the cultural boundaries of the 

Western Abenaki. The Squakeag subgroup inhabited the upper Nashua 

River valley and became heavily involved in fur trade. The Abenaki group 

tended to cluster in large fortified villages (MHC 1985). 

In central Massachusetts, the Contact Period is even less well documented 

than the rest of the Prehistoric Period. The inland location of the central 

uplands region precludes the availability of ethnohistorical counts by early 

colonial settlers visiting coastal sections of New England during the 

sixteenth century. By the time of direct contact with settlers in the 

seventeenth century, the effects of disease, isolated trade, and intertribal 

warfare had significantly changed the local population (Glover 1993). 

Prior to European settlement in the first half of the seventeenth century, 

the Fort Devens section of the Nashua River Valley was primarily 

inhabited by the local subgroup of the Nipmuck known as the Nashaway, 

believed to have directly descended from pre-contact groups. Settlement 

patterns in the area continued to focus on the river drainages and their 

tributary streams during this period. Subsistence systems most likely 

remained oriented towards hunting and gathering of seasonally available 

food resources. An increased dependence on horticulture is considered 

likely given the appearance of semi-permanent, sometimes fortified, village 

settlements (MHC 1985). 

Although the gently rolling uphill terrain of the Nashua 

River drainage would have allowed a favorable range of 

movement, as well as an abundance and diversity of food 

resources, no prehistoric occupations from this period are 

documented in the area (MHC 1985). No primary or 

secondary Contact Period trails pass directly within the 

area encompassed by Fort Devens, however a major northsouth 

trail passed to the immediate west through Lancaster 

and secondary north-south and east-west trails traversed 

present day Harvard, Ayer and Shirley. The area of 

present-day Lancaster, at the confluence of the Nashua and 

North Nashua rivers, was the site of the repeated or long- 



term camp of the Nashaway group, who utilized the surrounding areas 

from this base camp. Larger populations would also have been attracted to 

the area due to the presence of anadromous fish runs in the river, or to its 

floodplains for horticulture (MHC 1985). 

Although not many sites have been reported from this region, the area has 

the potential to yield archaeological sites that will contribute to our 

understanding of prehistoric settlement in this region. Further study 

would supply more information about population densities and if they are 

found to be low for a time period, research questions can address the cause. 

Four prehistoric sites have been identified within the refuge boundary. The 

refuge area should be considered moderately to highly sensitive for 

archaeological resources in areas not impacted by military ordinance. 

Historic Period 

During the Early Historic Period, the refuge area was inhabited by a few 

European families engaged in farming activities. The region was heavily 

affected by King Philip’s War in 1675. Garrisons were constructed to 

provide protection to the English settlers from the aggressions of the 

Native Americans. Attacks in Groton and Lancaster left the settlers 

depleted of supplies. The settlement was abandoned shortly after, and the 

people retreated to Concord. By 1676, the outer frontier area had crumbled 

(Glover 1993). 

The refuge area was void of English settlement for several years after the 

end of the war. The death of King Philip and the English defeat of the 

various native groups throughout the region in the fall of 1676 meant that 

repopulation of the frontier was possible. The surviving Nipmucks of the 

Nashua River either fled westward and northwest or went to live with 

other groups or were reduced to subservient status. Toward the end of the 

17th century, English repopulation had begun in the refuge area (Glover 

1993). 

This period of frontier resettlement was characterized by the demise of the 

nucleated English village and open field system. The trend was toward 

consolidating land holdings and the importance of the meetinghouse center. 

During the early 1700s, populations in the original territories increased 

steadily. Larger grants were subdivided in the process of establishing a 

meetinghouse, forming a government and assigning town lands (Glover 

1993). 

Population increases and economic growth took place at different rates in 

the original grants and new towns. Lancaster and Groton, the two oldest 

towns, were the most commercially developed population centers or core 

areas of settlement in the Nashua River Valley. The range of non-farm 

employments in these towns led to clusters of dwelling radiating out from 

the town center. Settlement in the late 18th century in the frontier towns 


- 41 -

- 42 - 


reflected the regional economy of animal husbandry and extensive mixed 

grain cultivation. By the onset of the Revolutionary War, a number of the 

frontier towns in central Massachusetts were on their way to becoming 

important commercial and industrial regional centers (Glover 1993). 

The town of Harvard was established in 1732 from parts of Lancaster, 

Groton, and Stow. Therefore, its historical development begins with the 

establishment of these colonial plantations. The Lancaster Plantation was 

founded in 1653, followed by the Groton Plantation in 1655. During the 

1650’s, Harvard served as outlying meadowland for the 35 families settled 

in Lancaster. The first documented evidence of colonial building on 

Harvard soil was the construction during the 1660’s of John Prescott’s Grist 

Mill on Nonacoicus Brook. The mill was abandoned during King Philip’s 

War and rebuilt eastward on Stoney Brook once the territory was 

established (Anderson 1976). 

Settlement of Harvard, which began in the late 1600’s, was located in the 

southern section of town which remained part of Lancaster until 1732. As 

the population grew from 4 families in 1692 to 39 in 1723, small 

concentrations developed east and west of Bare Hill Pond, at Still River; at 

Oak Hill, and at the Old Mill. There were four garrison houses for 

Harvard’s protection because Native American hostilities continued for 

several decades after the end of King Philip’s War. One garrison house, 

which was located at Still River, was built by Major Simon Willard’s son, 

Henry, in 1694 (MHC 1983). 

By the time of Harvard’s incorporation in 1732 from the eastern half of 

Stow Leg (the unclaimed tract of land between Groton and Lancaster 

plantation), the southern portion of Groton, and the northeast corner of 

Lancaster, there were over sixty families settled within the territory. The 

meetinghouse was built at the geographic center (now Harvard Center) 

shortly after Harvard became a town (Anderson 1976). During this 

planning stage, a 30-acre lot was set aside to accommodate the town’s 

pound, stocks, cemetery and any other public facilities to come, such as the 

poor house (1753). Schools, taverns, and inns were also built to meet the 

needs of the townspeople (MHC 1983). 

Harvard’s predominantly agricultural economy was supplemented by a 

small number of artisans and support industries. Saw and gristmills were 

located on Bowers Brook and at Mill Road. Other town industries included 

a tannery, blacksmith, trip hammer, iron works and fulling mill. A blue 

slate quarry began operation on Pine Hill during the mid-eighteenth 

century, supplying slate for grave stones. Silver mining operations began 

on the south slope of oak hill during the 1780’s (Snderson 1976). 

The Shaker Community in Harvard was officially established in 1793. It 

was divided into four families, and had a maximum approximate 

membership of 200 (Andrews 1963). Some of its members were native to 


Wetland habitat: Photo by John Grabill 


Harvard, but the majority had been attracted to the community from other 

towns. The Shakers went on to acquire hundreds of acres, until they 

controlled most of the northeast corner of the town. The money for these 

real estate transactions came from the estates of new converts to the 

Shaker religion who settled in Harvard (Anderson 1976). 

The Harvard Shakers dwindled in numbers due to lack of converts and 

orphan children. The community closed in 1918, after 127 years of existence 

in the town. The site of the Church Family is known today as the Shaker 

Village and consists of private homes. Like central Massachusetts during 

the federal period (1775-1830), Harvard experienced a period of population 

and economic growth. Between 1776 and 1830, the population increased 

from 1,315 to 1,600. Distinct nucleated villages developed within Harvard; 

at Still River, and the Shaker Village in the northeast part of town, and at 

Harvard Center where residences concentrated around the Commons. 

Beyond these villages, growth patterns remained dispersed and residents 

engaged in agricultural pursuits, which consisted of raising sheep, cattle 

and grain (MHC 1983). 

Despite construction of the Worcester and Nashua Railroad in 1848, and 

associated depots at Still River and northwest of Harvard Center, Harvard 

remained essentially rural throughout the Early Industrial Period (1830- 

1870). The primary agricultural products were hops, hay, grains, 

vegetables, and fruit from apple and pear orchards. Dairying, cattle and 

swine raising were also major industries. By 1875, agricultural goods 

yielded $223,892 (MHC 1983). 

Harvard was the home to two stops on the Underground Railroad, hiding 

slaves as they made their flight north to Canada. The list of 

those who supported the railroad and helped in the slaves 

escape is a long one and includes some of the prominent citizens 

of the town, including the town’s reverend and deacon 

(Anderson 1976). 

During the Late Industrial Period (1870-1917), Harvard saw a 

rise in industry within the town. The manufacturing peak of the 

period was the opening of the Union Brick Co., Union Paving 

Co., New England Brick Co., and Haskell’s Vinegar Works, 

each located around Still River and the railroad. A wool knitting 

mill and other small-scale textile plants, and machinery shop 

helped support the town’s industrial economy until the end of 

the century (Anderson 1976). Agriculture remained the town’s 

primary income source, producing 200 products in 1905. The 

dairy industry continued to be an important economic asset, 

supported by poultry and egg production and the introduction 

of viticulture (grapes) (MHC 1983). 

By 1917, the town of Harvard recorded a population of 


- 43 -

- 44 - 


approximately 1,000 people, supporting themselves by commercial dairying 

and selling vegetable and fruit products. Manufacturing played a very 

minor role in the economics of the town and was further reduced when the 

Shaker community closed in 1918 (MHC 1983). The adoption of the 

automobile and improvements to local roads and highways, such as Route 

111 to Concord and Boston, Route 110 to Clinton and Ayer, Route 2 and 

interstate 495 have supported continued expansion of the residential, 

commercial and professional population as well as the increase in suburban 

development within Harvard (MHC 1983). 

The refuge also extends into the towns of Ayer and Shirley (Middlesex 

County). Ayer was incorporated into a town in 1871 from sections of Groton 

and Shirley, and was part of the original colonial Groton plantation. During 

the mid-seventeenth century, colonial settlement of Groton consisted of a 

reputed fur trading house run by John Tinker located at the mouth of Nod 

Brook and four or five families living in a linear village established along 

the James Brook (Wing 1981; MHC 1980). Ayer and Shirley were unused 

common lands of the Groton plantation, being too far removed from the 

center of town. In 1659, unknown to the proprietors of the plantation, a 

1,000-acre tract of Groton was granted to Major Simon Willard of 

Lancaster, the sergeant-major of the Middlesex County Militia, as a reward 

for military service and in settlement of a debt owed to him by John 

Sagamore, an Indian chief who lived near the site of Lowell (Glover 1993). 

By the outbreak of King Philip’s War in 1675, Groton was estimated to 

contain 300 inhabitants, 40 structures, including a meeting house, five 

garrison houses, including Willard’s mansion, and a grist mill built by John 

Prescott in 1673 on Nonacoicus Brook (now in Harvard). Ayer and Shirley 

were still relatively uninhabited. After the war when the towns were 

resettled Ayer continued to be an outlying agricultural district of Groton 

with limited growth and settlement until after the mid-eighteenth century. 

The settlement of Ayer was sparse and oriented along Nonacoicus Brook. 

During the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, Ayer was 

designated as Groton School District #5 which covered most of Ayer after 

1793 (Glover 1993). 

Settlement increased with an influx of Irish immigrants after 1845, and 

concentrated along Main and Park streets and their side streets. The first 

store opened in 1851, followed by the 1858 construction of Harmony Hall 

which consisted of stores on the first floor and a public hall on the second. 

The prosperous 1850’s and 60’s saw the construction of five churches, new 

school houses and a fire house (Glover 1993). During the Late Industrial 

Period (1870-1917), Ayer’s economy and growth continued to be tied closely 

to the regional railroads, the town’s principal employer. The Ayer railroad 

yards were said to be the largest classification yard in New England. Ayer 

was incorporated as a town in 1871 from a southern section of Groton and 

the portion of Shirley east of the Nashua River. The town’s population grew 

steadily, increasing by 50%, with 20% foreign born (still mostly Irish) 



between 1870 and 1917. An Irish colony developed along the Nashua River 

in the late 1800’s. New construction in Ayer Center included a town hall, 

new fire station and public library. Electric trolleys also connected the 

town center to Fitchburg, Shirley, and Lowell (MHC 1980). 

By the 1900’s, Ayer’s fields were overworked and losing their fertility. 

There were “sprout land”, reclaimed by forest. Only the land near the 

Nashua River remained fertile and contained large farms owned by Irish 

families. Ayer’s population expanded in the early 1900’s, then stabilized 

after 1920. The Army began leasing land in the town in 1917, and acquired 

large plots in the western section in 1920 to form Camp Devens. Economic 

disaster occurred in 1927 when the railroad yard moved out of Ayer and the 

tanner closed. Construction of the Moore Army Airfield on the North Post 

of Fort Devens brought air transport to the area. Settlement remained 

focused at the town center, and only recently have the undeveloped 

peripheral areas been subdivided (MHC 1980). 

The first documented settlement of Shirley occurred in the 1720’s when 

improved river crossings, such as Page’s Bridge (1726) on the Fitchburg 

Road permitted settlement of the central areas of town along east-west 

oriented Fitchburg Road paralleling Mulpus Brook. Until this time, the 

Nashua River had served as a barrier to colonial settlement. A few farms 

were also scattered along the Squannoacook River and the west side of the 

Nashua River. As the frontier stabilized after 1730 there was a steady 

increase in the number of settlers moving into the territory. In 1747, thirtythree 

individuals singed a petition requesting early separation from Groton. 

In 1753, the district of Shirley was established. Two years later Shirley 

was incorporated as a town from the southwest corner of Groton and later 

the western half of Stow Leg (Glover 1993). 

Economic activities consisted primarily of farming, supplemented by 

lumbering and milling. In the late 18th century, the Shakers began to 

influence the town’s structure. Throughout the nineteenth century, the 

Shaker community in Shirley was considered a valuable part of the town. 

Their approximate maximum membership was 150, divided among the 

families. The Shirley Shakers were most noted for their thriving business 

in selling “Shaker Apple Sauce”. They also had a broom shop, a mop shop, 

a blacksmith shop, and a house where they prepared herbs (Bolton 1914). 

As the numbers of the Shirley Shakers dwindled in the latter part of the 

nineteenth century, the few sisters and brothers subsisted mainly on 

money gained from selling their milk in the village (Bolton 1914). They 

augmented their monetary needs by maintaining a small store in the back 

of the office building. By the turn-of-the century, the Shaker members of 

the Shirley Society had nearly all passed away. The few remaining Shirley 

Shakers abandoned the family settlements in 1908 and went to live with the 

Harvard Shakers (Glover 1993). 


- 45 -

- 46 - 


Like Ayer, Shirley’s economic base and population growth pattern was 

enhanced by the construction of the Fitchburg Railroad along West Main 

Road in 1845. During the early nineteenth century, a large scale carriage, 

wagon and harness factory operated on Mulpus Brook in Woodsville until it 

burned in 1871. The factory produced military wagons, horse drawn 

ambulances, and baggage wagons used in the Mexican and Civil Wars. 

Prairie schooners, wagons used by the pioneers crossing the prairies and 

Rocky Mountains as they traveled west, were also a product of the carriage 

factory (Glover 1993). 

During the Late Industrial Period (1870-1917), Shirley experienced limited 

growth. The tract of land east of the Nashua River annexed to Shirley in 

1789 was set off from Shirley in 1871 and annexed to the town of Ayer. 

After 1870, there was little new industrial development, leading to a period 

of economic decline. Out of the nine major factories which prospered during 

the mid-nineteenth century, only one cotton mill and one paper mill were 

still in operation by 1890. The only new industry in the 1890’s was the 

opening of the C.A. Edgarton Suspender Factory and a cordage works. 

However, transportation improved when electric trolleys connected the 

town center to Fitchburg and Ayer (MHC 1980). 

During the Modern Period (1917-present), Shirley experienced few changes 

in its settlement patterns or economic base. Steady, moderate population 

growth along with commercial strip development has occurred in 

peripheral areas, due in part to suburbanization and the military presence 

at Fort Devens after 1917. One of the most important additions to the town 

in the late twentieth century was the creation of MCI Shirley, south of the 

town center at the site of the former Shaker Village (Glover 1993). 

The United States Declaration of War against Germany in April 1917 

launched a massive nationwide construction campaign for the training of 

Army troops. Camp Devens in central Massachusetts was established as 

one of the 16 earliest of a total of 32 new Army cantonments nationwide. 

The approximately 11,000 acres of land chosen for Army training in central 

Massachusetts shared several common features with other selected sites 

across the country. It consisted of two adjoining parcels of land, known 

today as the Main and North Posts. These lands extended across the towns 

of Ayer, Shirley, Harvard, and Lancaster (Glover 1993). 

The U.S. Army leased the approximate 11,000 acre tract in 1917. In 1917 

the leased lands comprising the Camp Devens Reservation extended from 

Route 2A at the Ayer/Shirley town line south to Route 117 in Lancaster. 

The reservation was bounded on the east by the Boston and Maine 

Railroad, the Still River in Harvard and Lancaster, with the exception of a 

parcel of land to the east of the railroad bounded by Cold Spring Brook. It 

was also bounded on the west by hilly uplands west of Lunenburg Road 

(Glover 1993). 



The Army purchase of land for a permanent training reservation began in 

June 1919 and was complete by 1921 (Anon 1923). The lands purchased at 

that time were considerably less than what Camp Devens had originally 

leased from 1917 to 1919. This was probably due to the deactivation status 

of the installation following World War I. The reduced lands purchased by 

the Army were situated in western Ayer, eastern Shirley, western Harvard 

and northeast Lancaster. The South Post lands were comprised of about 50 

parcels, ranging in size from 1.5 to 93 acres with over 25 different 

landowners (War Department 1920). 

Following World War I, Camp Devens had a caretaker 

status until 1927, maintaining a skeleton force of 

personnel. In the summer months, the reservation 

served as a training area for the National Guard, 

Reservists, RPTC cadets, Civilian Military Training 

Camp personnel, and Regular Army. In 1927 Camp 

Devens received federal funding to construct 

permanent housing and a hospital for the purpose of 

troop mobilization in the northeast. The demolition of 

the wood-frame World War I structures and the 

Japanese knotweed: Photo by Marijke Holtrop 

construction of new permanent buildings began in 1928. 

In 1931, Camp Devens was renamed Fort Devens. The 

new cantonment area, built over the U-shaped system of roads formed the 

World War I temporary camp, included a double ring of roads, new 

buildings, and a parade ground. Most of these buildings are now part of the 

Fort Devens Historic District (Glover 1993). 

A complete permanent post was built at Fort Devens between 1934 and 

1939. In 1941 a large tract of land was acquired by the Army south of the 

permanent cantonment, in the area known as the South Post. These lands 

comprised the northeastern portion of the town of Lancaster, and were 

contiguous to those previously acquired west of the Nashua River and the 

former South Post Annex. In June 1946, Fort Devens was deactivated and 

returned to a caretaker status. Following the Korean War, Fort Devens 

remained an active training center for Regular Army, ROTC, and National 

Guard troops. 

Expansion after 1965 occurred primarily on the Main Post including the 

barracks area, a shopping center complex, and Cutler Army Hospital. 

Range buildings on the South Post and Service buildings associated with 

the airfield and the sewage treatment plant on the North Post were 

constructed in the 1970’s (Glover 1993). A slight reduction in the size of the 

South Post occurred in May, 1974, with the transfer of 662 acres of 

Training Area 4 to the Service to establish the Oxbow NWR. The 

remaining 49.03 acres of Training Area 4 (also known as the 94 th ARCOM 

or Sylvania building area) was transferred to the Service as an addition to 

the Oxbow NWR in February, 1988. 


- 47 -

- 48 - 


The Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-510), and 

the subsequent decisions by the BRAC-1991 Commission and Congress 

required the closure and realignment of Fort Devens. The Army 

realignment action created the Devens Reserve Forces Training Area for 

use by Army Reserve and National Guard forces. Approximately 5,160 

acres of the former 9,300 acre Fort Devens were retained for this purpose 

(the 4,880 acre South Post Training Area and approximately 280 acres 

within the former Main Post). Approximately 1,140 acres were transferred 

to other federal agencies, including approximately 836 acres to the Service 

as an addition to the Oxbow NWR, 250 acres to the Federal Bureau of 

Prisons for a medical center, 35 acres to the U.S. Department of Labor for 

a Jobs Corps Center, and 20 acres under the McKinney Act for facilities for 

the homeless. The remaining 3,000+/- acres were transferred to the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and are being redeveloped as the Devens 

Enterprise Zone by the Massachusetts Development Finance Agency (U.S. 

Army 1995). In February, 1996, Congress specified (Public Law 104-106) 

that, if it is determined to be excess to the needs of the Department of 

Defense at any time in the future, the Secretary of the Army shall transfer 

all but 100 acres of the 4,880 acre portion of Fort Devens Military 

Reservation situated south of Route 2, to the Secretary of the Interior for 

inclusion in the Oxbow NWR. 

Oxbow NWR has the potential to yield information significant in our 

understanding of early American culture such as the period during King 

Philip’s War, the Shaker communities and the Early Industrial Period. The 

refuge has resources that can provide data for research questions for 

several time periods during the last 11,000 years. The historic land use 

patterns represent a good example of rural agricultural communities in 

New England. The refuge should be considered moderately to highly 

sensitive for archaeological materials. 

Socio-economic Resources 

Adjacent Communities and Land Uses 

Predominant land uses within one mile east and northeast of the portions of 

the refuge in Ayer include high- and medium-density residential, downtown 

business and commerce, and light industrial areas. The land use profile of 

the remaining area is typical of an ex-urban, semi-rural area with a large 

supply of forest and agricultural land, low-density housing, and relatively 

undeveloped for industrial and commercial uses (U.S. Army 1995). 

By far, forests are the most dominant land use, covering nearly 60 percent 

of the land. A distant second use, by area coverage, is single-family housing, 

which occupies approximately 12 percent of the area. Agriculture is still a 

key land use in the area, with about 10 percent devoted to cropland and 

pastureland (U.S. Army 1995). 



Nearly 13 percent of the area is open space; this category includes parkland 

and water. Industrial and commercial land uses comprise less than one 

percent of the area each, as does multi-family housing. These land uses are 

more prevalent in the most urbanized communities (e.g., Nashua, 

Fitchburg, Leominster, and Ayer) (U.S. Army 1995). 

Land use planning for communities adjacent to Fort Devens is regulated 

by the individual towns. The towns of Ayer, Harvard, and Shirley have 

developed master plans. Shirley and Lancaster have prepared open space 

and recreation plans (U.S. Army 1995): 

• The Town of Ayer Strategic Planning Study Report addresses the 

affordable housing concerns and growth management provisions 

through updated zoning bylaws and improved subdivision 

regulations. 

• The goals and objectives of the Harvard Town Plan (1988) are to 

protect environmental resources, preserve rural character, address 

housing needs, encourage agriculture, define the commercial area, 

and improve the town’s management of land use. 

• The goals of the Town of Shirley (1985) are to manage residential 

and industrial growth and balance the growth rate so there will be 

sufficient revenues to serve the needs of all residents. Areas of the 

town were targeted for protection as well as development. Since 

1985, Shirley has instituted an open space and recreation plan. 

• The goal of the Town of Lancaster Open Space and Recreation Plan 

(1993) is to preserve natural resources, maintain a balanced 

recreation program, and emphasize the role of agricultural land as 

open space. Addressed within the plan is the expansion of the 

Nashua River Greenway and Trail System, as well as other 

recreational activities. 

Population and Demographic Conditions 

Population trends vary considerably among the neighboring cities and 

towns of Ayer, Harvard, Shirley and Lancaster (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2001). Overall population levels in the four towns decreased from 31,979 to 

27,021 (a 14.4 percent decrease) between 1990 and 2000. The majority of 

this decrease occurred in Harvard due to the closure of Fort Devens (the 

great majority of the Fort Devens military housing and barracks areas 

were physically located within the town of Harvard). The population of 

Harvard decreased from 12,329 to 5,938 (a 51.5% decrease). The largest 

percent population growth occurred in Lancaster (6,661 to 7,380 or 10.8%). 

Ayer increased from 6,871 to 7,287 (or 6.1%), and Shirley grew by 4.2% 

from 6,118 to 6,373 people (U.S. Census 2001). 


- 49 -

- 50 - 


The greater Worcester metropolitan area grew by 33,005 people (nearly a 

7% increase) to a population of 511,389 in the year 2000. The Boston- 

Worcester-Lawrence metropolitan area increased by 363,697 people or 

6.7% to a total of 5,819,100 in 2000 (U.S. Census 2001). 


Chapter 4: Management Direction 


The Service manages fish and wildlife habitats considering the needs of all 

resources in decision-making. A requirement of the Refuge Improvement 

Act is to maintain the ecological health, diversity, and integrity of refuges. 

The refuge is a vital link in the overall function of the ecosystem. To offset 

the historic and continuing loss of riparian and forested floodplain habitats 

within the ecosystem, the refuge helps to provide a biological "safety net" 

for migratory non-game birds and waterfowl, threatened and endangered 

species, and other species of concern. 

The vision and goals of Oxbow NWR translate the Refuge System Mission 

and Refuge Purposes into management direction. To the extent practicable, 

each goal is supported by objectives with strategies needed to accomplish 

them. Objectives are intended to be accomplished within 15 years, although 

actual implementation may vary as a result of available funding and staff. 

As one of the eight refuges in the Complex, Oxbow NWR is a vital part of 

the following vision and goals. 

Complex Vision 

The Complex will contribute to the mission of the Refuge System and 

support ecosystem–wide priority wildlife and natural communities. 

Management will maximize the diversity and abundance of fish and wildlife 

with emphasis on threatened and endangered species, migratory birds, and 

aquatic resources. The Complex will have a well-funded and communitysupported 

acquisition program which contributes to wildlife conservation. 

The refuges will be well known nationally and appreciated in their 

communities. They will be seen as active partners in their communities, 

school systems, and environmental organizations which will result in high 

levels of support for the refuges. The refuges will be a showcase for sound 

wildlife management techniques and will offer top-quality, compatible, 

wildlife dependent recreational activities. Refuges open to the public will 

provide staffed visitor contact facilities that are clean, attractive, and 

accessible, with effective environmental education and interpretation. 

Complex Goals 

The following goals were developed for the Complex to support the mission 

of the Refuge System and the Gulf of Maine Ecosystem Priorities. These 

goals provide a general management direction for the refuges. Each of the 

goals is followed by management objectives and strategies that will help 

Refuge staff to meet the appropriate goals. The objectives and strategies 

that were developed as a part of this CCP do not adhere to the Service’s 

guidelines for refuge goals and objectives. They are intended to provide a 

framework for management of the refuge. We look forward to refining 


- 51 -

- 52 - 

Upland habitat: Photo by George 

Brawerman 


many of the goals, objectives, and strategies in our various step-down 

management plans. 

Goal 1: Recover threatened and endangered species of the Complex. 

Oxbow NWR is not home to any federally listed threatened or endangered 

species but does support the state listed Blanding’s Turtle. Some of the 

strategies that are outlined for Goal 2 will specifically benefit the 

Blanding’s Turtle and are identified as such. 

Goal 2: Protect and enhance habitats that support selfsustaining 

populations of federal trust species and 

wildlife diversity. 

Objective 1: Collect and evaluate relevant baseline habitat and wildlife 

data to ensure future decisions are based on sound science. 

Strategy 1: Continue to participate in several region-wide and Service-wide 

surveys and studies including information on woodcock, marsh birds, 

breeding birds and anuran species. We will continue these activities as long 

as funding is available. We will also continue to seek any information 

compiled by others related to habitat and wildlife populations within the 

refuge and surrounding ecosystem. 

Strategy 2: Update and expand current wildlife inventories to 

close data gaps including: the refuge north of Route 2, seasonality 

of use, habitat-type preferences, and, where practicable, 

estimates of population numbers. We will survey and inventory 

both the Service’s trust resources (migratory birds and federal 

listed threatened and endangered species) and resident wildlife, 

including state listed threatened and endangered species. We 

expect to accomplish these concurrently; however, if necessary, 

surveys and inventories related to the Service’s trust resources 

may receive priority. 

Strategy 3: Continue cooperating in current, partners-based, monitoring 

programs for contaminants (Service Ecological Services, USEPA, 

MADEP) and water quality/flow levels (U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS), 

MADEP, and the Nashua River Watershed Association). 

Strategy 4: Within 3 years, conduct a thorough survey on plants of the 

refuge. We will obtain aerial photography to develop a cover type map and 

ground truth the information in the field. The cover type map will show 

locations and acres for each habitat type. In addition, we will record 

locations of federally endangered and threatened species, other priority 

species, and invasive species using a global positioning system, and 

identified on the cover type map. We will update the map every ten years. 


Osprey: Photo by Cynthia Cronig 


Strategy 5: Within 5 years, census nesting bird species, migrating raptors 

and neotropical migrants. We will conduct the raptor surveys throughout 

the fall, using methods and forms established by the Hawk Migration 

Association of North America. 

Strategy 6: Within 5 years, conduct a comprehensive survey of 

invertebrates during the spring and summer. We will note any federal and 

state listed endangered and threatened species. We will use “sticky” sticks 

(paint stirrers dipped in Tanglefoot Insect Trap Coating and placed 

horizontally on and vertically in the substrate) to sample ground-based 

invertebrates throughout the refuge. We will use collecting nets to 

sample winged invertebrates. 

Strategy 7: Within 7 years, we will survey small mammals using 

small live box traps, snap traps, and pitfall traps. We will arrange 

the traps in a grid and will trap during the spring, summer, or fall 

season. If any threatened or endangered species are found, mark 

recapture studies may be initiated to determine a population 

estimate. 

Strategy 8: Within 7 years, we will sample freshwater fish in all the 

“substantial” ponds using passive and active capture gear and electro 

fishing. Passive gear includes, but is not limited to, gill nets, trammel nets, 

and fyke nets. Active gear includes, but is not limited to, seines, nets, and 

hooks. Depending on the diversity and abundance of fish that are found in 

the ponds, mark and recapture studies may be initiated. 

Objective 2: Manage aquatic and upland habitat to maintain habitat 

and species diversity. 

We will determine resources of concern, including focus species or speciesgroups 

and their habitat needs. Focus species and habitats are most likely 

to be selected based on a combination of factors such as: endangerment 

(federal and state-listed species); priority, national and regional Service 

plans (such as the NAWMP, the PIF, etc); developing Service 

policies/regulations such as those related to HMPs and maintenance of 

ecological integrity; the purpose for which the refuge was established (its 

value for the conservation of migratory bird species); current/historical 

species and habitat presence; and recommendations from MassWildlife or 

other partners. 

Strategy 1: Continue to protect nesting, wintering and migration habitat 

for the Service’s trust resources, in particular, migratory bird species until 

the refuge HMP is developed. We will continue to maintain approximately 

25-30 acres of presently existing old-field grass/shrub habitat by mowing. 

We will consider maintenance of this grassland/old-field habitat with the 

use of fire. 


- 53 -

- 54 - 

Habitat: Photo by Tim Bruce 


Strategy 2: Selectively remove and restore to natural habitat existing roads 

and dirt trails that are not needed for refuge management, visitor use or 

fire-control purposes. We will focus these efforts within the portion of the 

refuge north of Route 2, which was transferred to the Service from the U.S. 

Army in May 1999. 

Strategy 3: Within 2 years, develop a long-range HMP. The HMP will 

contain information for all habitats and species on the refuge, with a focus 

on resources of regional and national concern (based on regional and 

Service plans). It will provide quantitative and measurable 

objectives and strategies for habitat management to enhance 

resources of concern. 

Strategy 4: Within 5 years, complete a Habitat and Wildlife 

Inventory Management Plan (HWIMP). We will include an ongoing 

monitoring component designed to measure progress 

toward those objectives outlined in the HMP, and to allow midcourse 

corrections or alterations as they may be needed. We will 

develop any additional step-down plans that may be required, 

depending on specific habitat management techniques or 

practices that may be recommended in the plans including 

chemical, mechanical or fire. We will develop protocol in this plan 

to be statistically sound and peer reviewed. 

Strategy 5: Approximately 15-20 acres of existing, predominately 

mineral, sandy soil turtle nesting habitat will be maintained by 

mowing, discing or blading. The refuge currently supports the 

largest known population of the state-listed Blanding’s turtle in the 

Northeast. Eight to ten acres of the refuge were formerly suitable turtle 

nesting habitat, but have succeeded to old-field vegetative type cover. In an 

effort to contribute to the success of this species, and complement other 

efforts in the area, we will restore this acreage for turtle nesting habitat. 

With the planning assistance of cooperating researchers, we will restore 

approximately eight to ten acres of turtle nesting habitat that has reverted 

to shrub and tree cover. These areas would be restored by removing 

vegetation and surface organic duff layers. 

Strategy 6: Continue to seek opportunities to develop cooperative 

management agreements with neighboring conservation organizations and 

individuals. We will work with our conservation partners and, where our 

mission, goals, and objectives are compatible, will work together to 

implement habitat management and biodiversity strategies. 

Objective 3: Limit the spread of invasive and overabundant species and 

minimize habitat degradation. 

Strategy 1: Document presence, acreage, and location of invasive and 

overabundant species in conjunction with vegetation surveys and 



development of a cover type map. Existing stands of spotted knapweed, 

glossy buckthorn, cattail and common reed will be monitored to determine 

changes in area of extent. 

Strategy 2: Develop an Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP), which 

will provide a full range of potential and alternative mechanical, biological 

and chemical control strategies. We will include a monitoring program as a 

part of the plan, which will consist of plot sampling, estimates of cover, and 

responses of wildlife and other plants. We will use the IPMP in concert 

with habitat monitoring to assess progress and the effectiveness of 

different techniques, and identify additional problem species. We will 

research alternative methods of controlling certain species as appropriate, 

based on monitoring results. Control strategies will be species specific and 

may employ biological vectors, mechanical methods (hand pulling), fire, or 

herbicides. 

We will develop control strategies that will be species and condition 

specific. We may employ biological vectors such as the use of Galerucella 

beetles for purple loosestrife control, mechanical methods (e.g., handpulling, 

mowing, or discing), use of fire, or use of herbicides. We will choose 

the least intrusive, but effective, control practice whenever possible. The 

use of some herbicides may require action-specific step-down plans, and in 

some situations, proposed control methodologies may also require wetland 

permitting review and approval. 

We will continue to use host-specific beetles (Galerucella calmariensis or 

G. pusilla) in a program to control purple loosestrife within a portion of a 

larger (240+/-ac) wetland on the refuge. Unless project-specific funding 

becomes available, we will continue to evaluate the effects of treatment with 

the beetles only by simple year-to-year photographic recording of the 

release site(s) on the refuge. 

Strategy 3: Participate in appropriate, experimental invasive species 

control research programs. Such programs must be reviewed and approved 

by Service Regional or national biological staff and the Department of 

Interior’s wildlife research division, the Biological Resources Division, now 

located within the USGS. 

Strategy 4: Control populations of overabundant or non-native wildlife 

species. At some time prior to its transfer to the Service, a beaver colony 

and its dam were removed from a 25-30 acre wetland along the north side 

of Route 2. The wetland hydrology has been compromised with the 

removal of the beavers and its wildlife values have been degraded. 

We will work toward establishing a partnership with the 

Massachusetts Highway Department to re-establish a watercontrol 

structure on the Route 2 underpass culvert in order to 

restore this wetland. The remaining, current mix of wetland and 

Beaver activity: Photo by David 

Margaretos Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

- 55 -

- 56 - 


upland habitats will be protected, but allowed to mature to shrub and forest 

under natural successional processes. 

In recent years, beaver have caused minor flooding of refuge trails and 

maintenance roads. To date, we have controlled such situations by manually 

clearing culverts, installing grates on culverts and water-control structures, 

and by installing beaver exclosures and “deceivers” in dams or on culverts. 

We will continue these practices. If more serious threats to habitat, refuge 

facilities, adjacent property or endangerment of health arise, we would 

work, in coordination with MassWildlife to either trap and relocate 

individual animals from problem sites, permit licensed sports trappers or 

hunters to reduce population numbers, remove individual beavers through 

trapping or shooting by refuge staff, or to permit a licensed animal damage 

control firm to reduce population numbers by trapping. We may need to 

complete a compatibility determination outlining specific requirements and 

conditions for beaver removal and issue a special use permit. 

We will monitor mute swans on the refuge. In an effort to keep this 

aggressive, non-native species from becoming a resident on the refuge, 

territorial or nesting swans on the refuge would be lethally removed after 

obtaining appropriate permits from our migratory bird office. 

Goal 3: Build a public that understands, appreciates, and 

supports refuge goals for wildlife. 

Objective 1: Improve the visibility of the refuge in the community and 

increase awareness of the Refuge System in general and the 

management activities and purpose of the refuge. 

As the refuge continues to contribute to the quality of life in east-central 

Massachusetts, strong support in the community and the region will also 

continue to contribute to its success. Helping hands are needed for 

program development, data gathering, and other opportunities discussed in 

these alternatives. Only with this type of assistance can the refuge fully 

achieve its goals and objectives, support the missions of the Refuge System 

and the Service, and help meet the needs of the community. 

Volunteers participate in a wide variety of activities. These 

include wildlife and wildlands photography, assisting with or 

conducting educational and interpretative programs, providing 

information to visitors, conducting observations and surveys of 

wildlife species, botanical surveys, litter pick-up, trail clearing 

and maintenance, sign rehabilitation, and other maintenance 

projects. 

Volunteers assisting with water 

sampling: Staff photo 

The volunteer program at the Complex has been growing 

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

to the Complex. In 2000, volunteers provided 20,675 hours of service. Much 


Birder on nature trail: Photo by 

Sue Abrahamsen 


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

Group members. In 2003, we again received incredible support from 

volunteers, which continues into 2004. Volunteers contributed 1,301 hours 

of service specifically to the Oxbow NWR during 2003. We are deeply 

indebted to all of our volunteers for their dedication and services rendered 

for the betterment of our nation’s natural resources. 

Strategy 1: Within 3 years, we will develop a Visitor Services Plan which 

describes all the planned public uses using standard regional guidelines. 

The plan will involve setting public use goals, determining measurable 

objectives, identifying strategies, and establishing criteria for all visitor 

services. The plan will also outline future funding and staffing needs. 

Several step-down plans will be required prior to opening or expanding 

public uses, including a fishing plan and hunting plan. 

Strategy 2: Increase current Outreach Programs by adding sponsorship of 

one or more additional annual events (such as National Fishing Day, 

National Wildlife Refuge Week or Earth Day) designed to promote 

wildlife-dependent recreation and natural resource education. 

Strategy 3: In cooperation with area teachers, assess the needs for, and 

work toward development of a refuge-specific environmental education 

curriculum for grades between kindergarten and the senior year of high 

school. We will provide an annual teacher workshop to cooperatively share 

experience and ideas related to these curricula. 

Strategy 4: Initiate programs to provide educational and informational 

material and strategies related to natural resource protection and 

restoration to local communities and landowners. We will incorporate ongoing 

refuge resource management practices and habitat restoration areas 

into all of these programs to serve as illustrations or demonstrations of 

resource management concepts and techniques. 

Strategy 5: Work with partners and local communities to place 

informational kiosks related to the refuge and resource management at 

three off-refuge locations. 

Objective 2: Provide opportunities for wildlife observation and 

photography where such opportunities can be safely 

provided while achieving refuge purposes. 

Strategy 1: Provide opportunities for walking, snowshoeing and 

cross-country skiing to facilitate these wildlife-dependent 

opportunities on the refuge. Visitors are able to observe and 

photograph wildlife along approximately 2.5 miles of existing trails 

within the portion of the refuge located south of Route 2 (see Map 4- 

1). We will open an additional 5 to 6 miles of foot trails and a second 

canoe launch on the portion of the refuge north of Route 2. Parking 


- 57 -

- 58 - 


Map 4-1: Public Use at Oxbow NWR 


Environmental Education on the 

refuge: Staff photo 


areas for these facilities will be constructed. Some areas of consideration 

are adjacent to Jackson, Hospital and Walker Roads. 

We will evaluate the potential for a foot trail on the Watt farm. Before 

allowing this use, we will conduct surveys to determine what species are 

using the farm. We will consider a trail if our surveys show that this use 

would not disturb birds using the area. 

Refuge staff will develop a system for evaluating proposals for new trails. 

This review system will provide refuge staff with the necessary tools to 

evaluate the need for and effects of recommended trails. 

Strategy 2: Maintain and enhance canoe launching and parking areas. We 

will maintain the existing canoe launch and two parking areas located at the 

Still River Depot Road entrance. In 2003, the parking areas and canoe 

launch site were refurbished and a restroom was constructed. Two 

additional canoe launches and parking areas would be constructed within 

the former Fort Devens North Post (Map 4-1). 

Strategy 3: Maintain the limited interpretive signing along portions of the 

current trails south of Route 2 (Map 4-1). 

Strategy 4: Improve our current, very limited, monitoring (infrequent 

visitor and vehicle counts and Tank Road trail counter) to gain a rough 

gauge of refuge-use levels. 

Objective 3: Provide and enhance opportunities for environmental 

education, interpretation, and outreach where appropriate 

and compatible with refuge purposes. 

Strategy 1: Continue providing environmental education oriented teacher 

workshops on an “as-requested” basis. 

Strategy 2: Continue development and implementation of our Urban 

Education Program at the refuge in cooperation with the Worcester Public 

School System and the Friends of the Oxbow NWR. We will increase our 

participation in local and regional environmental education and interpretive 

programs. Our Urban Education Program has been conducted in 

cooperation with the Worcester Public School System and the 

Friends of Oxbow NWR. We will expand the program to include at 

least one additional elementary-middle or high school either from 

Worcester or another school system within the region. We will also 

endeavor to work with other school systems to provide instructional 

materials and presentations related to refuge resources and 

management programs that are occurring at Oxbow NWR. In 

addition, we will work with our Friends of Oxbow NWR and other 

partners to expand our current staff and volunteer-led interpretive 


- 59 -

- 60 - 


programs on Oxbow NWR. 

Strategy 3: Continue to provide support as available for educational and 

interpretative programs organized and led by the Friends of Oxbow NWR 

and other groups. 

Strategy 4: Continue to provide presentations related to the refuge and its 

resources to local schools, clubs, and community organizations as time and 

staff resources allow. We will also continue to work closely with the Friends 

of Oxbow NWR, to assist them in membership and program development, 

and to assist in the organization and leadership of volunteer programs and 

work activities on the refuge. 

Strategy 5: Construct three informational kiosks at entrances to refuge foot 

trails, and a self-guided interpretive trail with signage and explanatory 

pamphlets. Refuge-specific informational and species list brochures will be 

developed and made available at refuge kiosks, visitor contact stations, and 

on-line at the refuge web site. The current, proposed locations of these 

facilities are depicted on Map 4-1. 

Objective 4: Provide opportunities for hunting and fishing where 

appropriate and compatible with refuge purposes. 

Portions of Oxbow NWR south of Rt. 2 are currently open to hunting of big 

game (turkey), upland game (ruffed grouse, gray squirrel, and rabbit), and 

migratory birds (American woodcock). Additional portions of the Oxbow 

NWR will be open for hunting. Specific areas are identified below and are 

depicted on Map 4-2. 

Before hunting is allowed on the refuge north of Rt. 2, the Code of Federal 

Regulations must be amended to authorize the hunting of white-tailed deer 

and waterfowl on Oxbow NWR. There will be a public comment period 

announced in the Federal Register. We anticipate an early 2005 Federal 

Register notice. Refuge staff will prepare a Hunt Plan before changing the 

location and types of hunting allowed on the refuge. No additional NEPA 

review is necessary to implement such changes. 

Providing hunting and fishing opportunities addresses the mandates of 

Executive Order 12996 and the Refuge Improvement Act by providing the 

public with an opportunity to engage in wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Hunting and fishing are recognized by the Service as traditional forms of 

wildlife related outdoor recreation. We anticipate a low to moderate degree 

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

activities. The plan to permit hunting and fishing on the refuge will not 

affect wildlife populations in Massachusetts, as the refuges represent only a 

very small portion of the overall habitat available in the State. 

Fishing is already allowed at the refuge. 


Map 4-2: Current and Future Hunting Areas on Oxbow NWR 


Type I Hunting = Shotgun, archery and primitive firearms hunting for deer, turkey, ruffed grouse, gray squirrel, rabbit, and woodcock 

Type II Hunting = Archery deer hunting, shotgun hunting for turkey, ruffed grouse, gray squirrel, rabbit, and woodcock 

Type III Hunting = Archery hunting only for deer and turkey 


- 61 -

- 62 - 

Trail: Photo by Stanley Klein 


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

fishing, including safety considerations. The Refuge Manager may, upon 

annual review of the hunting program, impose further restrictions on 

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

hunting or fishing, or further liberalize hunting or fishing regulations 

within the limits of state and federal regulations. Restrictions would occur 

if hunting or fishing becomes inconsistent with other 

higher priority refuge programs or endangers 

refuge resources or public safety. 

Annual permits will be required for hunting on the 

refuge. The permits will facilitate managing 

numbers of hunters and harvest. Fees charged for 

these permits will offset, but not completely cover 

costs associated with managing hunting programs. 

For additional information on the fee program, see 

the section on fees beginning on page 65. 

Enforcement of federal and state hunting and 

fishing regulations will be accomplished through 

patrols by refuge law enforcement officers. Enforcement patrols may also 

be conducted by Massachusetts Environmental Police Officers. The 

frequency of patrols will be determined by hunter use, the level of 

compliance observed during patrols, and information obtained from 

participants, visitors and other sources. Refuge brochures and hunter 

orientation prior to the hunting seasons will emphasize refuge specific 

regulations, safety considerations and the protection of wildlife species 

found on the refuge. 

In addition to state hunting regulations, the refuge may impose additional 

regulations. Examples of refuge regulations that would apply to hunting on 

the refuge include: 

� hunters will be required to obtain permits from the refuge to hunt 

on the refuge; 

� hunters may enter the refuge two hours before legal sunrise and 

must leave within 1.5 hours after legal sunset, and hunting can 

occur no earlier than one-half hour before sunrise and one-half hour 

after sunset; 

� no night hunting will be allowed on the refuge; 

� pre-hunt scouting of the refuge is allowed by permit, during specific 

time periods; 

� carrying guns is not permissible during pre-hunt scouts; 

� permanent blinds are not permitted on the refuge; 

� all hunting materials, tree stands, and flagging must be removed at 

the end of each hunting day; 

� no one shall insert a nail, screw, spike, wire, or other ceramic, metal, 

or other tree-damaging object into a tree, or may hunt from a tree 

into which such an object has been inserted; 



� the distribution of bait and the hunting over bait is prohibited on 

wildlife refuge areas; 

� all firearms must be unloaded outside of legal state hunting hours; 

� the use of all terrain vehicles (ATV’s) and snowmobiles on refuge 

land is prohibited; 

� training of dogs on the refuge is not permitted; 

� open fires are not permitted; 

� use or possession of alcoholic beverages while hunting is prohibited. 

Check stations will not be established on the refuge at this time, but 

reporting requirements may be instituted. Refuge staff will provide 

information about reporting forms when permits are issued. 

The refuge will work with partners to provide increased hunter education 

through training, brochures, and news releases. 

As a part of the hunt plan we will determine exactly when hunting will be 

allowed. The maximum amount of time that the refuge will be open for 

hunting is the full state seasons for each type of hunting. It is possible that 

we will open for a shorter duration, limited hours, or limited days of the 

week. In Massachusetts there is no hunting on Sundays. To illustrate the 

maximum potential hunting period, Table 4-1 displays the 2004 

Massachusetts hunting seasons for each of the types of hunting proposed 

for Oxbow NWR. 

Table 4-1: 2004 Massachusetts Hunting Seasons 

Season Start Date 1 End Date 1 Start Date 2 End Date 2 

Deer (Archery) 10/11/2004 11/20/2004 

Deer (Primitive 

Firearms) 12/13/2004 12/31/2004 

Deer (Shotgun) 11/29/2004 12/11/2004 

Ducks and Regular 

Canada Goose 10/13/2004 11/27/2004 12/17/2004 1/8/2005 

Early Canada Goose 9/7/2004 9/25/2004 

Late Canada Goose 1/15/2004 2/15/2005 

Wild Turkey 4/26/2004 5/22/2004 10/25/2004 10/30/2004 

Woodcock 10/14/2004 10/30/2004 11/1/2004 11/13/2004 

Ruffed Grouse 10/16/2004 11/27/2004 

Cottontail Rabbit 10/16/2004 2/28/2005 

Gray Squirrel 10/16/2004 1/1/2005 

Strategy 1: Provide opportunities for hunting big and upland game species 

on the refuge where appropriate. We will open portions of the refuge to 

hunting opportunities in accordance with all applicable Massachusetts state 

regulations and requirements. Among other restrictions, these regulations 

prohibit the discharge of any firearm or arrow upon or across any state or 

hard-surfaced highway or within 150 feet of any such highway, and any 

hunting within 500 feet of any dwelling or building in use, except as 


- 63 -

- 64 - 

Water and pond lilies: Photo by Marijke Holtrop 


authorized by the owner of occupant thereof (See Map 4-2 which depicts the 

general areas within the refuge where these activities will occur). 

Shotgun, primitive firearms, and archery hunting of deer, ruffed grouse, 

turkey, rabbit, and gray squirrel will be allowed on the portions of the 

Oxbow NWR located south of Route 2, with the exception the “Watt Farm” 

addition to the east of the B&M railroad tracks. The Watt Farm area will 

be open only for archery hunting of deer and turkey. 

The portions of the refuge from the Route 2 underpass to Hospital Road 

will be open for archery deer hunting. We will also permit ruffed grouse, 

turkey, rabbit and gray squirrel hunting on the portions of the refuge north 

of Route 2 and south of Hospital Road. 

The portion of the refuge located on the westerly side of the Nashua River 

north of Shirley Road will be open for archery, shotgun, and primitive 

firearm deer hunting, as well as ruffed grouse, rabbit, squirrel, and turkey 

hunting. The portion of the refuge on the easterly side of the Nashua River 

north of Shirley Road, will be open only for archery deer and turkey 

hunting. 

All state regulations and restrictions will continue to apply, and be 

enforced, including the safety related restrictions discussed above. In 

addition, the use of non-toxic shot (non-lead) will 

continue to be required for all areas of the refuge for all 

upland game seasons. 

We will provide a limited special season for physically 

handicapped hunters in accordance with state 

requirements for such hunts. Selected roads on the 

refuge will be open for vehicle traffic during this season. 

We believe the physical configuration of trails and roads 

on the refuge will allow us to provide handicapped 

accessible deer hunting opportunities from several of 

these access ways. 

Strategy 2: Provide opportunities for migratory bird hunting where 

appropriate. We will permit woodcock hunting in the same areas described 

above for hunting of ruffed grouse, rabbit, and gray squirrel. We will also 

open waterfowl hunting south of Route 2 on the Nashua River and on the 

wetlands and ponds associated with the Nashua River in that portion of the 

refuge. 

Strategy 3: Provide opportunities for sport fishing where appropriate. We 

will continue to provide boat and canoe fishing opportunities, in compliance 

with state regulations and restrictions, on the Nashua River throughout its 

course along and within the refuge. Fishing within refuge ponds, pools and 

wetlands will continue to be prohibited for wildlife nesting and habitat 



protection purposes. We will increase fishing opportunities on the refuge by 

providing river-bank fishing at up to four areas along the Nashua River. 

These areas may need to receive stabilization or be provided with erosion 

control measures prior to being opened, and they may be closed as needed 

to prevent or repair bank erosion or prevent disturbance to migratory 

birds, if either should occur. At least one, and, based on further evaluation 

of their compatibility with habitat and wildlife considerations, potentially all 

of these locations will be made handicapped accessible. 

Objective 5: Provide opportunities for non-wildlife dependent activities 

when they assist visitors in participating in wildlife 

dependent activities and when such use does not detract 

from the refuge purpose. 

Strategy 1: Continue to allow, but not encourage jogging. Staff and 

volunteers have observed disturbance to wildlife caused by joggers. We 

plan to analyze the potential impacts of jogging within the next three years 

on Service trust resources and priority public uses and will consider 

modifying or eliminating the use in the future, based on this additional 

analysis. 

Strategy 2: Within a year, eliminate dog walking from the refuge. This use 

has been found to disturb wildlife and other visitors and is not considered 

one of the six priority uses on national wildlife refuges. 

Strategy 3: Remain closed to other non-wildlife dependent activities such as 

bikes on trails, horseback riding, dog sledding, snowmobiling and 

swimming. No picnicking facilities will be provided and permits will not be 

issued for events, such as family reunions, where meals are a major 

component. Visitors will be allowed to snack and drink a beverage while on 

refuge trails. Bicycles are allowed in parking lots and on entrance roads. 

Bikes are not permitted on refuge trails. 

Goal 4: Adequately protect cultural resources that occur in the 

Complex. 

Strategy 1: Continue evaluations or surveys of cultural resources 

(archeological and historical) on a refuge project-specific basis. Soil 

disturbance requires resource evaluation and clearance. Federal cultural 

resource protection laws and regulations would be enforced. 

Strategy 2: Within 10 years, initiate and complete cultural and historical 

resource surveys and inventories on a refuge-wide basis. The archeological 

survey portion of this work will be designed to develop predictive models 

that could be applied refuge-wide in evaluating the potential of future 

projects to impact cultural resources. 


- 65 -

- 66 - 

Wood frog eggs: Photo by Marijke Holtrop 


Strategy 3: Comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act before conducting any ground disturbing activities. Compliance may 

require any or all of the following: State Historic Preservation Records 

survey, literature survey, 

or field survey. The Service has a legal 

responsibility to consider the effects its actions have 

on archeological and historic resources. 

Goal 

5: Maintain a well-trained, diverse staff 

working productively 

toward a shared refuge 

vision. 

We 

will continue to utilize Service policy, training 

opportunities, and other appropriate means to meet 

the staffing goals. 

General Refuge Management 

The 

following management direction applies to various refuge goals and 

across program areas. Some of this direction is required by Service policy 

or legal mandates. Refuge management direction is organized by topic 

area. 

Refuge Access and Fees 

The 

Complex will charge an entrance fee at the Oxbow and Assabet River 

NWRs, and at the Concord impoundments of Great Meadows NWR, and a 

user fee for hunting on the Complex. Our fee program will be established 

under the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program (Fee Demo Program), 

a program which Congress initiated in 1997 to encourage Department of 

Interior agencies that provide recreational opportunities to recover costs 

for their public use facilities, improve visitor facilities, promote activities for 

visitors and address the maintenance backlog of visitor service projects 

(USFWS 1997a). Congress re-authorized the Fee Demo Program in 2004 

for 10 years. The Fee Demo Program requires at least 70% of revenue 

remain at the collection site. Currently, 80% of the funds raised from user 

fees on a particular refuge in this region stay at the refuge. The other 20% 

is sent to the region to be distributed to other refuges. No more than 15% 

of the fees collected can be used for fee collecting or fee collection systems. 

The Complex has received money from these regional funds in previous 

years for public use facilities. If the program does become permanent, the 

percent of revenue remaining on site could change, however it will never be 

less than 70% and could be as much as 100%. Visitors with a current duck 

stamp, Golden Eagle Pass, Golden Age Pass or Golden Access Pass do not 

have to pay entrance fees. 

The 

following entrance fee program will be initiated at the Oxbow NWR. 

� A one day entrance fee will be charged per car or per group if 

arriving via foot or bicycle. Our proposed fee will be $4 per day. 


Park bench: Photo by Joan Ross 


� An annual pass for three refuges in the Complex (Assabet River, 

Great Meadows and Oxbow) will be available for $12. 

� Daily entrance fees will be collected by refuge staff stationed on site 

or at self-service fee collection stations. 

� Self-service fee collection stations will likely consist of a secure box 

with envelopes to register and pay the daily 

or annual fee. 

� We will attempt to make purchase of the annual pass available by 

fax and on-line. The pass will also be available at the Refuge 

Headquarters. 

The following Hunting Permit Fee Program will be implemented in 

conjunction 

with the hunting program described later in this chapter. 

� We will charge an annual fee of $20 for a hunting permit. This 

permit will be valid for all unrestricted hunting seasons open on the 

Northern refuges (Assabet River, Great Meadows, and Oxbow 

NWRs). Hunters with a valid hunt permit will not have to pay an 

entrance fee while scouting or hunting. 

� There may be a need to limit hunting during 

certain seasons to 

ensure a safe, high-quality hunt. Details of these restrictions and 

any application requirements will be outlined in the Hunting 

Management Plan. Based upon these restrictions, purchase of a 

permit does not guarantee the ability to hunt all seasons on all 

refuges. No additional fee would be required for hunting 

applications for restricted seasons. 

� 

At the time of purchase of the annual hunting permit, the individual 

may choose to purchase an annual entrance pass for an additional 

$5. The combined permit/pass must be purchased jointly. 

Individuals that do not purchase the combination permit/pass will be 

subject 

to entrance fees on the refuge during times when they are not 

hunting. 

We realize 

that the new fee program will require an adjustment period. 

Our 

plan for instituting the fee includes an educational period, a warning 

period, and finally a transition to full enforcement. 

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

to reflect changes in administrative costs or management goals. 

Accessibility 

Each refuge will 

operate its programs or activities so that when 

viewed 

in its entirety, it is accessible and usable by disabled 

persons. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, requires that 


- 67 -

- 68 - 


programs and facilities be, to the highest degree feasible, readily accessible 

to, and usable by, all persons who have a disability. 

Non-Wildlife Dependent Public Uses 

We will eliminate dog walking opportunities from the refuge within a year 

of the publication of this plan. We have found dog walking to disturb 

wildlife 

and other visitors and it is not considered one of the six priority 

uses on national wildlife refuges. We will continue to allow jogging, but will 

not be encouraged. We plan to analyze the potential impacts of jogging 

within the next three years on Service trust resources and priority public 

uses and will consider modifying or eliminating the use in the future, based 

on this additional information. The refuge will remain closed to other non- 

wildlife dependent activities such as bicycling, horseback riding, dog 

sledding, snowmobiling and swimming. No picnicking facilities will be 

available. Bicycles are only allowed in parking lots and on the Still River 

Depot entrance road. 

Fire Management 

U. S. Department of the Interior and Service policy state that Refuge 

System lands with vegetation 

capable of sustaining fire will develop a Fire 

Management 

Plan (FMP) (620 DM 1.4B; 621 FW 1.1.1). The FMP, which 

includes Oxbow NWR, provides direction and continuity in establishing 

operational procedures to guide all fire management objectives as 

identified in the plan. This plan was finalized in March of 2003. The FMP 

includes descriptions of the refuges and addresses wildland and prescribed 

fire events. The FMP also defines levels of protection needed to ensure 

safety, protect facilities and resources, and restore and perpetuate natural 

processes, given current understanding of the complex relationships in 

natural ecosystems. It is written to comply with a Service-wide 

requirement that refuges with burnable vegetation develop a FMP (620 

DM 1). 

The associated EA was prepared in compliance with NEPA and the Council 

on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 CFR Parts1500 -1508). 

It 

provides a description of the purpose and need for the project, a brief 

background, the features of each alternative, the affected environment, and 

resulting effects and consequences of each alternative. The selected 

alternative, “prescribed fire and wildland fire suppression” is discussed in 

detail in the EA. Alternatives which were considered, but not selected, 

include differing combinations of: allowing naturally ignited fires to burn 

in 

some instances; use of prescribed burning to achieve wildlife resource and 

habitat objectives; and, wildland fire suppression. A “no-action” alternative 

of allowing all fires to burn at all times was initially considered, but 

dismissed as not suitable for further consideration in the development of 

this proposal. The no-action alternative was rejected because it fails to 

meet Service policy in regards to potential liability for losses of life and 


Fall Color: Photo by Joan Ross 


property, as well as its unacceptable environmental, social, and economic 

costs. 

The mission of the Complex is to protect and provide quality habitat for fish 

and wildlife 

resources and for the development, advancement, 

management, 

and conservation thereof. By defining an appropriate level of 

wildland fire protection, and integrating a prescribed fire program based 

on biological needs, the FMP and EA are fully supportive and sensitive 

to 

the purpose of the Complex, and of benefit to the Service, in performing its 

activities and services. 

If you would like a copy of the FMP, or the EA, please contact the 

Refuge Headquarters in Sudbury. 

Land Protection 

Berries frozen in winter: Photo by Marijke Holtrop 

The Service is currently working on a new national land conservation 

policy and strategic 

growth initiative. This policy will develop a vision 

and 

process for growth of the Refuge System, helping individual 

refuges better evaluate lands suitable for inclusion in the Refuge System. 

The process will help insure that lands the Service protects are of national 

and regional importance and meet certain nationwide standards and goals. 

Also, some of the focus of reevaluating Refuge System growth has come 

from the need to address nationwide operations and maintenance (O&M) 

backlogs on existing properties. Many refuges, including Oxbow NWR, are 

not fully staffed under current budgets and have significant O&M backlogs. 

Expanding boundaries creates a need for additional staff, O&M funds, as 

well as additional dollars for the land protection itself. Our Director has 

asked that we focus, in the interim, on acquiring inholdings within already 

approved boundaries, which is our proposal under all alternatives for these 

three refuges. 

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

Oxbow NWR which are of interest for possible 

private-lands habitat improvement projects, 

easements, and/or acquisition. All lands within the 

Oxbow NWR acquisition boundaries are already 

acquired. 

The Service’s land acquisition policy is to obtain the 

minimum interest 

necessary to satisfy refuge 

objectives. 

Conservation easements can sometimes be 

used in this context, when they can be shown to be a 

cost-effective method of protection. In general, 

conservation easements must preclude destruction or 

degradation of habitat, 

and allow refuge staff to adequately manage uses of 

the area for the benefit of wildlife. Because development rights must be 

included, the cost 

of purchasing conservation easements often approaches 


- 69 -

- 70 - 


that of fee title purchase, thus rendering this method less practical. 

Nevertheless, donations of easements or voluntary deed restrictions 

prohibiting habitat destruction will be encouraged. In addition, the Service 

could negotiate management agreements with local and state agencies, 


accept conservation easements on upland tracts. 

Funding for land acquisition comes from the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund and the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund under the Migratory 

Bird 

Conservation Act. 

Resource Protection and Visitor Safety 

Protection of visitors and both natural and cultural resources will be 

improved. We propose to increase refuge staff by one additional, full-time 

Park 

Ranger, and provide the necessary, intensive federal law enforcement 

training required for dual function law enforcement responsibilities to two 

additional staff (e.g., an assistant manager, refuge operations specialist, or 

an outdoor recreation planner). 

Refuge staff will complete a fire suppression contract or agreement with 

state or local fire suppression agencies 

for wildfires occurring on the refuge 

(see 

section Fire Management at the beginning of this chapter). 

Special Use Permits and Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement 

Guided tours, by outside groups, are permitted on the refuges if the activity 

is determined to be appropriate and compatible with the refuge(s) purpose. 

Permitting 

will be divided into four categories by the type of use and the 

regularity of the activity requested. Where appropriate, one Permit or 

Agreement will be developed for all three northern refuges in the Complex 

including Oxbow, Assabet River and Great Meadows NWRs. 

Special Use Permits may be issued to user groups or individuals for annual 

or single events. These organizations or individuals are those who want to 

use 

the refuges for a special purpose (e.g. commercial photographer, 

special event or research study), or to gain access to an area otherwise 

closed to the public (e.g. one time entrance to closed areas to 

film/photograph special event or hold special wildlife celebration day on 

refuge). Groups will be given specific requirements and educational 

guidelines on materials to present to the public. The specific charge 


specific requirements will be determined on a case by case basis. 

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) may be issued to user groups/individuals who want to use the 

refuges 

for a special purpose or gain access to an area otherwise closed to 

the public, on a regular basis or annually. Groups will be given specific 

requirements and educational guidelines on materials to present to the 



public. The specific charge and specific requirements will be determined 

a case-by-case basis. 

A concession may be developed 

if a business operated by private enterprise 

is providing a public service (recreational, educational and interpretive 

enjoyment of our lands and waters for the visiting public), and generally 

requires some sort of capital investment. 

Concessionaires will generally gross a minimum 

of $1,000 and the 

concession 

will be charged either a fixed franchise fee or a percent of gross 

income. Groups will also be given specific requirements and educational 

guidelines on materials to present to the public. 

Research 

Deer abound at Oxbow NWR: Photo by 

Carole D’Angelo 

The Service 

encourages and supports research and management studies on 

refuge 

lands that improve and strengthen natural resource management 

decisions. The refuge manager encourages and seeks research relative to 

approved refuge objectives that clearly improves land management, 

promotes adaptive management, addresses important management issues 

or demonstrates techniques for management of species and/or habitats. 

Priority research addresses information that will better manage the 

Nation’s biological resources and is generally considered important to: 

Agencies of the Department of Interior; the Service; the Refuge System; 

and state Fish and Game Agencies, or important management issues for 

the refuge. 

We will consider 

research for other purposes, which may not directly relate 

to refuge specific objectives, but may contribute to the broader 

enhancement, protection, use, preservation and management of native 

populations of fish, wildlife and plants, and their natural diversity 

within 

the region or flyway. These proposals must still pass the Service’s 

compatibility policy. 

We will maintain a list of research needs that will be provided to 

prospective 

researchers or organizations upon request. Our support of 

research directly relates to refuge objectives and may take the form 

of: 

funding, in-kind services such as housing or use of other 

facilities, direct staff assistance with the project in the form of 

data collection, provision of historical records, conducting of 

management treatments, or other assistance as appropriate. 

All researchers on refuges, current and future, will be required 

to submit research proposals which include a detailed research 

proposal following Service Policy FWS Refuge Manual Chapter 

4 Section 6. All proposals must be submitted at least three 

months prior to the requested initiation date of the project. 

Special Use Permits must also identify a schedule for annual 


on 

- 71 -

- 72 - 


progress reports. The Regional refuge biologists, other Service Divisions 

and state agencies may be asked to review and comment on proposals. 

We will provide minimal on-site support for research 

projects. We will 

continue 

to identify other research needs to the Service’s Regional 

Research Coordinator, and to other potential research partners (e.g., 

USGS, Biological Resources Division and universities). 


Trail clean-up: Staff photo 

Chapter 5: Refuge Administration 

Refuge Staffing 

Chapter 5: Implementation and Monitoring 

Currently the refuge shares one refuge manager position with Assabet 

River NWR. The refuge also currently shares the support of two refuge 

biologists, an outdoor recreation planner, a natural resource planner, a law 

enforcement officer, two maintenance workers, two administrative 

technicians and seasonal employees with the Complex. We have determined 

that the refuge minimum staffing needs include: 

• one refuge manager, 

• one assistant refuge manager or refuge operations specialist, 

• one outdoor recreation planner, 

• one maintenance worker, 

• one administrative technician, 

• and one park ranger (law enforcement). 

In addition, several new staff positions are required to enable us to 

implement the full range of programs, facilities and activities identified in 

our management direction. The additional needed staff includes: 

• one park ranger with refuge and visitor protection responsibilities, 

• one biological technician, and 

• one heavy equipment operator. 

The eight Eastern Massachusetts NWRs are managed as a Complex, with 

centrally stationed staff taking on duties at multiple refuges. The CCP 

examines the need for staff specific to the three refuges that were 

organized under the Draft CCP/EA dated April 2003. A total of 

39 full time personnel and a seasonal Biotech are needed to fully 

implement all three refuge CCPs. Permanent staff serving all 

three refuges may be stationed at the Refuge Headquarters in 

Sudbury, MA with the eventual on-site relocation of Oxbow NWR 

staff to the new office/visitor contact station. Appendix F 

identifies currently filled positions, recommended new positions, 

and the overall supervisory structure. The new positions 

identified will increase visitor services, biological expertise, and 

visibility of the Service on refuge lands. 

Refuge Funding 

Successful implementation of the CCPs for each refuge relies on our ability 

to secure funding, personnel, infrastructure, and other resources to 

accomplish the actions identified. Full implementation of the actions and 

strategies in all three Complex CCPs will incur one-time costs of $3 million. 

This includes staffing, major construction projects, and individual resource 

program expansions. Most of these projects have been identified as Tier 1 

or Tier 2 Projects in the Refuge System’s Refuge Operations Needs 


- 73 -

- 74 - 


System database (RONS). Appendix E lists RONS projects and their 

recurring costs, such as salaries, following the first year. Also presented in 

Appendix E is a list of projects in the Service’s current Maintenance 

Management System (MMS) database for the Complex. Currently, the 

MMS database lists $3.85 million in maintenance needs for the Complex. 

Refuge Buildings and Facilities 

The only building on the refuge at the present time is a comfort station at 

the Still River Depot Road parking lot. We will work with state, private and 

other federal partners to obtain authorization and funding that will enable 

the construction of an office/visitor contact station at the refuge. This 

facility will likely be constructed on Jackson Road, just north of Route 2 at 

exit 37B. The visitor contact station could be approximately 4000 square 

feet in size. It will provide space for interpretative exhibits, a meeting room 

and administrative offices for refuge staff. The current, proposed locations 

of these facilities are depicted on Map 4-1. 

As part of the Centennial Celebration for the Refuge System, the Service 

identified ten refuges in the country for new visitor centers. The Complex 

ranked number three on the Service’s list. Refuges were ranked on a 

number of factors including their need for a facility and potential to provide 

opportunities for a large audience. The site for the new facility is not 

identified in this document. However, below are the criteria we will use to 

identify potential sites. Sites chosen will be evaluated in a later 

Environmental Assessment. The new center might be located at Great 

Meadows, Oxbow, or Assabet River NWRs or off-site in the vicinity of one 

of these refuges. The new facility will house exhibits focusing on a variety 

of environmental themes as well as refuge management activities. We will 

implement recommendations for interior facility design from the Complex 

Project Identification Document, after it is finalized. We will evaluate each 

potential site with the following criteria: 

� Access from a major travel route (Route 2, 128, etc.) 

� Access from public transportation 

� Accessibility of utilities 

� Presence of trust species, habitats or other important resources 

� Opportunity for outdoor features associated with center, including 

interpretive trails 

� Topography 

� Potential disturbance to habitats 

� Presence of hazardous wastes 

� Potential impacts to neighbors 

� Buffer from current or predicted commercial activity 

After the new Visitor Center is built, the current headquarters on Weir Hill 

Road will be used for administrative purposes only by refuge staff. 


Step-Down Management Plans 


The Refuge Manual (Part 4, Chapter 3) lists a number of step-down 

management plans generally required on most refuges. These plans 

describe specific management actions refuges will follow to achieve 

objectives or implement management strategies. Some require annual 

revisions, such as hunt plans, while others are revised on a 5-to-10 year 

schedule. Some of these plans require NEPA analysis before they can be 

implemented. In the case of the Complex, some of the plans are developed 

for each refuge, while some plans are developed for the Complex with 

specific sections that pertain to individual refuges. In the following lists, we 

have identified those plans that are specific to the refuge and those that will 

be included in an overall Complex plan. 

The following plans are either up-to-date or in progress and will be 

completed within 1-year of issuance of the CCP. 

� Habitat Management Plan (Refuge) 

� Fire Management Plan (Complex) 

� Spill Prevention and Counter Measure Plan (Complex) 

� Law Enforcement Management Plan (Complex) 

The plans indicated in the following list either need to be initiated or are 

out-of-date and require complete revision. Additional management plans 

may be required as future Service policy dictates. 

� Habitat and Wildlife Inventory Plan (Refuge) 

� Integrated Pest Management Plan (Complex) 

� Visitor Services Plan (Complex) 

� Energy Contingency Plan (Complex) 

� Hunt Plan (Refuge) 

� Fishing Plan (Refuge) 

� Cultural Resources Management Plan (Complex) 

� Migratory Bird Disease Contingency Plan (Complex) 

� Safety Management Plan (Complex) 

� Continuity of Operations Plan (Complex) 

� Sign Plan (Complex) 

Maintaining Existing Facilities 

There are no existing facilities specific to the refuge other than those at 

Still River Road parking area and trails. Existing facilities for the Complex 

that relate to the refuge include the Great Meadows NWR visitor contact 

station and office, Complex maintenance compound, and numerous parking 

areas, observation platforms, and trails. Periodic maintenance of existing 

facilities is critical to ensure safety and accessibility for Complex staff and 

visitors. Many of these facilities are not currently Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant; upgrading is needed. 


- 75 -

- 76 - 


Compatibility Determinations 

Federal law and policy provide the direction and planning framework to 

protect the Refuge System from incompatible or harmful human activities 

and to insure that Americans can enjoy Refuge System lands and waters. 

The Administration Act, as amended by the Refuge Improvement Act, is 

the key legislation on managing public uses and compatibility. Before 

activities or uses are allowed on a national wildlife refuge, we must 

determine that each is a “compatible use.” A compatible use is a use that, 

based on the sound professional judgment of the Refuge Manager, “...will 

not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission 

of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge.” “Wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses may be authorized on a refuge when they are compatible 

and not inconsistent with public safety. Except for consideration of 

consistency with state laws and regulations as provided for in section (m), 

no other determinations or findings are required to be made by the refuge 

official under this Act or the Refuge Recreation Act for wildlife-dependent 

recreation to occur.” (Refuge Improvement Act) 

The Refuge Improvement Act and Regulations require that an affirmative 

finding be made of an activity’s “compatibility” before such activity or use is 

allowed on a national wildlife refuge. Six priority, wildlife-dependent uses 

that are to be considered at each refuge are defined in the Refuge 

Improvement Act and Regulations. These are: hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation. 

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

when they are compatible (as defined above), and not inconsistent with 

public safety. Not all uses that are determined compatible must be allowed. 

The refuge has the discretion to allow or disallow any use based on other 

considerations such as public safety, policy and available funding. However, 

all uses that are allowed must be determined compatible. 

We completed compatibility determinations (CDs) for these six priority 

public uses for the refuge under existing Service regulations and policy, the 

Act and the recent revisions of our Compatibility Regulations (Appendix 

G). Each (with some restrictions) was found to be compatible with both the 

mission of the Refuge System and the purposes for which the refuges were 

established. The conduct of natural history tours via special use permit has 

also been found to be compatible. We are issuing the final CDs, for these 

activities, as part of this CCP. 

We have also determined non-motorized boating, snowshoeing and crosscountry 

skiing to be compatible. These activities facilitate wildlife 

observation and wildlife photography. All of these means of locomotion are 

subject to CDs for these activities as part of this CCP. 

Draft CDs were distributed (in the draft CCP/EA) for a 45 day public 

review in mid 2003. These CDs have since been approved, and will allow 



wildlife dependent recreation on the refuge. Subsequent to releasing the 

draft CCP/EA, we also distributed CDs for scientific research and jogging 

for a public review period. All comments were considered and utilized in the 

revision. These new CDs are now final and included in Appendix G. 

Additional CDs will be developed when appropriate new uses are proposed. 

CDs will be re-evaluated by the Refuge Manager when conditions under 

which the use is permitted change significantly; when there is significant 

new information on effects of the use; or at least every 10 years for nonpriority 

public uses. Priority public use CDs will be re-evaluated under the 

conditions noted above, or at least every 15 years with revision of the CCP. 

Additional detail on the CD process is in Parts 25, 26, and 29 of Title 50 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations, effective November 17, 2000. 

Monitoring and Evaluation 

This Final CCP covers a 15-year period. Periodic review of the CCP is 

required to ensure that established goals and objectives are being met, and 

that the plan is being implemented as scheduled. To assist this review 

process, a monitoring and evaluation program will be implemented, 

focusing on issues involving public use activities, and wildlife habitat and 

population management. 

Monitoring of public use programs will involve the continued collection and 

compilation of visitation figures and activity levels. In addition, we will 

establish research and monitoring programs to assess the impacts of public 

use activities on wildlife and wildlife habitat, assess conflicts between types 

of refuge uses, and to identify compatible levels of public use activities. We 

will reduce these public use activities if we determine that incompatible 

levels are occurring. 

We will collect baseline data on wildlife populations and habitats as outlined 

in Chapter 4. This data will update often limited existing records of wildlife 

species using the refuge, their habitat requirements, and seasonal use 

patterns. We will use this data in the evaluation of the effects of public use 

and habitat management programs on wildlife populations. 

We will monitor refuge habitat management programs for positive and 

negative impacts on wildlife habitat and populations and the ecological 

integrity of the ecosystem. The monitoring will assist in determining if 

these management activities are helping to meet refuge goals. Information 

resulting from monitoring will allow staff to set more specific and better 

management objectives, more rigorously evaluate management objectives, 

and ultimately, make better management decisions. This process of 

evaluation, implementation and reevaluation is known simply as “adaptive 

resource management”. 


- 77 -

- 78 - 

Kayaking facilitates wildlife-dependent 

recreation: Photo by Deborah Dineen 


Monitoring and Evaluation for this CCP occurs at two levels. The first 

level, which we refer to as implementation monitoring, responds to the 

question, “Did we do what we said we would do, when we said we would do 

it?” The second level of monitoring, which we refer to as effectiveness 

monitoring, responds to the question, “Are the actions we proposed 

effective in achieving the results we had hoped for?” Or, in other words, 

“Are the actions leading us toward our vision, goals, and objectives?” 

Effectiveness monitoring evaluates an individual action, a suite of actions, 

or an entire resource program. This approach is more analytical in 

evaluating management effects on species, populations, habitats, refuge 

visitors, ecosystem integrity, or the socio-economic environment. More 

often, the criteria to monitor and evaluate these management effects will be 

established in step-down, individual project, or cooperator plans, or 

through the research program. The Species and Habitat Inventory and 

Monitoring Plan, to be completed, will be based on the needs and priorities 

identified in the Habitat Management Plan. 

Adaptive Management 

This CCP is a dynamic document. A strategy of adaptive management will 

keep it relevant and current. Through scientific research, inventories and 

monitoring, and our management experiences, we will gain new information 

which may alter our course of action. We acknowledge that our information 

on species, habitats, and ecosystems is incomplete, provisional, and subject 

to change as our knowledge base improves. 

Objectives and strategies must be adaptable in responding to new 

information and spatial and temporal changes. We will continually evaluate 

management actions, through monitoring or research, to reconsider 

whether their original assumptions and predictions are still valid. In this 

way, management becomes an active process of learning “what really 

works”. It is important that the public understand and appreciate the 

adaptive nature of natural resource management. 

The Refuge Manager is responsible for changing management actions or 

objectives if they do not produce the desired conditions. Significant changes 

may warrant additional NEPA analysis; minor changes will 

not, but will be documented in annual monitoring, project 

evaluation reports, or the annual refuge narratives. 

Additional NEPA Analysis 

NEPA requires a site specific analysis of impacts for all 

federal actions. These impacts are to be disclosed in either 

an EA or EIS. 

Most of the actions and associated impacts in this plan were 

described in enough detail in the draft CCP/EA to comply 



with NEPA, and will not require additional environmental analysis. 

Although this is not an all-inclusive list, the following programs are 

examples that fall into this category: protecting wildlife habitat, 

implementing priority wildlife-dependent public use programs, acquiring 

land, and controlling invasive plants. 

Other actions are not described in enough detail to comply with the sitespecific 

analysis requirements of NEPA. Examples of actions that will 

require a separate EA include: construction of a new office/visitor contact 

station and future habitat restoration projects not fully developed or 

delineated in this document. Monitoring, evaluation, and research can 

generally be increased without additional NEPA analysis. 

Plan Amendment and Revision 

Periodic review of the CCP will be required to ensure that objectives are 

being met and management actions are being implemented. Ongoing 

monitoring and evaluation will be an important part of this process. 

Monitoring results or new information may indicate the need to change our 

strategies. 

The Service’s planning policy (FWS Manual, Part 602, Chapters 1, 3, and 4) 

states that CCPs should be reviewed at least annually to decide if they 

require any revisions (Chapter 3, part 3.4 (8)). Revisions will be necessary if 

significant new information becomes available, ecological conditions 

change, major refuge expansions occur, or when we identify the need to do 

so during a program review. At a minimum, CCPs will be fully revised 

every 15 years. We will modify the CCP documents and associated 

management activities as needed, following the procedures outlined in 

Service policy and NEPA requirements. Minor revisions that meet the 

criteria for categorical exclusions (550 FW 3.3C) will only require an 

Environmental Action Statement. 


- 79 -

- 80 - 

Literature Cited 


Anderson, Robert C. 1976. Directions of a Town: A History of Harvard, Massachusetts. The 

Harvard Common Press, The Common, Harvard, Ma. 

Andrews, Edward. 1963. The People Called Shakers: A Search for the Perfect Society. Dover 

Publications, Inc., New York, NY. 

Anon. 1923. Completion Report, December 7, 1923. On File, BRAC Office, Fort Devens, MA. 

Anthony, David. 1978. The Archaeology of Worcester County: An Information Survey. 

Institute for Conservation Archaeology, Harvard University. Submitted to 

Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, MA. 

Barber, Russell. 1979. Human Ecology and the Estuarine Ecosystem: Prehistoric Exploitation 

in the Merrimack Valley. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, 

Harvard University, Cambridge, Ma. 

Bolton, Ethel Stanwood. 1914. Shirley Uplands and Intervals, Annals of a Border Town of Old 

Middle Sex, with Some Genealogical Sketches. George Emery Littlefield, Boston, MA. 

Clarke, F. 2000. SUASCO (Sudbury, Assabet and Concord) River Watershed Biodiversity 

Protection and Stewardship Plan. Francis H. Clark. Under the Massachusetts Watershed 

Initiative of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

2000. http://www.state.ma.us/index.html 

Department of Revenue. 2000. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Local Services, 

Municipal Data Bank. 

Dincauze, D.F. 1974. An Introduction to the Archaeology of the Greater Boston Area, 

Archaeology of Eastern North America, Vol. 2, No.1. 

Dincauze, D.F. 1976. The Neville Site: 8,000 Years at Amoskeag...Peabody Museum 

Monographs 4. Cambridge. 

Dincauze, D.F. 1981. Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction in the Northeast: the Art of 

Multidisciplinary Science. in Foundations in Northeast Archaeology, Edited By Dean R. 

Snow, pp 51-96. 

Dincauze, D.F. 1993. Paleoindians in the Eastern Forest. in From Kostenki to Clovis: Upper 

Paleolithic-Paleo-Indian Adaptations, Edited by O. Soffer And N. D. Praslov. New York: 

Plenum. pp. 199-218. 

Dincauze, D.F. And M.T. Mullholland. 1977. Early and Middle Archaic Site Distributions and 

Habitats in Southern New England. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 288: 439- 

456. 



The Friends of the Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge. 2000. Biodiversity Days Report (A 

Series of Twenty Six Field Trips Led by Naturalists with Expertise in the Identification and 

Ecology of a Variety of Biota.) Three Volumes. 

Funk, Robert. 1972. Early Man in the Northeast the Late Glacial Environment. Man in the 

Northeast. 4:7-39. 

Glover, Suzanne. 1993. Final Report Archaeological Inventory Survey Fort Devens, 

Massachusetts, Volume I. Contract No.; DACA33-92-D-0005, Prepared for U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Prepared by the Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc. 

Hickler, M. 1995. Floristic and Vegetation Analysis of the Oxbow Ponds in the Nashua River 

Flood-Plain Fort Devens, Massachusetts – Final Report. Department of Biology, University 

of Massachusetts, Amherst. Unpublished. 

Johnson, Eric. 1984. Bifurcate Base Projectile Points in Massachusetts: Distribution and Raw 

Materials. Paper Presented at the 24th Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Anthropological 

Association, Hartford, CT. 

Massachusetts Audubon Society. 2003. http://www.massaudubon.org Birds-&-Beyond ibaintro.html 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering. 1981. SUASCO River 

Basin Water Quality Management Plan. 94pp. 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. 1993 Nashua River Watershed 

Biological Monitoring Survey Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 

Bureau of Resource Protection, Division of Watershed Management, Worcester, 

Massachusetts, May, 1997. 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. 1998. Surface Water Quality 

Standards: 314 CMR 4.03. Division of Water Pollution Control. 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. 2001. Nashua River Basin, Water 

Quality Assessment Report. Report Number 81-AC-3. 125 pp. 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. 1999. Final Massachusetts Section 

303(D) List of Waters 1998. Division of Watershed Management. Worcester, MA 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. 2000. Massachusetts 1999 Annual 

Air Quality Report. Air Assessment Branch, Wall Experiment Station, 37 Shattuck Street, 

Lawrence, Massachusetts 01843. 

Massachusetts Department of Public Health. 1994. Public Health Interim Freshwater Fish 

Consumption Advisory. Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment. Boston, MA. 

Massachusetts Department of Public Health. 1999. Freshwater Fish Consumption Advisory 

List. Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment. Boston, MA. 


- 81 -

- 82 - 


Massachusetts Department of Revenue. 2001: http://www.dls.state.ma.us/allfiles.htm 

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife. 1974 and 1999. Nashua River Fisheries 

Surveys. 

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Natural Heritage And Endangered Species 

Program and the Massachusetts Chapter of the Nature Conservancy. 1998. Our 

Irreplaceable Heritage: Protecting Biodiversity in Massachusetts. 83 pp. 

Massachusetts Division of Fish & Game. 2004. MassWildlife Abstract of the 2004 

Massachusetts Fish & Wildlife Laws. Undated. 

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife, Natural Heritage & Endangered 

Species Program, Westborough, Ma. 

Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. 1998. Massachusetts Section 303(D) 

List of Waters (Final). 131pp. 

Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. 2003 Air Quality Report. 88 pp. 

Massachusetts Historical Commission. 1980. Ayer Reconnaissance Survey Report. 

Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, MA. 

Massachusetts Historical Commission. 1983. Harvard Reconnaissance Survey Report. 

Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, MA 

Massachusetts Historical Commission. 1985. Historic and Archaeological Resources of 

Central Massachusetts: A Framework for Preservation Decisions. Massachusetts Historical 

Commission, Office of the Secretary of State, Boston, MA 

Mello, Mark J. and E. Peters. 1992. Survey of Lepidoptera at Fort Devens, with Notes on 

Sudbury Annex. Lloyd Center for Environmental Studies, South Dartmouth, MA. A Report to 

MA Natural Heritage And Endangered Species Program. Lloyd Center Report # 92-3. 

Mello, Mark J. and E. Peters. 1993. Survey of Lepidoptera at Fort Devens, with Notes on 

Sudbury Annex. A Report to the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species 

Program. The Lloyd Center for Environmental Studies, South Dartmouth, MA. 

Mello, Mark J. and E. Peters. 1994. The Lloyd Center for Environmental Studies, South 

Dartmouth, Ma. Unpublished Data. 

National Weather Service. 2001. 

National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. (16 U.S.C. § 668dd Et Seq.) 



O’Steen, Lisa. 1987. Cultural Resource Literature and Research Review for the Proposed 

Pelham Mainline Branch of the Champlain Gas Pipeline Corridor: New Hampshire And 

Massachusetts. Garrow & Associates, Inc. submitted to ERT. Inc., Concord, Ma. 

Population Estimates Program, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC 

20233. Contact: Statistical Information Staff, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau (301) 

457-2422 

Public Law 104-106. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, February 10, 

1996. 

Ritchie, Duncan. 1984. Musketaquied, 8,000 B.P.: Early Archaic Settlement and Resource Use 

in the Sudbury/Concord River Drainage. Paper presented at 24th Annual Meeting of the 

Northeastern Anthropological Association, Hartford, CT. 

Ritchie, Duncan. 1985. Archaeological Investigations at the Hartford Avenue Rockshelter, 

Uxbridge, Massachusetts: The Data Recovery Program. The Public Archaeology Laboratory, 

Inc. Report No. 40-2. Submitted to the Massachusetts, Department of Public Works, Boston, 

MA. 

Ritchie, Duncan. 1985 Archaeological Investigations of a Maintenance Building Site, Weir Hill 

Tract, Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Sudbury, Massachusetts. Prepared By Public 

Archaeology Laboratory, Providence, Rhode Island for U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, One 

Gateway Center, Suite 700, Newton Corner, MA. 

Ritchie, Duncan and Ann Davin 1984 An Intensive Level Archaeological Survey of the Town of 

Bedford Water Treatment Facilities, Bedford, Massachusetts. Prepared by Public 

Archaeology Laboratory, Inc. Providence, Rhode Island, for Camp, Dresser and Mckee, 

Boston, Ma. 

Roberts, David. 1995. Geology, Eastern North America. Peterson Field Guides. Roger T. 

Peterson (Editor). Houghton Mifflin CO. New York, N.Y. 368 pp. 

Searcy, Karen B., B. Lindwall and T. Enz. 1993. Plant Community and Vegetation Analysis of 

Flood-Plain Areas Along the Nashua River, Fort Devens with Particular Emphasis on the 

Floodplain and Adjacent Slopes of the Nashua River between Jackson and Hospital Roads. 

Univ. of Massachusetts, Biology Dept., Amherst, MA. Unpublished Report. 62pp. 

Searcy, Karen B., B. Lindwall and T. Enz. 1994. The Forested Wetlands on the South Post in 

the Flood-Plain of the Nashua River. Univ. of Massachusetts, Biology Dept., Amherst, MA. 

Unpublished Report. 20pp. 

Sweet C.W. and E. Prestbo. 1999. Wet Deposition of Mercury in the U.S. and Canada. 

Presented at “Mercury In The Environment Specialty Conference”, September 15-17, 1999, 

Minneapolis, Mn. Proceedings Published by Air and Waste Management Association, 

Pittsburgh, PA 


- 83 -

- 84 - 


Thomas, H.H. 1992. Small Mammal Survey of the Sudbury Training Annex, Sudbury, 

Middlesex County, Massachusetts and Fort Deven Military Reservation, Lancaster, 

Worcester County, and Shirley, Middlesex County, Massachusetts. Unpublished Report. 

Dept. of Bio. Fitchburg State College, Fitchburg, Ma. 1992. (Survey 4/14-12/10/92 Report 

Undated In Original). 

Town of Lancaster. 1993. Open Space and Recreation Plan 1993 Update. 

Town of Shirley. 1996. The Shirley Conservation Commission’s Open Space & Recreation 

Plan: 1996 - 2001. 

University of Connecticut. 2000. A Provisional List of Non-Native Invasive and Potentially 

Invasive Plants in New England. Leslie J. Merhoff, University of Connecticut. January 1, 

2000: http://www.eeb.uconn.edu/bioconctr/publications/publication-3.html 

U.S. Army. 1995. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Fort Devens Disposal and Reuse. 

Department of the Army, Headquarters, Forces Command, Atlanta, Ga. (Prepared by the 

New England Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Concord, MA). 

U.S. Army. 1998. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 1998 - 2002. Devens 

Reserve Forces Training Area, Massachusetts. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. Census 2000 Data: http://factfinder.census.gov 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1985. Soil Survey of Worcester County Massachusetts, 

Northeastern Part. Soil Conservation Service (Now the Natural Resource Conservation 

Service). 

U.S. Department of Interior. 2003. Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. 

http://www.ios.doi.gov/nrl/recfees/recfee.htm 

U.S. Department of Justice. 1995. Final EIS, Federal Medical Center Complex, Fort Devens, 

Massachusetts. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

“Airs Graphics” Web Site At http://www.epa.gov 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Refuge Manual. Wash., D.C. U.S. Gov’t Printing Office. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Fisheries USA. The Recreational Fisheries Policy of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Wash, D.C.,U.S. Gov’t Printing Office. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Survey and Evaluation of Wetlands and Wildlife Habitat, 

Fort Devens, Massachusetts. February 6, 1992. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Environmental Contaminants in Fish from the Nashua 

River Fort Devens Ayer, Massachusetts. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New England Field 

Office Special Project Report: FY97-NEFO-5-EC, December 1997.) 



U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997a. Recreation Fee Programs Frequently Asked Questions. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000a. Trace Element Exposure in Benthic Invertebrates 

from Grove Pond, Plow Shop Pond, and Nonacoicus Brook, Ayer, Massachusetts. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Maine Field Office. Special Project Report: FY00-MEFO-1-EC. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000b. Nongame Birds of Management Concern, 1995 List: 

http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/speccon 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000c. Final Compatibility Regulations and Final 

Compatibility Policy Pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997. 50 CFR Parts 25, 26 and 29 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Policy on Maintaining Biological Integrity, Diversity, and 

Environmental Health of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

http://policy.fws.gov/library/01FR3809. 

War Department, 1920. Camp Devens, Mass. Property Map. Construction Division, War 

Department, Washington DC. on File, Building 1623, Fort Devens, MA. 

Wing, Forrest Bond. 1981. The Shirley Story. Manuscript on File, Town of Shirley Library, 

Shirley, MA. 


- 85 -

- 86 - 


Glossary 

accessibility- the state or quality of being easily 

approached or entered, particularly as it relates to 

the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

accessible facilities- structures accessible for 

most people with disabilities without assistance; 

ada-accessible (e.g., parking lots, trails, 

pathways, ramps, picnic and camping areas, 

restrooms, boating facilities (docks, piers, 

gangways), fishing facilities, playgrounds, 

amphitheaters, exhibits, audiovisual programs, 

and wayside sites.) 

adaptive management- responding to changing 

ecological condiditions so as to not exceed 

productivity limits of specific place. For 

example, when crop growth slows, a good farmer 

learns to recognize ecological signs that tell 

either to add more manure or to allow a field to 

lie fallow. Adaptive management becomes 

impossible when managers are forced to meet the 

demands of outsiders who are not under local 

ecological constraints (from Dodson et al., 1998) 

agricultural land- nonforested land (now or 

recently orchards, pastures, or crops) 

alternative- a reasonable way to fix an identified 

problem or satisfy a stated need (40 cfr 1500.2 

(cf. “management alternative”)) 

amphidromous fish- fish that can migrate from 

fresh water to the sea or the reverse, not only for 

breeding, but also regularly at other times during 

their life cycle 

anadromous fish- fish that spend a large portion 

of their life cycle in the ocean and return to 

freshwater to breed 

aquatic- growing in, living in, or dependent 

upon water 

aquatic barrier- any obstruction to fish passage 

appropriate use- a proposed or existing use of a 

national wildlife refuge that (1) supports the 

Refuge System mission, the major purposes, 

goals or objectivies of the refuge; (2) is 

necessary for the safe and effective conduct of a 

priority general public use on the refuge; (3) is 

otherwise determined under Service manual 


chapter 605 FW 1 (draft), by the refuge manager 

and refuge supervisor to be appropriate 

area of biological significance- cf. “special 

focus area” 

best management practices- land management 

practices that produce desired results (n.b. 

usually describing forestry or agricultural 

practices effective in reducing non-point source 

pollution, like reseeding skidder trails or not 

storing manure in a flood plain. In its broader 

sense, practices that benefit target species.) 

biological or natural diversity- the variety of 

life in all its forms 

breeding habitat- habitat used by migratory 

birds or other animals during the breeding season 

buffer zones- land bordering and protecting 

critical habitats or water bodies by reducing 

runoff and nonpoint source pollution loading; 

areas created or sustained to lessen the negative 

effects of land development on animals, plants, 

and their habitats 

breeding habitat- habitat used by migratory 

birds or other animals during the breeding season 

candidate species- species for which we have 

sufficient information on file about their 

biological vulnerability and threats to propose 

listing them 

carrying capacity- the size of the population 

that can be sustained by a given environment 

catadromous fish- fish that spend most of their 

lives in fresh water, but migrate to sea to 

reproduce 

categorical exclusion- (CE, CX, CATEX, 

CATX) pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), a category of federal agency 

actions that do not individually or cumulatively 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment (40 CFR 1508.4) 

CFR- the Code of Federal Regulations 

Challenge Cost Share Program- a Service 

administered grant program that provides

matching funds for projects supporting natural 

resource education, management, restoration, or 

protection on Service lands, other public lands, 

and private lands 

community- the locality in which a group of 

people resides and shares the same government 

community type- a particular assemblage of 

plants and animals, named for its dominant 

characteristic 

compatible use- “a wildlife-dependent 

recreational use or any other use of a refuge that, 

in the sound professional judgment of the 

Director, will not materially interfere with or 

detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the 

system or the purposes of the refuge.”—National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997 (public law 105-57; 111 stat. 1253) 

compatibility determination- a required 

determination for wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or any other public uses of a refuge before a 

use is allowed 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan- a 

document mandated by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 that 

describes desired future conditions for a refuge 

unit, and provides long-range guidance for the 

unit leader to accomplish the mission of the 

system and the purpose(s) of the unit (p.l. 105- 

57; FWS manual 602 FW 1.4) 

concern- cf. “issue” 

conservation- managing natural resources to 

prevent loss or waste (n.b. management actions 

may include preservation, restoration, and 

enhancement.) 

conservation agreements - voluntary written 

agreements among two or more parties for the 

purpose of ensuring the survival and welfare of 

unlisted species of fish and wildlife or their 

habitats or to achieve other specified 

conservation goals. 

conservation easement- a legal agreement 

between a landowner and a land trust (e.g., a 

private, nonprofit conservation organization) or 

government agency that permanently limits uses 

of a property to protect its conservation values 


Glossary 

cool-season grass- introduced grass for crop and 

pastureland that grows in spring and fall and is 

dormant during hot summer months 

cooperative agreement- the legal instrument 

used when the principal purpose of a transaction 

is the transfer of money, property, services, or 

anything of value to a recipient in order to 

accomplish a public purpose authorized by 

federal statute, and substantial involvement 

between the Service and the recipient is 

anticipated (cf. “grant agreement”) 

cultural resource inventory- a professional 

study to locate and evaluate evidence of cultural 

resources present within a defined geographic 

area (n.b. various levels of inventories may 

include background literature searches, 

comprehensive field examinations to identify all 

exposed physical manifestations of cultural 

resources, or sample inventories for projecting 

site distribution and density over a larger area. 

Evaluating identified cultural resources to 

determine their eligibility for the National 

Register of Historic Places follows the criteria in 

36 CFR 60.4 (cf. FWS manual 614 FW 1.7).) 

cultural resource overview- a comprehensive 

document prepared for a field office that 

discusses, among other things, project prehistory 

and cultural history, the nature and extent of 

known cultural resources, previous research, 

management objectives, resource management 

conflicts or issues, and a general statement of 

how program objectives should be met and 

conflicts resolved (an overview should reference 

or incorporate information from a field offices 

background or literature search described in 

section viii of the Cultural Resource 

Management Handbook (FWS manual 614 FW 

1.7).) 

dedicated open space- land to be held as open 

space forever 

designated wilderness area- an area designated 

by Congress as part of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System (FWS Manual 610 FW 1.5 

(draft)) 

diadromous- fish that migrate from freshwater 

to saltwater or the reverse; a generic term that 

includes anadromous, catadromous, and 

amphidromous fish 

- 87 -

- 88 - 

Glossary 

easement- an agreement by which landowners 

give up or sell one of the rights on their property 

(e.g., landowners may donate rights-of-way 

across their properties to allow community 

members access to a river (cf. “conservation 

easement”).) 

ecosystem- a natural community of organisms 

interacting with its physical environment, 

regarded as a unit 

ecotourism- visits to an area that maintains and 

preserves natural resources as a basis for 

promoting its economic growth and development 

ecosystem approach- a way of looking at 

socioeconomic and environmental information 

based on the boundaries of ecosystems like 

watersheds, rather than on geopolitical 

boundaries 

ecosystem-based management- an approach to 

making decisions based on the characteristics of 

the ecosystem in which a person or thing belongs 

(n.b. this concept considers interactions among 

the plants, animals, and physical characteristics 

of the environment in making decisions about 

land use or living resource issues.) 

emergent wetland- wetlands dominated by 

erect, rooted, herbaceous plants 

endangered species- a federal- or state-listed 

protected species that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range 

environmental education- “…education aimed 

at producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable 

about the biophysical environment and its 

associated problems, aware of how to help solve 

these problems, and motivated to work toward 

their solution.”—Stapp et al. 1969 

Environmental Assessment- (EA) a concise 

public document that briefly discusses the 

purpose and need for an action, its alternatives, 

and provides sufficient evidence and analysis of 

its impacts to determine whether to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement or Finding of 

No Significant Impact (q.v.) (cf. 40 CFR 1508.9) 

Environmental Impact Statement- (EIS) a 

detailed, written analysis of the environmental 

impacts of a proposed action, adverse effects of 

the project that cannot be avoided, alternative 

courses of action, short-term uses of the 


environment versus the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity, and any 

irreversible and irretrievable commitment of 

resources (cf. 40 CFR 1508.11) 

estuaries- deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent 

tidal wetlands that are usually semi-enclosed by 

land but have open, partly obstructed or sporadic 

access to the ocean, and in which ocean water is 

at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff 

from land 

estuarine wetlands- “the estuarine system 

consists of deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent 

tidal wetlands that are usually semi-enclosed by 

land but have open, partly obstructed, or sporadic 

access to the open ocean, and in which ocean 

water is at least occasionally diluted by 

freshwater runoff from the land.”—Cowardin et 

al. 1979 

exemplary community type- an outstanding 

example of a particular community type 

extirpated- no longer occurring in a given 

geographic area 

Federal land- public land owned by the Federal 

Government, including national forests, national 

parks, and national wildlife refuges 

Federal-listed species- a species listed either as 

endangered, threatened, or a species at risk 

(formerly, a “candidate species”) under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

Finding of No Significant Impact- (FONSI) 

supported by an Environmental Assessment, a 

document that briefly presents why a Federal 

action will have no significant effect on the 

human environment, and for which an 

Environmental Impact Statement, therefore, will 

not be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13) 

fish passage project- providing a safe passage 

for fish around a barrier in the upstream or 

downstream direction 

focus areas- cf. “special focus areas” 

forbs- flowering plants (excluding grasses, 

sedges, and rushes) that do not have a woody 

stem and die back to the ground at the end of the 

growing season 

forested land- land dominated by trees

forested wetlands- wetlands dominated by trees 

Geographic Information System- (GIS) a 

computerized system to compile, store, analyze 

and display geographically referenced 

information (e.g., GIS can overlay multiple sets 

of information on the distribution of a variety of 

biological and physical features.) 

grant agreement- the legal instrument used 

when the principal purpose of the transaction is 

the transfer of money, property, services, or 

anything of value to a recipient in order to 

accomplish a public purpose of support or 

stimulation authorized by federal statute and 

substantial involvement between the Service and 

the recipient is not anticipated (cf. “cooperative 

agreement”) 

grassroots conservation organization- any 

group of concerned citizens who come together 

to actively address a conservation need 

habitat fragmentation- the breaking up of a 

specific habitat into smaller, unconnected areas 

(n.b. a habitat area that is too small may not 

provide enough space to maintain a breeding 

population of the species in question.) 

habitat conservation- protecting an animal or 

plant habitat to ensure that the use of that habitat 

by the animal or plant is not altered or reduced 

habitat- the place where a particular type of 

plant or animal lives 

hydrologic or flow regime- characteristic 

fluctuations in river flows 

important fish areas- the aquatic areas 

identified by private organizations, local, state, 

and federal agencies that meet the purposes of 

the Conte act 

informed consent- “…the grudging willingness 

of opponents to go along with a course of action 

that they actually oppose.”—Bleiker 

Intergrated Pest Management (IPM)- 

sustainable approach to managing pests by 

combining biological, cultural, physical, and 

chemical tools in a way that minimizes 

economic, health, and environmental risks 


Glossary 

interjurisdictional fish- populations of fish that 

are managed by two or more states or national or 

tribal governments because of the scope of their 

geographic distributions or migrations 

interpretive facilities- structures that provide 

information about an event, place, or thing by a 

variety of means, including printed, audiovisual, 

or multimedia materials (e.g., kiosks that offer 

printed materials and audiovisuals, signs, and 

trail heads.) 

interpretive materials- any tool used to provide 

or clarify information, explain events or things, 

or increase awareness and understanding of the 

events or things (e.g., printed materials like 

brochures, maps or curriculum materials; 

audio⁄visual materials like video and audio tapes, 

films, or slides; and, interactive multimedia 

materials, CD-Rom or other computer 

technology.) 

interpretive materials projects- any 

cooperative venture that combines financial and 

staff resources to design, develop, and use tools 

for increasing the awareness and understanding 

of events or things related to a refuge 

introduced invasive species- non-native species 

that have been introduced into an area and, 

because of their aggressive growth and lack of 

natural predators, displace native species 

issue- any unsettled matter that requires a 

management decision (e.g., a Service initiative, 

an opportunity, a management problem, a threat 

to the resources of the unit, a conflict in uses, a 

public concern, or the presence of an undesirable 

resource condition.) 

Issues Workbook- a packet of questions 

distributed in order to solicit public comments on 

the Refuge Complex and the planning process. 

Basic information on the Refuge Complex was 

bundled with the Issues Workbooks. Workbooks 

were not randomly distributed, nor were 

questions intended to have statistical 

significance. 

lacustrine wetlands- “the lacustrine system 

includes wetlands and deepwater habitats with 

all of the following characteristics: (1) situated in 

a topographic depression or a dammed river 

channel; (2) lacking trees, shrubs, persistent 

emergents, emergent mosses or lichens with 

greater than 30% areal coverage; and (3) total 

- 89 -

- 90 - 

Glossary 

area exceeds eight ha (20 acres).”—Cowardin et 

al. 1979 

land trusts- organizations dedicated to 

conserving land by purchase, donation, or 

conservation easement from landowners 

limiting factor- an environmental limitation that 

prevents further population growth 

local land- public land owned by local 

governments, including community or county 

parks or municipal watersheds 

local agencies- generally, municipal 

governments, regional planning commissions, or 

conservation groups 

long-term protection- mechanisms like fee title 

acquisition, conservation easements, or binding 

agreements with landowners that ensure land use 

and land management practices will remain 

compatible with maintaining species populations 

over the long term 

management alternative- a set of objectives 

and the strategies needed to accomplish each 

objective (FWS Manual 602 FW 1.4) 

management concern- cf. “issue”; “migratory 

nongame birds of management concern” 

management opportunity- cf. “issue” 

management plan- a plan that guides future 

land management practices on a tract 

management strategy- a general approach to 

meeting unit objectives (n.b. a strategy may be 

broad, it may be detailed enough to guide 

implementation through specific actions, tasks, 

and projects (FWS Manual 602 FW 1.4).) 

mesic soil- sandy-to-clay loams containing 

moisture retentive organic matter, well drained 

(no standing matter) 

migratory nongame birds of management 

concern- species of nongame birds that (a) are 

believed to have undergone significant 

population declines; (b) have small or restricted 

populations; or (c) are dependent upon restricted 

or vulnerable habitats 


mission statement- a succinct statement of the 

purpose for which the unit was established; its 

reason for being 

mitigation- actions taken to compensate for the 

negative effects of a particular project (e.g., 

wetland mitigation usually restores or enhances a 

previously damaged wetland or creates a new 

wetland.) 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969- 

(NEPA) requires all Federal agencies to examine 

the environmental impacts of their actions, 

incorporate environmental information, and use 

public participation in planning and 

implementing environmental actions (Federal 

agencies must integrate NEPA with other 

planning requirements, and prepare appropriate 

NEPA documents to facilitate better 

environmental decisionmaking (cf. 40 CFR 

1500).) 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex- (Complex) 

an internal Service administrative linking of 

refuge units closely related by their purposes, 

goals, ecosystem, or geopolitical boundaries. 

National Wildlife Refuge System- (System) all 

lands and waters and interests therein 

administered by the Service as wildlife refuges, 

wildlife ranges, wildlife management areas, 

waterfowl production areas, and other areas for 

the protection and conservation of fish and 

wildlife, including those that are threatened with 

extinction 

native plant- a plant that has grown in the 

region since the last glaciation and occurred 

before European settlement 

non-consumptive, wildlife-oriented 

recreation- wildlife observation and 

photography and environmental education and 

interpretation (cf. “wildlife-oriented recreation”) 

non-point source pollution- nutrients or toxic 

substances that enter water from dispersed and 

uncontrolled sites 

nonforested wetlands wetlands dominated by 

shrubs or emergent vegetation 

Notice of Intent- (NOI) an announcement we 

publish in the Federal Register that we will 

prepare and review an Environmental Impact 

Statement (40 CFR 1508.22)

objective- a concise statement of what we want 

to achieve, how much we want to achieve, when 

and where we want to achieve it, and who is 

responsible for the work. Objectives derive from 

goals and provide the basis for determining 

strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, 

and evaluation the success of strategies. Make 

objectives attainable, time-specific, and 

measurable. 

occurrence site- a discrete area where a 

population of a rare species lives or a rare plant 

community type grows 

old fields - areas formerly cultivated or grazed, 

where woody vegetation has begun to invade 

(n.b. if left undisturbed, old fields will eventually 

succeed into forest. Many occur at sites 

originally suitable for crops or pasture. They 

vary markedly in the Northeast, depending on 

soil and land use and management history.) 

outdoor education project- any cooperative 

venture that combines financial and staff 

resources to develop outdoor education activities 

like labs, field trips, surveys, monitoring, or 

sampling 

outdoor education- educational activities that 

take place in an outdoor setting 

palustrine wetlands- “the palustrine system 

includes all nontidal wetlands dominated by 

trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent 

mosses or lichens, and all such wetlands that 

occur in tidal areas where salinity due to oceanderived 

salts is below 0$.”—Cowardin et 

al. 1979 

Partners for Wiildlife Program- a voluntary, 

cooperative habitat restoration program among 

the Service, other government agencies, public 

and private organizations, and private 

landowners to improve and protect fish and 

wildlife habitat on private land while leaving it 

in private ownership 

partnership- a contract or agreement among two 

or more individuals, groups of individuals, 

organizations, or agencies, in which each agrees 

to furnish a part of the capital or some service in 

kind (e.g., labor) for a mutually beneficial 

enterprise 


Glossary 

planning updates- newsletters distributed, 

primarily through mailing lists,m in order to 

update the interested public on the status of the 

CCP project. 

population monitoring- assessing the 

characteristics of populations to ascertain their 

status and establish trends on their abundance, 

condition, distribution, or other characteristics 

prescribed fire- the application of fire to 

wildland fuels, either by natural or intentional 

ignition, to achieve identified land use objectives 

(FWS Manual 621 FW 1.7) 

private land- land owned by a private individual 

or group or non-government organization 

private landowner- cf. “private land” 

private organization- any non-government 

organization 

proposed action (or alternative)- activies for 

which an Environmental Assessment is being 

written; the alternative containing the actions and 

strategies recommended by the planning team. 

The proposed action is, for all proactival 

purposes, the draft CCP for the refuge. 

protection- mechanisms like fee title 

acquisition, conservation easements, or binding 

agreements with landowners that ensure land use 

and land management practices will remain 

compatible with maintaining species populations 

at a site (cf. “long-term ~”) 

public- individuals, organizations, and nongovernment 

groups; officials of federal, state, 

and local government agencies; native american 

tribes, and foreign nations— includes anyone 

outside the core planning team, those who may 

or may not have indicated an interest in the 

issues and those who do or do not realize that our 

decisions may affect them 

public involvement- offering to interested 

individuals and organizations that our actions or 

policies may affect an opportunity to become 

informed; soliciting their opinions. 

public involvement plan- long-term guidance 

for involving the public in the comprehensive 

planning process 

- 91 -

- 92 - 

Glossary 

public land- land owned by the local, state, or 

Federal government 

rare species- species identified for special 

management emphasis because of their 

uncommon occurrence 

rare community types- plant community types 

classified as rare by any state program (as used 

in CCP’s, includes exemplary community types.) 

recommended wilderness- areas studied and 

found suitable for wilderness designation by both 

the Director (FWS) and Secretary (DOI), and 

recommended by the President to Congress for 

inclusion in the National Wilderness System 

(FWS Manual 610 FW 1.5 (draft)) 

Record of Decision- (ROD) a concise public 

record of a decision by a Federal agency 

pursuant to NEPA (N.b. a ROD includes:•the 

decision; •all the alternatives considered; •the 

environmentally preferable alternative; •a 

summary of monitoring and enforcement, where 

applicable, for any mitigation ; and, •whether all 

practical means have been adopted to avoid or 

minimize environmental harm from the 

alternative selected (or if not, why not).) 

refuge goals- “…descriptive, open-ended, and 

often broad statements of desired future 

conditions that convey a purpose but do not 

define measurable units.”— Writing Refuge 

Management Goals and Objectives: A Handbook 

refuge mailing list- the “original” Great 

Meadows Refuge Complex mailling list which 

preceded the CCP process. This list contained 

names and addresses of people with an interest in 

the refuge. As part of the planning process, the 

list was continually updated to include 

conservation agencies, sporting clubs, 

Congressionals, workbook respondents, open 

house⁄focus group attendees, etc. 

refuge purposes- “the terms ‘purposes of the 

refuge’ and ‘purposes of each refuge’ mean the 

purposes specified in or derived from the law, 

proclamation, Executive Order, agreement, 

public land order, donation document, or 

administrative memorandum establishing, 

authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, 

or refuge subunit.”—National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 


refuge lands- lands in which the Service holds 

full interest in fee title or partial interest like an 

easement 

restoration- the artificial manipulation of habitat 

to restore it to its former condition (e.g., 

restoration may involve planting native grasses 

and forbs, removing shrubs, prescribed burning, 

or reestablishing habitat for native plants and 

animals on degraded grassland.) 

riparian- of or relating to the banks of a stream 

or river 

riparian agricultural land- agricultural land 

along a stream or river 

riparian forested land- forested land along a 

stream or river (cf. note above) 

riparian habitat- habitat along the banks of a 

stream or river (cf. note above) 

riverine- within the active channel of a river or 

stream 

riverine wetlands- generally, all the wetlands 

and deepwater habitats occurring within a 

freshwater river channel not dominated by trees, 

shrubs, or persistent emergents 

runoff- water from rain, melted snow, or 

agricultural or landscape irrigation that flows 

over a land surface into a water body (cf. “urban 

runoff”) 

sandplain grassland- dry grassland that has 

resisted succession due to fire, wind, grazing, 

mowing, or salt spray (N.b. Characterized by 

thin, acidic, nutrient-poor soils over deep sand 

deposits, sandplains primarily occur on the coast 

and off-coast islands, or inland, where glaciers or 

rivers have deposited sands.) 

Service presence- Service programs and 

facilities that it directs or shares with other 

organizations; public awareness of the Service as 

a sole or cooperative provider of programs and 

facilities 

site improvement- any activity that changes the 

condition of an existing site to better interpret 

events, places, or things related to a refuge. (e.g., 

improving safety and access, replacing nonnative 

with native plants, refurbishing

footbridges and trail ways, and renovating or 

expanding exhibits.) 

special focus area- an area of high biological 

value (N.b. fie normally direct most of our 

resources to SFA’s that were delineated because 

of: 1.the presence of federal-listed endangered 

and threatened species, species at risk (formerly, 

“candidate species”), rare species, concentrations 

of migrating or wintering waterfowl, or 

shorebird stopover habitat; 2.their importance as 

migrant landbird stopover or breeding habitat; 

3.the presence of unique or rare communities; or 

4.the presence of important fish habitat.) 

special habitats- as used in CCP’s; wetlands, 

vernal pools, riparian habitat, and unfragmented 

rivers, forests and grasslands (N.b. many rare 

species are dependent on specialized habitats 

that, in many cases, are being lost within a 

watershed.) 

special riparian project- restoring, protecting, 

or enhancing an aquatic environment in a 

discrete riparian corridor within a special focus 

area 

species at risk- a species being considered for 

Federal listing as threatened or endangered 

(formerly, “candidate species”) 

species of concern- species not federal-listed as 

threatened or endangered, but about which we or 

our partners are concerned 

State agencies- generally, natural resource 

agencies of State governments 

State land- State-owned public land 

State-listed species- cf. “Federal-listed species” 

(N.b. this is how to write the phrase “Federal- 

and State-listed species”.) 

step-down management plan- a plan for 

dealing with specific refuge management 

subjects, strategies, and schedules, e.g., cropland, 

wilderness, and fire (FWS Manual 602 FW 1.4) 

stopover habitat- habitat where birds rest and 

feed during migration 

telecommunications- communicating via 

electronic technology 


Glossary 

telecommunications project- any cooperative 

venture that combines financial and staff 

resources to develop and use computer-based 

applications for exchanging information about a 

watershed with others 

threatened species- a federal-listed, protected 

species that is likely to become an endangered 

species in all or a significant portion of its range 

tiering- incorporating by reference the general 

discussions of broad topics in Environmental 

Impact Statements into narrower statements of 

environmental analysis by focusing on specific 

issues (40 CFR 1508.28) 

tributary- a stream or river that flows into a 

larger stream, river, or lake 

trust resource- a resource that the government 

holds in trust for the people through law or 

administrative act (N.b. a Federal trust resource 

is one for which responsibility is given wholly or 

in part to the Federal government by law or 

administrative act. Generally, Federal trust 

resources are nationally or internationally 

important no matter where they occur, like 

endangered species or migratory birds and fish 

that regularly move across state lines. They also 

include cultural resources protected by Federal 

historic preservation laws, and nationally 

important or threatened habitats, notably 

wetlands, navigable waters, and public lands like 

state parks and national wildlife refuges.) 

unfragmented habitat- large, unbroken blocks 

of a particular type of habitat 

unit objective- desired conditions that must be 

accomplished to achieve a desired outcome 

upland- dry ground (i.e., other than wetlands) 

upland meadow or pasture- areas maintained 

in grass for livestock grazing; hay production 

areas (N.b. meadows may occur naturally in tidal 

marshes and inland flooded river valleys or, 

more frequently, at upland sites where vegetation 

has been cleared and grasses planted. 

Eventually, meadows will revert to old fields and 

forest if they are not mowed, grazed, or burned. 

Grasses in both managed meadows and pastures 

usually are similar, but pasture herbs often differ 

because of selective grazing.) 

- 93 -

- 94 - 

Glossary 

urban runoff water from rain, melted snow, or 

landscape irrigation flowing from city streets and 

domestic or commercial properties that may 

carry pollutants into a sewer system or water 

body 

vernal pool- depressions holding water for at 

least two months in the spring or early summer, 

is absent of fish, and is important for amphibians 

during the breeding season. 

vision statement- a concise statement of what 

the unit could achieve in the next 10 to 15 years 

visitor center- a permanently staffed building 

offering exhibits and interpretive information to 

the visiting publc. Some visitor center are colocated 

with refuge offices, others include 

additional facilities such as classrooms or 

wildlife viewing areas 

visitor contact station- compared to a visitor 

center, a contact station is a smaller facility 

which may not be permanently staffed 

warm-season grass- native prairie grass that 

grows the most during summer, when coolseason 

grasses are dormant 

watchable wildlife- all wildlife is watchable 

(N.b. a watchable wildlife program is one that 

helps maintain viable populations of all native 

fish and wildlife species by building an active, 

well informed constituency for conservation. 

Watchable wildlife programs are tools for 

meeting wildlife conservation goals while at the 

same time fulfilling public demand for wildlifedependent 

recreational activities (other than sport 

hunting, sport fishing, or trapping).) 

watershed- the geographic area within which 

water drains into a particular river, stream, or 

body of water; land and the body of water into 

which the land drains 

well protected- a rare species or community 

type 75 percent or more of its occurrence sites 

are on dedicated open space 

wet meadows- meadows located in moist, lowlying 

areas, often dominated by large colonies of 

reeds or grasses (N.b. often they are created by 

collapsed beaver dams and exposed pond 

bottoms. Saltmarsh meadows are subject to daily 

coastal tides.) 


wetlands- “Wetlands are lands transitional 

between terrestrial and aquatic systems where 

the water table is usually at or near the surface or 

the land is covered by shallow water.”— 

Cowardin et al 1979 

wilderness- cf. “designated wilderness” 

wildfire- a free-burning fire requiring a 

suppression response; all fire other than 

prescribed fire that occurs on wildlands (FWS 

Manual 621 FW 1.7) 

wildland fire- every wildland fire is either a 

wildfire or a prescribed fire (FWS Manual 621 

FW 1.3) 

wildlife management- manipulating wildlife 

populations, either directly by regulating the 

numbers, ages, and sex ratios harvested, or 

indirectly by providing favorable habitat 

conditions and alleviating limiting factors 

wildlife-oriented recreation- recreational 

experiences in which wildlife is the focus (“the 

terms ‘wildlife dependent recreation’ and 

‘wildlife-dependent recreational use’ mean a use 

of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, or environmental 

education and interpretation.”— National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997) 

working landscape- the rural landscape created 

and used by traditional laborers (N.b. agriculture, 

forestry, and fishing all contribute to the working 

landscape of a watershed (e.g., keeping fields 

open by mowing or by grazing livestock).)



Glossary 

- 95 -

- 96 - 

List of Preparers 


Members of the Planning Team and 

Contributors 

Elizabeth A. Herland 

Project Leader 

Eastern Massachusetts Complex 

Tim Prior 

Deputy Project Leader 


Stephanie Koch 

Wildlife Biologist 


Bill Perry 

Refuge Planner 


Debra Kimbrell-Anderson 

Refuge Manager 

Assabet and Oxbow NWRs 


Michael Dixon 

Outdoor Recreation Planner 


Sharon Fish Marino 

Former Refuge Manager 

Monomoy NWR 

Carl Melberg 

Land Acquisition Planner 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Northeast Regional Office 

Bud Oliveira 

Deputy Chief of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, Region 4 

Former Project Leader 


Pamela Hess 

Appalachian Mountain Club 

Former Deputy Project Leader 



Chuck Bell 

Former District Manager Northeast District 

Division of Fish and Game 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

Debbie Dineen, Natural Resources, Town of 

Sudbury 

Curt Laffin, Planning Consultant 

Jack Lash 

Planning and Ecology Director Department 

of Environmental Management, 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

Tom Poole 

Natural Resource Manager 

Army at Devens Reserve Forces Training 

Area 

Bill Woytek 

Division of Fish and Game, Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts 

Bruce Flaig and Marijke Holtrop 

Generously allowed the refuge to use their 

photographs, many of which were used in this 

plan 

Lindsay Krey 

Assistant Planner 

Former Team Leader 



Nicole Allison 

Former Wildlife Biologist 



William Archambault 

Fisheries Supervisor South 

Former Regional NEPA Coordinator 



Melissa Brewer 

Former Fisheries Biologist 


Northeast Regional Office

John Eaton, Cartographer 



Andrew French 

Former Realty Officer 



Thomas Bonetti 


Former Team Leader for this project. 



Victoria Barr 

Archeologist 



Rick Jorgensen 

Realty Specialist 



Wendy Lilly-Hanson 

Former Wildlife Biologist 


Janet Kennedy 

Refuge Manager Parker River NWR 

Former Deputy Project Leader for Eastern 

Massachusetts Complex 

Deborah Long 

Deputy Refuge Manager Forsythe NWR 

Former Monomoy NWR Refuge Manager 

Lisa Plagge 

Former Bio-technician 

Great Meadows, Oxbow, and Assabet NWRs 


Pamela Rooney 

Engineering Supervisor 

Former Planning Team Leader 



Rick Schauffler 

Wildlife Biologist and Cartographer 


New England Field Office 

Janith Taylor 

Regional Biologist 




Sharon Ware 

Refuge Manager Sachuest Point NWR 

Former Refuge Manager at Monomoy NWR 

Mike Amaral 

Senior Endangered Species Specialist 



Addresses 



National Wildlife Refuge System 

300 Westgate Center Dr. 

Hadley, MA 01035 

Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex Headquarters 

73 Weir Hill Road 

Sudbury, MA 01776 


70 Commercial St., Ste 300 

Concord, NH 03301-5087 

Monomoy NWR 

Wikis Way, Morris Island 

Chatham, MA 02633 


- 97 -

- 98 - 

Appendices 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Relevant Laws 

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

Appendix C: Responses to Substantive Comments 

Appendix D: Species Lists 

Appendix E: RONS and MMS 

Appendix F: Existing and Proposed Staffing Charts for Assabet River, Great Meadows, and 

Oxbow NWRs 

Appendix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

Appendix H: Draft Water Quality Report 




Appendices 

- 99 -

- 100 - 



Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986 

This Act authorized the purchase of wetlands with Land and Water Conservation Fund 

moneys, removing a prior prohibition on such acquisitions. The Act also requires the 

Secretary to establish a National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan, requires the States 

to include wetlands in their Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans, and transfers to 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund amount equal to import duties on arms and 

ammunition. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884), as amended 

Public Law 93-205, approved December 28, 1973, repealed the Endangered Species 

Conservation Act of December 5, 1969 (P.L. 91-135, 83 Stat. 275). The 1969 Act had 

amended the Endangered Species Preservation Act of October 15, 1966 (P.L. 89-669, 80 

Stat. 926). The 1973 Endangered Species Act provided for the conservation of ecosystems 

upon which threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants depend, both 

through federal action and by encouraging the establishment of state programs. The act: 

• authorizes the determination and listing of species as endangered and threatened; 

• prohibits unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and transport of endangered 

species; 

• provides authority to acquire land for the conservation of listed species, using land 

and water conservation funds; 

• authorizes establishment of cooperative agreements and grants-in-aid to states 

that establish and maintain active and adequate programs for endangered and 

threatened wildlife and plants; 

• authorizes the assessment of civil and criminal penalties for violating the act or 

regulations; and 

• authorizes the payment of rewards to anyone furnishing information leading to 

arrest and conviction for any violation of the act of any regulation issued 

thereunder. 

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management 

The purpose of this Executive Order, signed May 24, 1977, is to prevent Federal agencies 

from contributing to the “adverse impacts associated with occupancy and modification of 

floodplains” and the “direct or indirect support of floodplain development.” in the course of 

fulfilling their respective authorities, Federal agencies “shall take action to reduce the risk 

of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to 

restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. 

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 

This Act was passed to improve the administration of fish and wildlife programs and 

amends several earlier laws, including the Refuge Recreation Act, the National Wildlife 

Refuge Administration Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It authorizes the 



secretary to accept gifts and bequests of real and personal property on behalf of the 

United States. It also authorizes the use of volunteers on service projects and 

appropriations to carry out volunteer programs. 

Historic Preservation Acts 

There are various laws for the preservation of historic sites and objects. 

Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 431 - 433) – The Act of June 8, 1906, (34 Stat. 225) authorizes 

the President to designate as National Monuments objects or areas of historic or scientific 

interest on lands owned or controlled by the United States. The Act required that a permit 

be obtained for examination of ruins, excavation of archaeological sites and the gathering 

of objects of antiquity on lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretaries of Interior, 

Agriculture, and Army, and provided penalties for violations. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa - 470ll) -- Public Law 96-95, 

approved October 31, 1979, (93 Stat. 721) largely supplanted the resource protection 

provisions of the Antiquities Act for archaeological items. 

This Act established detailed requirements for issuance of permits for any excavation for 

or removal of archaeological resources from Federal or Indian lands. It also established 

civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized excavation, removal, or damage of any 

such resources; for any trafficking in such resources removed from Federal or Indian land 

in violation of any provision of Federal law; and for interstate and foreign commerce in 

such resources acquired, transported or received in violation of any state or local law. 

Public Law 100-588, approved November 3, 1988, (102 Stat. 2983) lowered the threshold 

value of artifacts triggering the felony provisions of the act from $5,000 to $500, made 

attempting to commit an action prohibited by the Act a violation, and required the land 

managing agencies to establish public awareness programs regarding the value of 

archaeological resources to the Nation. 

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 469-469c) -- Public Law 86-523, 

approved June 27, 1960, (74 Stat. 220) as amended by Public Law 93-291, approved May 

24, 1974, (88 Stat. 174) to carry out the policy established by the historic sites act (see 

below), directed Federal agencies to notify the Secretary of the Interior whenever they 

find a Federal or Federally assisted, licensed or permitted project may cause loss or 

destruction of significant scientific, prehistoric or archaeological data. The Act authorized 

use of appropriated, donated and/or transferred funds for the recovery, protection and 

preservation of such data. 

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C 461-462, 464-467) -- The Act of 

August 21, 1935, (49 Stat. 666) popularly known as the Historic Sites Act, as amended by 

Public Law 89-249, approved October 9, 1965, (79 Stat. 971) declared it a National policy to 

preserve historic sites and objects of national significance, including those located on 

refuges. It provided procedures for designation, acquisition, administration and protection 

of such sites. Among other things, National Historic and Natural Landmarks are 


- 101 -

- 102 - 


designated under authority of this Act. As of January, 1989, 31 national wildlife refuges 

contained such sites. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470-470b, 470c-470n) -- Public Law 

89-665, approved October 15, 1966, (80 Stat. 915) and repeatedly amended, provided for 

preservation of significant historical features (buildings, objects and sites) through a 

grant-in-aid program to the states. It established a National Register of Historic Places 

and a program of matching grants under the existing National Trust for Historic 

Preservation (16 U.S.C. 468-468d). 

The Act established an Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which was made a 

permanent independent agency in Public Law 94-422, Approved September 28, 1976 (90 

Stat. 1319). That Act also created the Historic Preservation Fund. Federal agencies are 

directed to take into account the effects of their actions on items or sites listed or eligible 

for listing in the National Register. 

As of January, 1989, 91 historic sites on national wildlife refuges have been placed on the 

National Register. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1948 

This Act provides funding through receipts from the sale of surplus federal land, 

appropriations from oil and gas receipts from the outer continental shelf, and other 

sources for land acquisition under several authorities. Appropriations from the fund may 

be used for matching grants to states for outdoor recreation projects and for land 

acquisition by various federal agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715- 715d, 715e, 715f-715r) 

This Act established the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission which consists of the 

Secretaries of the Interior (chairman), Agriculture, and Transportation, two members 

from the House of Representatives, and an ex-officio member from the state in which a 

project is located. The Commission approves acquisition of land and water, or interests 

therein, and sets the priorities for acquisition of lands by the Secretary for sanctuaries or 

for other management purposes. Under this Act, to acquire lands, or interests therein, the 

state concerned must consent to such acquisition by legislation. Such legislation has been 

enacted by most states. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718-718j, 48 Stat. 452), 

as amended 

The “Duck Stamp Act,” as this March 16, 1934, authority is commonly called, requires each 

waterfowl hunter 16 years of age or older to possess a valid Federal hunting stamp. 

Receipts from the sale of the stamp are deposited in a special Treasury account known as 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and are not subject to appropriations. 



National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12401; 104 Stat. 3127) 

Public Law 101-610, signed November 16, 1990, authorizes several programs to engage 

citizens of the U.S. in full- and/or part-time projects designed to combat illiteracy and 

poverty, provide job skills, enhance educational skills, and fulfill environmental needs. 

Several provisions are of particular interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

American Conservation and Youth Service Corps -- as a Federal grant program 

established under Subtitle C of the law, the Corps offers an opportunity for young adults 

between the ages of 16-25, or in the case of summer programs, 15-21, to engage in 

approved human and natural resources projects which benefit the public or are carried out 

on Federal or Indian lands. 

To be eligible for assistance, natural resources programs will focus on improvement of 

wildlife habitat and recreational areas, fish culture, fishery assistance, erosion, wetlands 

protection, pollution control and similar projects. A stipend of not more than 100 percent of 

the poverty level will be paid to participants. A Commission established to administer the 

Youth Service Corps will make grants to States, the Secretaries of Agriculture and 

Interior and the Director of ACTION to carry out these responsibilities. 

National and Community Service Act -- Will make grants to states for the creation of fulltime 

and/or part-time programs for citizens over 17 years of age. Programs must be 

designed to fill unmet educational, human, environmental, and public safety needs. 

Initially, participants will receive post-employment benefits of up to $1000 per year for 

part-time and $2500 for full-time participants. 

Thousand Points of Light -- Creates a nonprofit Points of Light Foundation to administer 

programs to encourage citizens and institutions to volunteer in order to solve critical social 

issues, and to discover new leaders and develop institutions committed to serving others. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 

1, 1970, 83 Stat. 852) as amended by P.L. 94-52, July 3, 1975, 89 Stat. 258, and P.L. 94-83, 

August 9, 1975, 89 Stat. 424). 

Title I of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that all Federal 

agencies prepare detailed environmental impact statements for “every recommendation or 

report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting 

the quality of the human environment.” 

The 1969 statute stipulated the factors to be considered in environmental impact 

statements, and required that Federal agencies employ an interdisciplinary approach in 

related decision-making and develop means to ensure that unquantified environmental 

values are given appropriate consideration, along with economic and technical 

considerations. 

Title II of this statute requires annual reports on environmental quality from the 

President to the Congress, and established a Council on environmental quality in the 

Executive Office of the President with specific duties and functions. 


- 103 -

- 104 - 


National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) as 

amended 

This act defines the Refuge System as including wildlife refuges, areas for protection and 

conservation of fish and wildlife which are threatened with extinction, wildlife ranges, 

game ranges, wildlife management areas, and waterfowl production areas. The Secretary 

is authorized to permit any use of an area provided such use is compatible with the major 

purposes for which such area was established. The purchase considerations for rights-ofway 

go into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for the acquisition of lands. By 

regulation, up to 40% of an area acquired for a migratory bird sanctuary may be opened to 

migratory bird hunting unless the Secretary finds that the taking of any species of 

migratory game birds in more than 40% of such area would be beneficial to the species. 

The Act requires an Act of Congress for the divestiture of lands in the system, except (1) 

lands acquired with Migratory Bird Conservation Commission funds, and (2) lands can be 

removed from the system by land exchange, or if brought into the System by a cooperative 

agreement, then pursuant to the terms of the agreement. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

Public Law 105-57, amends the National Wildlife System Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee), 

providing guidance for management and public use of the Refuge System. The Act 

mandates that the Refuge System be consistently directed and managed as a national 

system of lands and waters devoted to wildlife conservation and management. 

The Act establishes priorities for recreational uses of the Refuge System. Six wildlifedependent 

uses are specifically named in the act: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation. These activities are to be 

promoted on the Refuge System, while all non-wildlife dependant uses are subject to 

compatibility determinations. 

A compatible use is one which, in the sound professional judgment of the Refuge Manger, 

will not materially interfere with or detract from fulfillment of the Refuge System Mission 

or refuge purpose(s). 

As stated in the Act, “the mission of the System is to administer a national network of 

lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of 

the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” 

The act also requires development of a comprehensive conservation plan for each refuge 

and management of each refuge consistent with the plan. When writing CCP, planning for 

expanded or new refuges, and when making management decisions, The Act requires 

effective coordination with other Federal agencies, state fish and wildlife or conservation 

agencies, and refuge neighbors. A refuge must also provide opportunities for public 

involvement when making a compatibility determination or developing a CCP. 



North American Wetlands Conservation Act (103 Stat. 1968; 16 U.S.C. 4401-4412) 

Public Law 101-233, enacted December 13, 1989, provides funding and administrative 

direction for implementation of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the 

Tripartite Agreement on wetlands between Canada, U.S. and Mexico. 

The Act converts the Pittman-Robertson account into a trust fund, with the interest 

available without appropriation through the year 2006 to carry out the programs 

authorized by the Act, along with an authorization for annual appropriation of over $20 

million plus an amount equal to the fines and forfeitures collected under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act. 

Available funds may be expended, upon approval of the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Commission, for payment of not to exceed 50 percent of the United States share of the cost 

of wetlands conservation projects in Canada, Mexico, or the United States (or 100 percent 

of the cost of projects on Federal lands). At least 50 percent and no more than 70 percent 

of the funds received are to go to Canada and Mexico each year. 

A North American Wetlands Conservation Council is created to recommend projects to be 

funded under the Act to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. The Council is to 

be composed of the Director of the Service, the Secretary of the National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation, a State fish and game agency director from each flyway, and three 

representatives of different nonprofit organizations participating in projects under the 

Plan or the Act. The Chairman of the Council and one other member serve ex officio on the 

Commission for consideration of the Council’s recommendations. 

The Commission must justify in writing to the Council and, annually, to Congress, any 

decisions not to accept Council recommendations. 

Oil Pollution Act of 1990 

Public Law 101-380 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.; 104 Stat. 484) established new requirements 

and extensively amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1301 et. seq.) 

to provide enhanced capabilities for oil spill response and natural resource damage 

assessment by the Service. It required Service consultation on developing a fish and 

wildlife response plan for the National Contingency Plan, input to Area Contingency 

Plans, review of Facility and Tank Vessel Contingency Plans, and to conduct damage 

assessments associated with oil spills. 

One aspect of particular interest to the Service involves the identification of ecologically 

sensitive areas and the preparation of scientific monitoring and evaluation plans. Research 

conducted by the Service is to be directed and coordinated by the National Wetland 

Research Center. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial Cct of 2000 

This Act paves the way for a special, nationwide outreach campaign. The law calls for a 

Centennial Commission of distinguished individuals to work with partners in carrying out 


- 105 -

- 106 - 


the outreach campaign. The law also calls for a long-term plan to address the major 

operations, maintenance, and construction needs of the Refuge System 

These centennial activities will help broaden visibility, strengthen partnerships, and fortify 

facilities and programs for wildlife and habitat conservation and recreation. They will build 

a stronghold of support for the National Wildlife Refuge System to sustain it in a new era 

of both challenge and opportunity. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 

This Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer refuges, hatcheries, and 

other conservation areas for recreational use, when such uses do not interfere with the 

area’s primary purposes. It authorizes construction and maintenance of recreational 

facilities and the acquisition of land for incidental fish and wildlife oriented recreational 

development or protection of natural resources. It also authorizes the charging of fees for 

public uses. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (16 U.S.C. 715s) 

Section 401 of the Act of June 15, 1935, (49 stat. 383) provided for payments to counties in 

lieu of taxes, using revenues derived from the sale of products from refuges. 

Public Law 93-509, approved December 3, 1974, (88 Stat. 1603) required that moneys 

remaining in the fund after payments be transferred to the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Fund for land acquisition under provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. 

Public Law 95-469, approved October 17, 1978, (92 Stat. 1319) expanded the revenue 

sharing system to include National Fish Hatcheries and Service research stations. It also 

included in the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund receipts from the sale of salmonid 

carcasses. Payments to counties were established as: 

1) on acquired land, the greatest amount calculated on the basis of 75 cents per acre, threefourths 

of one percent of the appraised value, or 25 percent of the net receipts produced 

from the land; and 

2) on land withdrawn from the public domain, 25 percent of net receipts and basic 

payments under Public Law 94-565 (31 U.S.C. 1601-1607, 90 Stat. 2662), payment in lieu of 

taxes on public lands. 

This amendment also authorized appropriations to make up any difference between the 

amount in the Fund and the amount scheduled for payment in any year. The stipulation 

that payments be used for schools and roads was removed, but counties were required to 

pass payments along to other units of local government within the county which suffer 

losses in revenues due to the establishment of refuges. 



Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act of 1948 

This Act provides that upon determination by the Administrator of the General Services 

Administration, real property no longer needed by a Federal agency can be transferred, 

without reimbursement, to the Secretary of the Interior if the land has particular value for 

migratory birds, or to a state agency for other wildlife conservation purposes. 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794 )as amended 

Title 5 of Public Law 93-112 (87 Stat. 355), signed October 1, 1973, prohibits discrimination 

on the basis of handicap under any program or activity receiving Federal financial 

assistance. 

The Volunteer and Community Partnership Act 

The Volunteer and Community Partnership Act of 1998 brings recognition and additional 

authorities to the volunteer program and community partnerships, as well as supports 

education programs. Under this Act, refuges can now more easily conduct business with 

community partners under the auspices of the newly authorized and streamlined 

administrative processes. Leveraging Federal dollars and staff, Refuge Managers can 

operate and construct services through cooperative agreements, deposit donations in 

individual accounts at the refuge, and match donations. 

Youth Conservation Corps Act (16 U.S.C. 1701-1706, 84 Stat. 794) 

Public Law 91-378, approved August 13, 1970, declares the YCC pilot program a success 

and establishes permanent programs within the Departments of Interior and Agriculture 

for young adults who have attained the age of 15, but not the age of 19, to perform specific 

tasks on lands and waters administered under jurisdiction of these Secretaries. Within the 

Fish and Wildlife Service, YCC participants perform various tasks on national wildlife 

refuges, national fish hatcheries, research stations, and other facilities. 

The legislation also authorizes the Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture 

to establish a joint grant program to assist states employing young adults on non-Federal 

public lands and waters throughout the U.S. 

Requires the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to prepare a joint report to the 

President and Congress prior to April 1 of each year. 

Wilderness Act of 1964 

Public Law 88-577, approved September 3, 1964, directed the Secretary of the Interior, 

within 10 years, to review every roadless area of 5,000 or more acres and every roadless 

island (regardless of size) within national wildlife refuges and national parks for inclusion 

in the National Wilderness Preservation System. 


- 107 -

Appendix B: US Forest Service Report 

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


- 163 -

CAT 

Content 

Analysis 

Team 

November 26 

2003 

200 E 

Broadway 

Room 301 

P.O. Box 7669 

Missoula, MT 

59807 

406-329-3038 

Analysis of Public Comment 

U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish & Wildlife 

Service 

The Eastern Massachusetts 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Assabet River, Great Meadows, 

Oxbow Wildlife Refuges 

Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all 

its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, 

religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family 

status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program 

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s 

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA 

is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003 

Table of Contents 

Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1 

Summary of Comments........................................................................................... 2 

Synopsis............................................................................................................... 2 

Planning Processes.............................................................................................. 3 

General Planning ............................................................................................ 3 

Time frame for planning/length of comment period ......................................... 3 

Public Involvement .......................................................................................... 3 

Relationship to Regional Planning Efforts ....................................................... 4 

Statutory Authority........................................................................................... 4 

Trust and Integrity ........................................................................................... 4 

Clarity/Organization of Planning Documents................................................... 4 

Technical & Editorial ....................................................................................... 5 

Purpose and Need................................................................................................ 6 

Range of Issues .............................................................................................. 6 

Guiding Policy for Public Lands....................................................................... 6 

Alternatives........................................................................................................... 7 

Affected Environment ........................................................................................... 8 

General resources........................................................................................... 8 

Water quality ................................................................................................... 8 

Vegetation....................................................................................................... 8 

Invasives ......................................................................................................... 9 

Wildlife Management....................................................................................... 9 

Refuge Administration ........................................................................................ 11 

General Suggestions..................................................................................... 11 

Land Acquisition............................................................................................ 11 

Buildings and Facilities.................................................................................. 11 

Staffing and Funding ..................................................................................... 12 

Enforcement.................................................................................................. 12 

Wild and Scenic Rivers ................................................................................. 12 

Priority Public Uses ............................................................................................ 13 

Analysis of Existing Conditions and Need for Further Analysis ..................... 13 

Table of Contents i


General Management Direction.....................................................................13 

Refuge Access ..............................................................................................14 

Fees ..............................................................................................................15 

Hunting ..........................................................................................................16 

Dogs and Public Safety .................................................................................20 

Fishing...........................................................................................................21 

Environmental Education...............................................................................21 

Recreation ..........................................................................................................23 

Snowmobiling ................................................................................................23 

Jogging..........................................................................................................23 

Picnicking ......................................................................................................24 

Bicycling ........................................................................................................24 

Horseback Riding ..........................................................................................24 

Dog-Walking..................................................................................................25 

Birdwatching..................................................................................................25 

Trapping ........................................................................................................25 

Socioeconomic Concerns ...................................................................................26 

Appendix A Coding Structure and Demographic Codes.................................. A-1 

Appendix B Demographics.............................................................................. B-6 

Appendix C Early Attention Letters.................................................................. C-1 

Appendix D Information Requests................................................................... D-1 

Appendix E Organized Response Report........................................................ E-1 

Appendix F List of Preparers ............................................................................F-1 

Table of Contents ii


Introduction 

The contracted U.S. Forest Service Content Analysis Team report summarizes public 

comment submitted on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment (hereafter Draft CCP/EA) prepared to describe the alternatives for the Assabet 

River, Great Meadows, and Oxbow refuges in the Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex. This report provides a narrative review of concerns raised as well as 

appendices detailing the coding process for reviewing public comments, analyzing 

demographic information derived from responses, and listing individuals responsible for the 

analysis. The narrative summary provides an overview of pervasive themes in public 

sentiment rather than a comprehensive description of each public concern. 

Public input on the Draft CCP/EA is documented, analyzed, and summarized using a process 

called content analysis. This is a systematic method of compiling and categorizing the full 

range of public viewpoints and concerns regarding a plan or project. This process makes no 

attempt to treat comments as votes. In no way does content analysis attempt to sway decision 

makers toward the will of any majority. Content analysis ensures that every comment is 

considered at some point in the decision process. Content analysis is intended to facilitate 

good decision-making by helping the planning team to clarify, adjust, or incorporate 

technical information into the final guidelines. The process facilitates agency response to 

comment. 

All responses (i.e., letters, emails, faxes, oral testimony, and other types of input) are 

included in this analysis. In the content analysis process, each response is given a unique 

identifying number, which allows analysts to link specific comments to original letters. 

Respondents’ names and addresses are then entered into a project-specific database program, 

enabling creation of a complete mailing list of all respondents. The database is also used to 

track pertinent demographic information such as responses from special interest groups or 

federal, state, tribal, county, and local governments. 

All input is considered and reviewed by an analyst. Comments are then entered into the 

database. In preparing the final summary analysis, public statements are reviewed again 

using database printouts. These reports track all coded input and allow analysts to identify a 

wide range of public concerns and analyze the relationships between them in a narrative 

summary. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service solicited comments on the Draft CCP/EA from July 20, 

2003 to September 3, 2003. 

During the comment period, 1,907 responses, oral and written, were received. Twenty-five 

responses were duplicates; therefore 1882 responses were entered into the comment database. 

Organized response campaigns (forms) represented 70 percent (1,334 of 1,907) of the total 

responses. 

Introduction 1


Summary of Comments 

Synopsis 

The general tenor of comments is appreciative and laudatory. Typically, respondents endorse 

Alternative B. While there are many specific exceptions to these trends, the two most 

common are opposition to new or increased hunting on the refuge, and opposition to 

proposed limits on non-motorized recreation on the refuge, such as dog-walking and 

picnicking. Endorsement of Alterative B is often couched with provisos, such as that it 

eliminate hunting on the refuge. 

Where analysts were able to identify unit-specific comments (such as those about the Great 

Meadows), the database includes that identification; FWS may wish to review unit-specific 

comments. In general, however, analysts do not discern any appreciable difference in 

comments addressed to the various units. The overall themes of comments are the same, and 

most specific suggestions could apply equally to all three refuges. Where site-specific 

suggestions or concerns are relevant to this summary, they are identified. 

Summary of Comments 2


Planning Processes 

General Planning 

Although respondents are generally complimentary of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

staff and the CCP/EA, commentors provide some suggestions and various criticisms of the 

document. Respondents also request an opportunity to revisit the plan after its 

implementation and make any necessary changes. 

Time frame for planning/length of comment period 

Some respondents are disappointed in the comment period, arguing that holding the comment 

period during the summer months limits the informed input that communities and individuals 

can give. Specifically, the Suasco Watershed Community Council states, “The summer 

timing of this public review may have inadvertently and unfortunately limited public 

comment.” Also, some respondents want more time to review the “technical and 

voluminous” conservation plan so that they may submit more informed comments. 

Respondents are also disappointed that the agency failed to adequately inform the public of 

the comment period. One respondent from Concord, for example, wanted notice of the 

comment period posted on the bulletin board at the Great Meadows Refuge. The FWS, some 

argue, should extend the comment period and improve outreach efforts so that communities 

and individuals may provide well-informed and useful comments. 

Public Involvement 

Many respondents feel satisfied with the FWS’s level of public involvement and education; 

they praise the agencies past efforts and eagerly anticipate additional opportunities for 

interest groups and communities to stay involved in the refuge’s management. One Maynard 

respondent affirms, “Your efforts to involve the local communities are appreciated and 

should benefit us all.” There are, however, a significant number of respondents who believe 

the FWS could improve their public involvement and education efforts. One individual 

states, “Community members in the towns abutting the land appear to have very little 

knowledge about your proposal, and therefore have had very little input.” Respondents urge 

the FWS to hold more public meetings in schools, libraries, senior centers, and town offices, 

as well as take advantage of the media to improve public involvement and educate 

communities. “[Great Meadows Refuge] is a wonderful opportunity for public outreach—a 

place to engage dedicated environmentalists in a dialogue with U.S. Fish and Wildlife and to 

recruit new support for the service and its mission.” 

Civic and conservation organizations express interest in collaborating with the FWS on 

management issues. The City of Marlborough Conservation Commission, for example, 

would like to work cooperatively with the FWS in managing the Refuge Complex and the 

Memorial Forest and Desert Natural Area “to enhance biodiversity and wildlife while 

allowing public access where suitable.” Conservation commissions from other towns express 



interest in collaborative management as well. Similarly, respondents nominate the 

Massachusetts Audubon Society, the Trustee of Reservations, the Friends of Assabet River 

Wildlife Refuge, The Friends of the Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge, The Great Meadows 

Neighborhood Association, Bay State Trail Riders Association, and the Sudbury Valley 

Trustees as good candidates for public involvement. 

Relationship to Regional Planning Efforts 

Respondents ask for clarification of the CCP’s compatibility with other regional management 

efforts, such as: the Maynard Open Space by-law for the Maynard portion of the Sudbury 

Annex in 1987 and its hunting restrictions; the Freedom’s Way Association bill currently 

before congress to formally designate 43 communities as a national heritage area near the 

Great Meadows complex; wildlife management and conservation restrictions near Bolton 

Flats and Devens South Post; the goals of Wild and Scenic River designations; and the 

original intent of the O’Rourke farm “river reservation.” 

Statutory Authority 

Respondents sometimes address real or perceived conflicts between the CCP and federal or 

state law. Some respondents remind the FWS that projects proposed “within the Oxbow 

boundary are subject to the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act,” and that the National 

Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 permits hunting as “one of six priority wildlifedependent 

uses.” 

Trust and Integrity 

Some respondents question the intent of the agency, and are disappointed that the land 

management decisions proffered in the CCP do not reflect the historical uses of the land. “I 

know that I would not have voted for FWS to take the land if I had believed that I would 

never have access to that property for recreational use. You duped the residents of these 

towns so that you could get this property,” exclaims one respondent. 

Other respondents, however, praise the FWS staff and their efforts. These respondents trust 

the agency to make appropriate land management decisions based on expertise and 

dedication. 

Clarity/Organization of Planning Documents 

Many respondents approve of the CCP and commend the agency. “I would like to say that it 

is an impressive document [and] remarkably well-written,” comments one typical 

respondent. Commentors also support the document’s consideration of and compatibility 

with neighboring areas. 

Some respondents express disappointment, however, in the agency’s website performance 

and the size of the electronic document. 



Technical & Editorial 

Respondents suggest the agency provide clearer, more accurate maps. Respondents also 

provided editorial suggestions. For example, “Correction: The Commission would like to 

point out an error on the map on page 2-71. A parking lot is shown on Maple St. north of the 

service road. This site is in fact a private home. There is a parking lot across the street on 

Greenough Conservation Land existing there.” Another respondent wrote, “Please correct the 

capitalization on Sudbury section maps 2-6, 2-7, 2-16 to Sherman Bridge Road. It is two 

words. It’s a street in Wayland.” 



Purpose and Need 

Range of Issues 

Some respondents feel that FWS is making a mistake in classifying certain issues as beyond 

the scope of the EA. These respondents want the FWS to evaluate and mitigate noise and air 

pollution impacts on visitors and wildlife caused by Hanscom Field air traffic. One 

commentor states, “The CCP should include a plan to evaluate impacts to waterfowl, 

especially during nesting seasons, from air traffic at Hanscom Field. The CCP should 

identify noise from Hanscom Field as an issue with which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife staff 

should be more involved.” Respondents protest the expansion of Hanscom Field and its 

related impacts to the visitor experience; and ask that FWS partner with local communities 

and federal agencies—the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation 

Administration—to analyze the impacts of the expansion. One conservation organization 

asks the FWS to participate in the evaluation of jet ski impacts to recreation and wildlife on 

the Concord River. 

Guiding Policy for Public Lands 

Respondents repeatedly describe the agency’s mission as one of wildlife protection, and 

assert that human activities and development should be limited. “In establishing the 

permitted uses for the refuge, you must not bow to public pressure. You must follow the 

charter of a NWR. To do that, you need to establish what the sensitive species are in the 

refuge, and how they are best managed. You must define what additional resources should be 

involved to preserve habitat for the animals. This might include re-establishing topographical 

features, acquiring adjacent land, procuring easements on neighboring lands, or managing 

tourists.” Respondents emphasize the history of the land and its importance to local 

communities, and suggest that informed management decisions that benefit biodiversity 

would best preserve the refuge. To accomplish this, respondents suggest the agency 

“recognize areas in proximity to the refuge and consider such in managing refuge resources,” 

as wildlife and ecosystems do not recognize political boundaries. 

The land that makes up the Assabet River, Great Meadows, and Oxbow Wildlife Refuges is 

important to the people in the neighboring communities. Many respondents feel connected to 

the land, historically, spiritually, and personally. 



Alternatives 

Many respondents either support Alternative A or B, while little is said regarding Alternative 

C. Proponents of Alternative A are concerned about expanding or limiting specific activities 

such as hunting and dog-walking. Some of these respondents request not expanding or 

allowing hunting. Other respondents ask to retain, rather than prohibit, existing “nonwildlife” 

dependent activities. In general, these respondents desire Refuge Complex 

management to continue as is. 

Respondents support Alternative B more for its management approach than allowed 

activities. Many of these respondents favor active management for invasive species and 

wildlife habitat. Additionally, supporters of Alternative B approve of the levels of funding 

and staffing proposed. Respondents are divided about the benefits of the phased opening of 

the refuge. Other concerns stemming from Alternative B include additional fees, allowed 

uses, and land acquisitions. Repeatedly, respondents endorse Alternative B while asking that 

it permit non-motorized uses such as dog-walking, and prohibit hunting. 

Some respondents feel that no alternative considered is adequate. New alternatives suggested 

include: emphasizing non-consumptive, non-lethal approaches to population control; 

promoting the refuge as “open space,” not a hunting preserve; and providing more local level 

decision-making. 



Affected Environment 

General resources 

One respondent requests that the FWS include in its bibliography the respondent’s 

publication, “A Bibliography of the Biodiversity and the Natural History of the Sudbury 

River- Concord River Valley, including the Great Meadows, the Estabrook Woods, and 

Walden Woods.” 

One respondent avows support for “projects that deal with restoring the native ecology to the 

area.” 

Water quality 

One respondent requests protection of water quality and quantity in the Assabet River 

corridor and drainage. Related to the issue of quantity, one respondent raises the issue of 

connected aquifers: “Areas outside the scope of the CCP and town water supply wells (Pg. 1- 

24): Protecting the remaining base flow—the groundwater that supplies flow to the streams 

during dry times—in the tributaries and main stem of the Assabet River is critical to 

protecting water quality and aquatic habitat in the watershed . . . therefore, we suggest that 

any requests for access to the refuges for the purpose of drilling new water supply wells be 

reviewed for impacts to the wetlands and tributary streams on and off the refuges and suggest 

using the groundwater model of the Assabet River watershed currently being developed by 

the US Geological Survey (Northborough) to evaluate potential habitat impacts of proposed 

increased withdrawals.” 

One respondent argues that water quality degradation should be a critical part of the 

CCP/EA, rather than being considered out of scope: “I thought the water quality section was 

weak. Having raised the red flag that the rivers are heavily contaminated, I did not feel that 

the text clearly explained what that meant for the public and for wildlife in the refuge, and 

what the prospects for correction are. For example, I had thought that a major current issue 

was discharge of excessive nutrients from waste water treatment plants leading 

eutrophication and low-oxygen conditions.” 

Vegetation 

Respondents request that the FWS complete proposed cover-type maps to assess species 

occurrence and distribution. One respondent provides extensive advice: “Biological 

Inventories and Mapping Alternative B calls for a thorough inventory of all species on the 

refuges: It would be ideal to be that comprehensive. If priorities are needed, we suggest the 

following order of importance: Reptiles, especially turtles; Complete documentation of 

vernal pools; Invertebrates: Select representative habitats to inventory macro invertebrates in 

order to provide a representational picture of invertebrates in the different habitats on the 

refuge and to identify any rare species. Invertebrates can also serve as indicators of overall 



ecosystem health; Benthic macro invertebrates: select representative habitats for river, 

stream, pond and wetland surveys within the refuge; Field invertebrates: select a 

methodology that targets representative field types, such as wet meadow and upland field.” 

Several respondents suggest that the refuge should sustain and enhance grassland and 

shrubland habitat on all three units to promote early-successional species, many of which are 

in decline in the Northeast. One respondent suggests creation of a butterfly refuge on the 

south side of the patrol road running from the Hudson Road gate to the radar station. 

Invasives 

The need to inventory refuge resources is connected by one respondent to the need to control 

invasives: “The Service's proposal to complete a comprehensive invasive plant inventory by 

2007 will help guide species-specific management. Many exotic and invasive plant species in 

the watershed have become discouragingly pervasive. SVT recommends that the Service 

prioritize its efforts on species that are threatening rare habitats, out-competing rare or statelisted 

species, or are still in low density numbers. The need for exotic species control 

research is great and the Service's proposal to participate in experimental invasive species 

control could result in new innovative methods.” 

Many respondents support efforts to eliminate invasive non-native species. Indeed, a number 

urge the FWS to help catalyze a regional control effort in cooperation with abutters, state, 

federal, and town authorities, and non-profits, arguing that, “Without a systematic treatment 

of this issue, invasive plants will continue to be dispersed throughout the area by wildlife, 

people, and mechanical means.” 

Several respondents raise concerns about invasives at Puffer Pond, given new fishing access 

to Puffer. One respondent writes: “At present Puffer Pond is pristine and free from invasive 

species such as milfoil and water chestnut that have infected other waterways within 

Massachusetts, especially in local ponds including nearby Lake Boon. Allowing canoes 

previously used in these infected waterways increases the probability of infecting Puffer 

Pond with these invasives. Canoe portage presents still another problem in that Puffer Pond 

is a fair distance from the existing entrances. If auto canoe portage were allowed to the pond, 

temporary parking (allowing driving on the refuge proper) for canoe launch would have to be 

provided. This could (would) become permanent parking because of the undesirability of 

leaving the canoe and its contents to move the canoe carriers to an approved parking area 

after launch and then walking back to the canoe launch area.” 

Concerns about targeted species are raised in two cases: one respondent argues that cattails 

are native, and should not be removed; a number of respondents argue that mute swans are 

harmless and should be 

Wildlife Management 

The most commonly offered input regarding wildlife management reflects an overwhelming 

sense of community and a desire to harmonize refuge planning efforts with past, present, and 

future local and regional land management activities. As one respondent summarizes, “The 

physical configuration and multiple ownership (plus the unique natural history heritage) of 



the valley demands a common vision and a systems and team approach. If all the landowners 

will work together in supporting and adding to the enormous environmental, natural resource 

and knowledge base that has already been put in place by past generations, the resulting 

synergy will produce a ‘refuge’ of far greater proportions and impact than could ever occur if 

each property owner goes off on his/her own.” This sentiment is reflected over and over in 

comments. Often, people state, “our town” or “our organization” already has wildlife survey 

data, or “our town/community” wishes to expand its knowledge of natural resources in the 

area. These respondents encourage FWS to utilize existing data and established management 

practices when making decisions for the refuge, and frequently urge FWS to “coordinate,” 

“consult,” and “share information.” 

A related theme touched on by many respondents is the quality of wildlife species data 

provided in the CCP. Respondents request consistently high-quality data, and some 

respondents request that FWS provide the most up-to-date species information possible. 

Some respondents argue that the agency is drifting away from what they perceive to be its 

central mission: providing “refuge” for wildlife. A number of people assert that in a wildlife 

refuge, wildlife needs should take precedence over human needs. Echoing this view, many 

people request that FWS conduct thorough wildlife assessments to determine what kinds of 

human activities (if any) might be appropriate on the refuge. A number of respondents 

believe that hunting and trapping for wildlife population control are not appropriate. Some 

people encourage non-lethal—or at least humane—population control methods. 

All respondents who comment on wildlife monitoring support Alternative B; however, these 

people encourage FWS to provide more detail regarding how, when, and where monitoring 

will occur. 



Refuge Administration 

General Suggestions 

A number of respondents urge FWS to address refuge management from a regional 

perspective, encouraging the FWS to integrate refuge management with the management of 

surrounding lands through community partnerships. Several people ask the FWS to justify 

splitting the Great Meadows refuge into two units. They argue that this area is all part of one 

ecosystem and, accordingly, should be managed as one unit. 

The few people who address historical and archaeological sites simply ask the FWS to 

inventory these resources and to preserve and enhance them when possible. 

Land Acquisition 

Many respondents comment on the proposed land acquisition boundaries, with the majority 

of people in favor of expanding them. A typical respondent argues that, “In a plan that 

purports to run for the next 15 years, it seems shockingly shortsighted to limit land 

acquisition (including through donations) by the refuge.” Some respondents suggest that 

expansion is the best way to protect whole ecosystems and waterways, while others 

encourage an expanded refuge area to protect threatened and endangered species and wildlife 

corridors. Some people ask the FWS to include specific areas, such as the former Fort 

Devens South Post area and parts of the Assebet and Nashua rivers, in the land acquisition 

boundaries. 

Some respondents discourage the FWS from expanding the land acquisition boundaries. 

Typically these sentiments stem from disagreement with FWS management choices, such as 

limits on horseback use. 

Buildings and Facilities 

Respondents voice a myriad of opinions regarding what kinds of buildings and facilities 

should be provided at the refuge. Suggesting that visitor education is an important component 

of gaining public support for the refuge, a number of respondents encourage the FWS to 

build a visitor center or at the least, a contact station. Some of these respondents make more 

specific suggestions, such as using existing buildings for a contact station/visitor center or 

locating such a facility at Hudson Road or at Deven’s near Jackson Gate. A number of people 

support the idea of an administration building on the refuge. 

Citing the importance of public education, many people ask the FWS to locate kiosks at 

strategic locations throughout the refuge. Comments regarding refuge parking focus on lot 

location with many people discouraging parking at Heard Pond. These respondents contend 

that there has been too much garbage dumping and vandalism at the Heard Pond site to make 

it a desirable parking place. One respondent asks the FWS to place portable toilets at all 

parking facilities in the refuge. A number of people support development of an observation 

deck. A few other specific refuge management suggestions offered by respondents include: 



remove barbed wire from the refuge, use smaller information signs, establish a picnic area 

with a bear-proof garbage can, and construct fire hydrants on White Pond Road and along 

Sudbury Road. 

Staffing and Funding 

Although one respondent believes that the refuge should not have rangers because they 

merely “. . . harass old ladies . . .,” most people feel that adequate refuge staffing is essential. 

While many people assert that Alternative B will meet desired staffing levels, a number of 

other respondents contend that proposed staffing levels are too low. These people cite 

anticipated user conflicts, present refuge hazards, and the current downsizing trend in 

government as reasons to increase proposed staffing levels. Some respondents suggest 

utilizing community groups and/or to form partnerships with volunteer organizations to 

supplement staffing needs. 

With regard to refuge management funding, the only direction provided by respondents is a 

request that the FWS ensure its adequacy. 

Enforcement 

Respondents who comment on enforcement say that the level of enforcement on the refuge 

needs to increase. Some respondents suggest that implementation of some programs be 

delayed until adequate enforcement is in place. Others recommend developing a contingency 

plan in case proposed enforcement levels are not effective. An additional suggestion offered 

by some people is that the FWS have a backup force in place of either volunteers and/or 

community officers. 

The key areas identified by respondents as needing increased policing efforts are off-highway 

vehicle trespass, poaching, dumping, trespass, and vandalism. As a typical respondent writes, 

“Preventing illegal use by ATVs is a major enforcement challenge for properties with large 

borders surrounded by suburban landscapes and with many potential entry points.” 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The one concern regarding wild and scenic river designation expressed by several 

respondents is that hunting is incompatible with this designation and should be prohibited 

within these areas. 



Priority Public Uses 

Analysis of Existing Conditions and Need for Further 

Analysis 

Several respondents question CCP visitor estimates and request better calculations, one 

respondent suggesting that based on personal experience the estimate of 70,000 people per 

year visiting Oxbow is “wildly incorrect. It is probably more like 7,000.” 

Numerous respondents request that scientific analysis of wildlife populations take place prior 

to any hunting or trapping. One conservation organization suggests that the CCP be driven 

entirely by wildlife surveys: “We suggest three overarching management priorities when 

considering policies about public use activities: 1. Public uses allowed under the CCP should 

be based on the findings of wildlife inventory and habitat management step-down plans. 

Public use plans should be based on wildlife inventory and habitat management plans; 2. The 

Service should monitor and adjust allowed public uses based on impacts to wildlife and 

habitat during the drafting/revision of step-down plans; 3. Public use should be coordinated 

among partner organizations with land holdings in the vicinity of refuges.” 

Several respondents argue that ongoing monitoring will be critical to management of 

wildlife-dependent recreation, typically: “The proposed additional monitoring projects in 

Alternative B for all three refuges must include at least that level of detail about how the 

monitoring and evaluation will be carried out. For example: The CCP states on pages 2-29, 

2-68, and 2-95 that the Visitor Services Plans, to be completed by 2007, for Assabet River, 

Great Meadows, and Oxbow Refuges would include a monitoring program to evaluate the 

intensity and potential impacts of all the wildlife-dependent public uses on the refuges. What 

data have you collected to date on this issue and what has your analysis of the results shown? 

What steps are now being taken or will be taken until 2007 when the monitoring program is 

in place to ensure that current management of wildlife-dependent uses is not having an 

adverse effect on the resources?” 

General Management Direction 

Respondents offer a number of suggestions for general management direction of the Refuge 

Complex relating to priority public uses, typically defining the extent to which they believe 

various recreational activities should be permitted. Many respondents, for example, argue 

that the refuge should be “open to the public,” by which they typically mean members of the 

public who undertake non-motorized recreation such as picnicking and jogging. For many, 

this is their defining test of the value of the refuge and a natural consequence of it being 

public land, e.g., since we pay taxes we get to use it. 

For a few respondents, general access to the refuge is part payback for the original 

government acquisition of the land. For many more, there is a significant level of anger at the 

prospect of restriction of passive uses, e.g., “[Great Meadows] has been used with great 

respect and affection by the local public for well over the thirty years that we’ve lived here. I 



can’t imagine what reason or right the Federal Government might think it has to interfere 

with that use.” 

Some respondents acknowledge the mission of the refuge, and couch their suggestions in 

terms of “wildlife-dependent uses.” These respondents suggest that jogging, dog-walking, 

picnicking, and bicycling are dependent on wildlife. 

Many other respondents functionally argue that the purpose of the refuge should be 

redefined, making other arguments for permitting non-motorized recreation. For example, 

although few respondents articulate the thought as clearly and plainly, many implicitly 

advanced an argument in consonance with this comment: “The following suggestions are 

based upon the assumption that the primary purpose of the refuge is to preserve native 

species and habitat, but that other compatible uses are acceptable if they support and do not 

significantly interfere with the primary use.” 

Other respondents implicitly or explicitly question the priority attached to those activities 

defined as wildlife-dependent, e.g., “The boundary between wildlife-dependent and nonwildlife 

dependent activities is not always clear. The more important distinction, in our view, 

is between outdoor activities that have an adverse effect on the health and diversity of 

populations of natural organisms, and those that have little or no such impact.” 

Related to the assertion that only harmful public uses should be restricted, one respondent 

suggests that permitting only harmless uses would mean “hiking, skiing, snowshoeing, and 

not much else.” A significant number of respondents asserted that off-highway vehicle use— 

legal and illegal—results in harm, and should be prohibited. 

Some respondents offer support for the general direction of the FWS preferred alternative or 

general confidence in the agency’s ability to sort things out. Some respondents ask the 

agency to monitor use and make appropriate judgments down the line, saying that the agency 

should continually evaluate relationship between recreational uses, ensure that all legal uses 

receive fair consideration and access, and minimize conflict. 

Refuge Access 

Again, many respondents argue for “access” to the Refuge Complex, by which they usually 

mean easy entrance for non-motorized recreation. While some respondents assert that certain 

specific activities (dog-walking, jogging, etc.) may negatively impact the refuge, most argue 

that non-motorized uses are harmless. 

Regarding infrastructure, some respondents request that the FWS eliminate the maximum 

number of trails and roads to protect wildlife. Some respondents assert that off-trail access 

should be by permit only. One respondent asks that access be limited where it may impact 

state-listed rare species, such as Blanding’s turtles, and argues that the FWS should survey 

for rare reptiles and amphibians before opening areas or new infrastructure for recreation 

access. 

According to one respondent, “It would be nice if one long trail could be paved for 

handicapped people in wheelchairs.” 



Respondents provide many suggestions for specific access points and trails they would like 

to see developed. 

Fees 

A considerable number of respondents support fees for use of the Refuge Complex. As one 

respondent said at a public meeting, “They are great areas; I enjoy walking them a lot. I’d be 

happy to give somebody twenty bucks tonight to walk in them the rest of the year.” Some of 

those who support user fees hinge continued support on clear and appropriate local 

application of funds, or on fee levels remaining stable. 

A considerable number of respondents also oppose user fees at the refuge. Some respondents 

oppose fees based on their perception that the FWS is effectively double-dipping; quote one 

respondent, “We’ve already paid through taxes.” 

Respondents oppose user fees for a number of other reasons, arguing variously that fees will 

deter use (especially by low-income individuals) or alienate local residents and collaborators. 

Some perceive fees as a barrier, e.g.: “I am very much opposed to the plans for Great 

Meadows. This land has been use and enjoyed for many years, and I cannot fathom that 

access may be impeded by restricted hours and fees. The community benefits greatly from a 

refuge that is easily and freely accessible to all.” “It belongs to all of us,” another respondent 

writes, “not the few who are able to pay admission costs.” A number of respondents argue 

that fees change the nature of a recreational experience, e.g., “It destroys the soul of the 

experience.” 

With regard to both opposition to fees and concern about the proposed fee schedule, it is 

worth noting that a number of respondents appear unaware of or uninterested in the 

possibility of purchasing an annual pass instead of paying upon each entrance to the park. For 

some respondents, then, fees may appear deceptively exorbitant. 

With regard to fee schedules, several suggestions are advanced. Several respondents propose 

that local residents be exempted from fees. Some respondents suggest that volunteers receive 

free passes. A number of respondents suggest that hunting fees be higher than other entrance 

fees. Some respondents complain that a car full of hunters (for example) would be charged 

less for entrance than a family of bicyclists, and argue that non-motorized arrivals are less 

intrusive and solve parking problems, and should be admitted for lower charges than motor 

vehicles. One respondent suggests charging a parking fee, rather than an entrance fee. 

Several respondents request clarification of fee schedules, in one case asking whether there 

are any fee differences between Alternatives B and C, and in another asking whether a $15 

annual duck stamp wouldn’t obviate the need to pay $20 for an annual permit. 

Respondents also offer suggestions and concerns regarding the mechanics of fee collection 

and enforcement. A number of respondents argue that enforcement will be impractical and 

expensive, arguing that self-service doesn’t work and that all refuge entrances will have to be 

staffed. Likewise, a number of respondents question whether entrance gates will work in a 

refuge with as many porous boundaries between local residences and conservation land as 

the refuge has. Several respondents ask whether fee income will be outweighed by financial 

and goodwill costs, and ask the FWS to provide a detailed analysis of costs and benefits. 



Hunting 

Hunting was the issue most frequently addressed in comments on the EMNWR CCP. The 

hunting issue most frequently raised by respondents was safety—many residents and 

recreationists fear that hunting will put them in danger. These responses merit close scrutiny, 

which follows in a section on public safety. However, many other issues were raised vis-à-vis 

hunting, and they will be discussed here. 

Hunting advocates 

Although lesser in number than those opposed to hunting, a number of both area residents 

and others voiced support for hunting on the Refuge. Some respondents assert that the 

purpose of refuges is conservation—not preservation—and that hunting should be allowed on 

all wildlife refuges. Others argue that hunting is plainly a wildlife-dependent activity, and 

one with important cultural and educational values. One respondent writes, “Hunting should 

also be recognized and allowed as a legitimate wildlife-dependent recreational activity. 

Pursuing wild game for sport and table fare is an American tradition as old as our country 

itself. Family bonds are forged and strengthened as parents pass on to their children valuable 

lessons in conservation and outdoor ethics. Hunting is a total wildlife-dependent experience 

that fosters an intimate knowledge of game and habitat and teaches a wide variety of 

wilderness skills.” 

Other respondents argue that sportsmen and women have “been the primary source of 

funding” for many conservation efforts, provide money to FWS, and therefore deserve entry 

to the refuge complex. Some respondents assert that hunters have been losing territory to 

development in northeast Massachusetts for decades, and argue that the refuge complex 

should, in fairness, and to relieve hunting pressure on other areas, be available. 

Addressing the issue of displacement, several respondents indicate that hunting does not 

impact other recreationists. As a typical respondent states, “If you're worried about 

compatibility issues on the river as to being able to share, I hunt the Sudbury River, and 

people go by in their kayaks, I don't shoot when they’re paddling by. I wave to them. They 

don't wave back, but I wave to them. I'm sitting there with my dog just, you know, letting 

them go on by.” 

Some hunting advocates also seek to allay safety concerns, arguing that hunting is an 

extremely safe sport. “Some local people have concerns about the opening of these areas to 

hunting. It is important to inform the public of the safeguards, rules and restrictions that will 

be associated with the harvest of resident wildlife. . . . If practiced safely hunting is no more 

dangerous than many other daily activities.” 

Some respondents (hunters and non-hunters alike) suggest that the Refuge permit bow 

hunting only, .e.g., “Once the abutters have an understanding of how close one must be to 

their quarry to execute a lethal shot, they will also understand that before a shot is made, and 

there is no question about what it is the archer is taking aim at. So there will be no mistaking 

a human or household pet for a deer. . . . It is not some beer-guzzling bubba sitting in wait for 

the first thing that moves but rather responsible people who have been through statemandated 

training in the sport of bow hunting and who are dedicated to the sport who wish 



every hunt to be a safe incident free experience for themselves and anybody they share the 

woods with.” 

Respondents also offer suggestions for ensuring safe hunts, such as banning buckshot and 

limiting magazine capacity. Some respondents suggest using testing, expense, and the 

willingness of hunters to assist with Refuge goals to ensure that only a safe and ethical subset 

of hunters have access to the Refuge. 

Advocates of hunting also claim that hunting provides effective population control for 

nuisance species, arguing that waterfowl befoul water and recreation areas, and that deer 

cause traffic accidents, browse crops and ornamentals, and carry lyme disease-infected ticks. 

Hunters also assert that their activities are humane, asserting that overpopulation will be 

addressed either through lingering, painful deaths by starvation or disease, or through quick 

and painless execution. 

Some respondents support hunting but are concerned that access to Oxbow may be being 

increased too much, and ask that use be monitored and adjusted as necessary. Some 

respondents ask the agency to limit expansion to what can be handled by existing 

enforcement capability. Some respondents ask that waterfowl hunting at Oxbow include “the 

marshes and potholes,” as well as Hop Brook near the train tracks. One respondent urges that 

there be no limits on waterfowling. 

One respondent suggests that pheasant stocking continue at Oxbow, but not be expanded to 

Assabet. 

Opposition to hunting 

Opposition to hunting at the EMNWR is intense and widespread, at least within the subset of 

individuals who provided comment on the CCP. When respondents differentiate between 

game species, opposition to hunting turkey and grouse is common, but support for a limited 

deer hunt is more common. Leaving aside public safety, and the associated question of 

displacement, comments which question the wisdom of permitting (or expanding existing) 

fall into four broad categories: requests for additional analysis; concern over impacts; moral 

outrage; and concerns about iniquitous treatment of recreationists. 

Additional Analysis 

Some respondents don’t plainly oppose hunting, but ask for additional analysis to justify and 

focus hunting. For example, one respondent says, “I am not in favor of hunting in that area 

unless it is required to control species that have no natural means of control, and justified by 

appropriate studies.” Some respondents suggest that hunting not be regarded as recreation, 

but as wildlife population management, and that therefore it should be utilized only where 

comprehensive biological surveys and analysis indicate it would be of value for biodiversity 

or habitat protection. These respondents argue that only species with real overpopulations 

should be hunted (and ask for hard evidence, rather than anecdotes of browsed ornamentals), 

excluding species—such as woodcocks—that appear to be in decline. Some respondents 

question whether scientific analysis will indicate that hunting in such a limited area will have 

real impacts on area populations. 



Some respondents assert that the CCP inadequately analyzes the impact of hunting. 

Respondents request more data on the cost of ministering to hunters, on impacts on public 

safety, habitat, and species, and on methods of implementation. Some respondents ask the 

FWS to evaluate the economic impacts of hunting, positing that displacement of other 

recreationists’ results in negative impacts. Respondents ask for boundary clarifications and 

improved maps of available hunting areas. Respondents ask whether the agency has assessed 

its liability for hunting accidents. 

Connected with the sense that analysis is inadequate is the argument that the “cure” is 

inappropriate to the problem. Respondents suggest that beavers be controlled through nonlethal 

means, which they argue have been proven more effective than trapping. 

Impacts 

Several respondents oppose hunting based on perceived impacts to other resources. As one 

respondent writes, “A great number of migratory birds rely on this sanctuary for breeding, as 

do many amphibians, reptiles, fish and mammals. Loud noise such as gun shot is known to 

interfere with breeding. Such interference seems in direct conflict with the intent of this land 

as sanctuary.” Numerous area residents complain that the sound of gun shots is aesthetically 

disturbing as well as frightening. 

Several respondents express concern about the impact of lead shot on wildlife and water 

quality. Several respondents argue that hunting off-trail with or without dogs will cause 

damage, and suggest that off-trail use be as limited for hunters as it is for other recreationists. 

Several respondents argue that many migratory birds are in decline, and ask that none be 

hunted. 

Moral objections 

Comments from both area residents and apparent respondents to a campaign by animal rights 

organizations indicate revulsion at the idea of hunting, particularly on a national wildlife 

refuge. For example: “Of all the violent, destructive activities in the world, hunting is right 

up at the top of the list. I am really disgusted at these proposed changes, as is the rest of my 

family. We live very close to Great Meadows, and I'm sure that the last thing we want to hear 

in the middle of a peaceful Saturday afternoon is gunfire ripping though the air followed by 

the squeal of a helpless animal gasping its last breath.” Or: “Hunting, especially trapping, is 

an unnecessary and cruel attack on nature's innocent creatures. To permit people to entertain 

themselves by cruelly destroying the lives of other beings is unconscionable. Hatred, 

selfishness, and violence tear the world we live in today. Encouraging people to hunt and to 

kill does nothing to heal our wounds and move us toward a better world.” 

Respondents argue that hunting should not be permitted, because, they allege: it benefits a 

small constituency; fees for sportsmen and women are a minor part of overall conservation 

funding; hunters kill two animals for each they harvest, leaving the others to die suffering, 

lingering deaths; hunters present a danger to non-game species; in terms of population 

control, predators better select prey; hunting stresses wildlife. 



Respondents are particularly angered by the idea of hunting on a refuge, which they perceive 

to be directly in conflict with the purpose and definition of a refuge. One typical respondent 

describes shooting wildlife on a wildlife refuge as “oxymoronic.” 

Iniquity 

A strong sentiment running through the comments is a sense that there is something 

inconsistent, unfair, and hypocritical about permitting hunting on the EMNWR while 

prohibiting activities such as dog-walking, jogging, and picnicking on the basis of their 

wildlife impacts. As one respondent writes, “It makes absolutely no sense to me that hunting 

will be allowed in the refuge, but dogs on leashes and bike riding will not be allowed. How in 

the world are dogs on leashes and people on bicycles considered dangerous to wildlife, yet 

people with guns are okay?” Or as a conservation group writes, “Inconsistent or arbitrary 

management of public use could lead to confusion and resentment. Why could someone who 

is hunting grouse have a dog (unleashed!) whereas non-hunters must leave their canine 

friends at home? Can a birdwatcher take along a sandwich, or is that considered picnicking? 

If the pace of a jogger spooks wildlife, then why can someone cross-country ski?” 

Many respondents assert that quiet recreation opportunities are rare, but that adequate 

hunting is already available. 

Hunting and Public Safety 

Many respondents argue that expanded hunting will threaten the safety of area residents and 

other recreationists. It is easiest to consider these comments in two categories: threats to 

people, and displacement of recreationists. 

Threats to people 

Many respondents, including many local residents, argue that a) they will feel unsafe if 

hunting is permitted on the Refuge, and b) that people or animals will be injured or killed by 

friendly fire. A typical comment: “I was brought up learning how to handle a gun, including 

shotguns, and remember going deer hunting with my father in Lincoln, Lexington and other 

towns west of Boston—albeit over 50 years ago. . . . Without prejudice one way or the other 

about the justification for hunting, I think the CCP fails to address the important issue of 

public safety and the dangers resulting to adjacent schools, roadways and homes in the 

Refuge area. Clearly, MetroWest is already too overbuilt to allow for the extended hunting 

proposed in the CCP.” Or: “I do not want to be shot hanging clothes in my back yard.” 

To protect visitors to other conservation lands, some respondents suggest that hunters be 

prohibited from using public access points to other lands (such as Foss Farm and Greenough 

Conservation lands). Local abutters and area residents are particularly concerned about stray 

or mistargeted bullets, and raise concerns regarding a number of specific sites such as the 

Maynard public school campus and the southern portion of the Sudbury unit. 

One respondent raises concerns regarding the resources local law enforcement will expend as 

a result of increased hunting: “As the Chief of Police in the Town of Billerica I am concerned 

about proposed hunting on and around the Concord River. This has been a safety and noise 

concern for residents of west Billerica for many years. I feel that this proposed change will 

increase these problems. Please take into consideration that this end of the refuge is a 



populated area and hunting can pose safety risks. Additionally this will cause an influx of 

Police calls to the area to determine if hunters are on private property or refuge land. Does 

the plan have any contingency to compensate the town for this added use of resources?” 

Displacement 

Many respondents aver that they will be unable to use the Refuge during hunting season. One 

respondent asks that the FWS “Expand the Compatibility Determination analysis to include 

an assessment of recreational compatibility. This should include a determination that the 

conditions that motivated the past Refuge Manager to ban hunting have been alleviated.” 

Respondents argue that creating an exclusive use for significant portions of the year is unfair 

and unwise. Some respondents express significant concern for area recreationists over 

unmarked and porous boundaries between the Refuge, conservation land, and residences, 

particularly where hunters might go off-trail. A typical respondent writes, “I am also opposed 

to hunting, not for moral reasons, but for safety reasons. I and my dogs were the target of a 

hunter at Great Meadows several years ago. I had to hit the ground and crawl behind a tree 

for safety. He didn't see me, though when he heard me, he took off in a hurry.” 

Some respondents complain that hunting season occupies optimal use times for the Refuge, 

one respondent stating that no one uses refuges in summer because “the deer flies will kill 

you.” Several respondents think along similar lines, suggesting reduced hunting opportunities 

to permit other recreation: “Maybe hunting could be limited to a few weekends per season,” 

writes one, while another suggests a couple days of hunting per week. Another respondent 

suggests things would be better “if you had one or two hunting days where experienced 

hunters signed up to do a ‘cull’ if you could actually get them to kill sick, old and slow 

individuals instead of the healthiest, biggest and most impressive animals—and those days be 

highly publicized so innocent people wouldn't be hurt.” 

Some respondents suggest that the only safe course of action is to close the Refuge to other 

uses during hunting season. 

To alleviate these concerns, some respondents argue that hunting should only be done by 

professionals paid by the refuge for wildlife management: “If the refuge needs to use deadly 

force to carry out the mission, have that applied by trained professionals and not by anyone 

with ten bucks and a shotgun.” 

Several respondents mention the need to educate both hunters and area residents on the 

schedule and placement of legal hunting. Several respondents talk about the need to increase 

law enforcement to deal with increased hunting, and some assert that the Refuge’s record of 

successful interdiction of motorized trespass and vandalism indicates a current inability to 

enforce laws, and little confidence that hunting can be safely policed. 

Dogs and Public Safety 

A number of respondents offer intensely felt comments advocating continued use of dogs on 

the refuge as a matter of personal safety. These respondents, all women, state that prohibiting 

dogs effectively prohibits their use of the refuge, e.g., “I am a woman and very aware that 

when I am in the woods—I am an easy prey object for defective human types. I would never 

walk alone in the woods without my dog—a 120 pound dog at my side is a huge deterrent to 



even trying something. I have been approached in the past by questionable behavior and my 

dog at that time did place himself between me and the man creeping up behind me. The man 

turned and left. By banning dogs on-leashes at Great Meadows you effectively ban all 

women.” 

Fishing 

With the exception of the occasional “let us fish anywhere we want,” most fishing comments 

are restricted to Puffer Pond on the Assabet River. There is considerable support for fishing 

on Puffer Pond, and for the proposal to do so, and some respondents argue that anglers 

infrequently transport invasives. 

There are also a number of respondents who request that fishing be prohibited on Puffer 

Pond. Respondents argue that anglers will disturb nesting birds, erode the shore, trample 

vegetation, bring in invasives, and drag boats through the refuge. As one respondent writes, 

“Little consideration has been given to the effect [fishing] would have upon Puffer Pond's 

habitat. The shoreline risking areas would gradually be expanded by use, destroying 

additional shoreline habitat and pond plants. Trash that is left behind such as beverage 

containers, fishing gear wrappers, tangled fish line in trees, on the ground and in the water, 

are a danger to birds, waterfowl, and other wildlife. How a shoreline fishing area would be 

made handicapped accessible is not discussed. Catch and release is an ideal fishing concept. 

However, it can prove to be fatal to many fish due to hook swallowing and extraction. 

Enforcement of catch and release will be difficult. Due to the small size of the pond, the 

popularity of fishing, and the high density of the area, the pond would soon be in danger of 

being greatly depleted. This rapid removal of fish would affect other wildlife populations that 

depend upon the pond for food. These would include the colony of great blue herons 

currently residing in the refuge near the pond, raccoon, and other water and fish dependent 

animals.” 

Respondents concerned about impacts to Puffer Pond, but not categorically opposed to 

fishing, suggest very limited shoreline access to the Pond, to reduce impacts, and in one case 

a prohibition on the use of treble hooks. One respondent offers extensive recommendations 

for minimizing the threat of invasives. 

Several respondents ask how the agency intends to adequately enforce restrictions and 

monitor impacts at Puffer Pond. 

Environmental Education 

A large majority of respondents who chose to address this section of the CCP support the 

environmental efforts and facilities proposed in Alternative B, advocating more 

environmental education for people of all ages. Several respondents encourage completion of 

the proposed Sudbury River interpretive canoe trail. Several respondents encourage the FWS 

to think bigger, and develop its educational plan in concert with other regional entities and 

efforts, such as a Sudbury-Concord River valley regional conservation study and education 

effort. One respondent urges that “a full-scale information/education center is included as 

part of the future considerations for the Oxbow. . . . The Oxbow is also significant because it 



offers the additional opportunity for linkages with other state, private and town owned lands. 

And it is also situated in the center of the proposed Freedom's Way National Heritage Area.” 

One respondent urges the FWS to use the refuge principally for biological studies. 

With regard to facilities, one respondent is “very interested in the potential development of a 

visitor center in the area of Great Meadows NWR. We would like to explore any 

opportunities to increase the public understanding of the Sudbury, Assabet River and 

Concord Wild and Scenic Rivers within the educational materials and displays presented at 

the visitor center.” One respondent urges the FWS to continue historical tours: “These have 

been very popular and have provided a way by which some of Maynard's older residents can 

view the refuge. Several such tours a year would provide access to history and wildlife 

through use of a motorized van or bus.” 

One organization requests clarification on facilities development “The proposed management 

of public outreach is unclear. The only designated public outreach position is slotted for 

Great Meadows. Does this position support all three refuges, or Great Meadows, or the 

complex as a whole? Does this individual coordinate volunteer efforts and recruit volunteers 

for all three refuges, or Great Meadows, or the complex as a whole?” 

Some respondents complain that recreational restrictions undermine opportunities for 

education at the refuge, and urge that leashed dogs and off-trail nature study and photography 

be permitted. Several respondents urge the FWS to close some areas to hunting to permit 

educational tours in spring and fall. 



Recreation 

Due to the refuge’s proximity to heavily populated areas, and an already existing recreational 

trail system, accessing the refuge for recreation is a major concern of many respondents. 

Some respondents even see the refuge as a sort of town park. Many local residents that 

responded did not expect restrictions on recreation when they supported FWS’s offer to buy 

the property. Others support the concept that wildlife sanctuary should be the priority, and 

use limitations should be imposed. 

Some respondents see access for recreation at the refuge as a means to an end: “Through 

controlled access to refuges you can create and sustain a community of citizens who will not 

only care for the refuges but also support the Fish and Wildlife Service in its struggle to 

maintain them.” 

Some respondents want the refuge to be used for quiet sports only, and ask that motors be 

prohibited to reduce noise, air and water pollution, erosion of soil, and to increase safety. As 

one respondent states, “I urge you to support making the refuge into a place where passive 

recreation can take place. By that I mean prohibiting motorized vehicles and hunting. The 

land is a treasure for hikers, bikers, runners, birdwatchers, nature lovers and, as such, should 

be preserved for this and future generations.” 

Snowmobiling 

Snowmobilers describe themselves as law-abiding recreationists that are respectful of others 

and wildlife. One local snowmobile club would like to establish a trail through the refuge, 

maintained by the club, for the club’s enjoyment. This club goes on to point out that 

snowmobiling will not harm the terrain or wildlife because snowmobiling usually occurs 

from the beginning of January to the beginning of April (at the latest) and only when there is 

a minimum of four inches of snow. Further, snowmobiling is already governed by 

Massachusetts laws requiring, among other things, that snowmobiles stay on the trail. 

Snowmobiling, the club concludes, is a traditional use in the area and ask the FWS to let 

snowmobilers use traditional trails. 

Jogging 

Joggers view the refuge as a safe, peaceful place to pursue their activity, and are confused as 

to why jogging would be banned. One respondent states that the refuge “. . . is a beautiful 

place to jog, particularly because it is one of the few off-road places with no early morning 

traffic. It would be shame if joggers were not allowed to use the paths of the Wildlife 

refuge.” Another respondent asserts that, “The joggers I’ve seen are respectful of walkers, 

seems inconsistent when hiking, snowshoeing, and cross-country skiing are allowed.” 

Another respondent writes: “If anyone ever asks, I guess I’ll just tell folks, ‘Oh no, I’m not 

running, I’m just hiking real fast.’” 



Picnicking 

Picnicking is viewed by many respondents as a harmless past time that allows people to 

enjoy the refuge’s beauty. As one respondent puts it, “Is this really such a huge problem? On 

my daily walks I never see any trash along the trails. . . . What is so bad about taking a 

family, a lunch basket, and enjoying a couple of hours surrounded by nature?” These 

respondents ask the FWS to allow picnicking within the refuge. 

Bicycling 

Similar to jogging, many respondents assert that the refuge offers a safe, traffic-free 

environment for bicycling. These respondents also point out that bicycling is already an 

important component of the surrounding towns, and that many local residents have moved 

into the area because of its extensive town trail system. By not allowing bicycling in the 

refuge, FWS will be creating a gap in the local trail systems. For example, the nearby areas 

of the Stow Town Forest, the Sudbury State Forest, the Memorial Forest Reservation, and 

Desert Natural Area allow bicyclists on the trails. The addition of the refuge to this 

significant resource would yield excellent opportunities for exercise and enjoyment of the 

natural setting, by allowing cyclists to connect with other available areas. Therefore, 

respondents ask that the refuge acknowledge the local trail systems’ benefits by allowing 

responsible cyclists to use the refuge’s roads. Some cyclists are willing to be flexible as to 

when and where they can pursue their sport. One respondent suggests FWS provide signage 

to indicate allowed routes and speed limits to help restrict bicycling that may conflict with 

wildlife activities. Another proposes that the FWS set aside periods during the day when 

bicycling would be permitted. Others suggest allowing cycling on paved roads only. 

Other respondents aren’t as sympathetic to cyclists, and would like to see bicycles kept off 

the refuge. One respondent asserts that riding a bike is a poor way to observe wildlife, and 

that if the refuge allows cycling, many cyclists would speed through or venture off 

designated paths. 

Horseback Riding 

As with the cyclists, equestrians are concerned that not allowing horseback riding in the 

refuge will compromise access to other conservation/state/local forest trails immediately 

surrounding the refuge, such as the Stow Town Forest, Sudbury State Forest, Marlboro State 

Forest, Sudbury Conservation Land, and the Desert Memorial Forest. The refuge is located 

directly in the middle these properties, and presently corridors allow horseback riders to 

travel from one conservation land to another. Further, this group asserts that horseback riding 

has not impacted other uses in the aforementioned areas. These trail riders ask that the refuge 

be open to horseback riding, and that consideration be given to an access trail so riders may 

traverse the refuge to access other conservation areas. Another respondent asks FWS to work 

with various trail riding and breed organizations in Massachusetts, to establish a horseback 

riding plan that serves the needs of wildlife and those who enjoy nature from horseback. 

Further, the Bay State Trail Riders offer to help with the maintenance of any connector trails 

with volunteer work days and funds if necessary. 



Some respondents point out the economic benefits of horseback riding, stating that equine 

activities are engaged in by a large number of Massachusetts citizens and also make a 

significant contribution to the Massachusetts economy. For example, they assert that equine 

agriculture provides over $200 million per year in direct spending into the Massachusetts 

economy, over 5,000 jobs and more than $13.2 million in state and local tax revenues. 

Limiting horseback riding would harm the economy. 

Equestrians state that they oppose expansion of the refuge’s boundaries as long as it limits 

horseback riding. 

Dog-Walking 

Many respondents assert that given the popularity and demand for areas to walk dogs, and 

the fact that parts of the refuge have been used responsibly for decades by dog-walkers; FWS 

should make part of the refuge available for this pastime. These dog walking enthusiasts 

request that leashed dog-walking be allowed on refuge trails in appropriate areas, and that 

strict fines are in place for anyone releasing a dog or failing to pick up after their animal. 

Others are willing to allow an exclusion of dogs during the most sensitive times, when 

wildlife surveys identify an impact on nesting birds or other animal life. Many of these 

respondents view dog-walking as meditative and a way of connecting to the natural beauty of 

the earth, something that is consistent with refuge goals. These respondents assert that 

without substantial evidence that dog-walkers are threatening the integrity of the refuge it is 

unjust and an act of discrimination to prohibit dog-walking. On the other hand, one 

respondent would like to see dogs banned from the refuge, stating that many dog owners 

don’t obey leash rules to the detriment of wildlife, and further, even on a leash dogs frighten 

animals. 

Birdwatching 

Birdwatchers and nature photographers are concerned that they will be confined strictly to 

trails when observing wildlife, while hunters would not. If hunters are allowed off trail, they 

assert, birders should be allowed off trail as well. 

Trapping 

Some respondents ask that the Refuge be open to beaver and muskrat trapping, asserting that 

modern traps are instant and humane, and arguing that small game threatens children, pets, 

and livestock, and that beavers “cause extensive property damage.” 

Some respondents ask whether and under what circumstances which furbearers could be 

trapped, and what constitutes an invasive species and appropriate control methods. 

Some respondents oppose trapping on the grounds that it is inhumane; other respondents 

perceive trapping as ham-fisted interference in natural systems that function best on their 

own. 



Socioeconomic Concerns 

Several respondents applaud Alternative B for helping to make Maynard a “destination.” One 

respondent requests permission to graze in the Oxbow unit, and one requests continued 

cooperative farming. 

Several area residents request development of an “abutter policy,” without clearly 

articulating what the components of such a policy would be. 

Several respondents urge consideration of impacts to area parking, specifically at Monsen 

Road at Great Meadows, and at the east gate of Assabet River off Old Marlborough Road. 

Some respondents are concerned about refuse at entry points. 



Appendix A 

Coding Structure and Demographic Codes 


Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA 

Header Information 

Coders will identify organization type, number of signatures, response type and delivery type 

on all letters by filling in the proper box. Use CIC (Common Interest Class) field only if this 

information is requested by the Administration. Fill in additional fields when necessary. 

Header Order: MID, OT, S, and RT, and DT fields are required. IA, UT, LG, F, CIC, RI, 

and CE fields are optional fields and used only where necessary. The TS (Total Signatures) 

field will tally automatically in Oracle. A stamp containing these fields will be placed on the 

working copy. 

MID OT S RT DT IA UT LG F CIC RI CE TS 

Mail Identification (MID) 

The Mail Identification number is a unique respondent number assigned in the CAET Oracle 

Program. The Oracle form contains mailing information needed to create mailing labels and 

obtain project specific demographic information about a respondent. 

Organization Types (OT) 

The Organization Type code identifies a specific type of organization, association, 

government agency, elected official, or individual. 

Government Agencies and Elected Officials 

F Federal Agency 

N International Government/International Government Association 

S State Government Agency/Elected Official/Association 

C County Government Agency/Elected Official /Association 

T Town/City Government Agency/Elected Official/Association 

Q Tribal Government/Elected Official/Tribal Member/Association 

E Government Employees Organizations/Unions 

Appendix B: Coding Structure and Demographic Codes A-1


FW Fish Wildlife Service Employee 

XX Regional/other governmental agency (multi-jurisdictional) 

Business and Industry 

A Agriculture Industry or Associations (Farm Bureaus, Animal Feeding) 

B Business (my/our, Chamber of Commerce) 

G Range/Grazing Orgs and Permittees 

HT Hunting/trapping Industry or Org 

M Mining Industry/Assn (locatable) 

O Energy Industry (Oil, Gas, Coal, Pipeline) 

U Utility Group or Org (water, electrical, gas) 

L Timber or Wood Products Industry/Assn 

Other Organizations 

AD Academic 

AR Animal Rights 

CH Church/Religious Groups 

D Placed Based Groups (Multi-issue, focused on a specific region—i.e., QLG) 

H Consultants/legal representatives 

J Civic Organizations (Kiwanis, Elks, Community Councils) 

K Special Use Permittees (Outfitters, Concessions, Ski Areas) 

P Preservation/Conservation Organization 

PA Professional Association/Society 

QQ Tribal Non-Governmental Organization/Member 

RB Mechanized Recreation (bicycling) 

RC Recreational/Conservation (Trout Unlimited, Elk Foundation, Ducks Unlimited) 

RM Recreational - Motorized 

RN Recreational - Non-Motorized (hiking, biking, horseback riding) 

SC All Schools 

X Conservation Districts 

Y Other (Organization with an indecipherable focus—i.e., Ice Cream Socialist Party) 

Z Multiple Use/Wise Use 

Unaffiliated 

I Unaffiliated Individual or Unidentifiable Respondent 

Number of Signatures (S) 

The number of signatures is the total count of names associated with a mail identification 

(Mail ID) number. The procedure for determining the number of signatures for a Mail ID 

number is consistent across all response types. In other words, letters, forms, and other types 

will be treated the same for determining the number of signatures. Each individual name 

associated with one Mail ID is counted as one signature. When a Mail ID has an incomplete 

name associated with it, such as an anonymous letter or an email address, it is counted as one 

signature. Mr. and Mrs. X are counted as two signatures. 



Response Type (RT) 

The Response Type identifies the specific format of correspondence. 

1 Letter 

2 Form or Letter Generator 

3 Resolution 

4 Action Alert 

5 Transcript (dictated Audio, Video, Telephone response) 

Delivery Types and Descriptions (DT) 

The Delivery Type identifies the method of delivery for the correspondence. 

E Email 

F Fax 

H Hand-delivered/oral testimony (personally delivered) 

M Mail or commercial carrier (includes video, audio, letter format) 

T Telephone 

U Unknown 

User Type (UT) 

The User Type identifies the purpose for which an individual, organization, or agency uses 

public lands/refuge. 

A Area Residents 

B Businesses and Services 

D Dog Walkers 

E Environmental Educational 

K Bikers 

F Anglers 

H Hikers 

P Photographers 

W Non-motorized Recreation 

M Motorized Recreation 

S Horseback Riding 

T Hunters 

X Non-identifiable 

Early Attention (IA) 

Early Attention codes are applied only to those documents requiring an early response from 

the ID team. The Early Attention codes are listed in order of priority. If more than one code 

applies to a single document, the code with the highest priority is attached. 

1 Threat of harm – Any response that threatens physical harm to administration, 

agency, or project personnel. 

2 Notice of appeal or litigation – Any response that describes the respondents' intent 

to appeal an action or bring legal suit against the agency. 



3 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests – Any response that officially 

requests information and documentation under the FOIA. 

4 Provides proposals for new alternatives – Any response that suggests a new 

alternative to the proposed action. These do not include critiques of alternatives or 

partial changes of existing alternatives. 

5 Requires detailed review – Any response that requires detailed review. These 

responses may include detailed scientific or technical analysis, or significant 

enclosures. 

5A Provides extensive technical edits – includes extensive use of lined out text, 

suggestions to delete text, and/or replace text. 

5M Provides maps – Any response that includes map enclosures. 

6 Government entities – Any response from an elected official, writing in his/her 

official capacity, representing a Federal, State, county, or municipal government. 

Also includes official correspondence from any government agency. 

6A Requests for cooperating agency status from a government entity. 

7 Public hearing – Any response that requests a public hearing. 

Information Request (RI) 

Information Request codes are applied only to those documents with specific requests for 

information pertaining to the proposal. 

A Mailing List Only/Nothing to Code 

B Request to be Removed from the Mailing List 

C Request for Copy of Federal Register Notice 

D General Request for Other Information 

E Request for Confirmation of Receipt of Letter 

Comment Extension Request (CE) 

Comment Extension codes are used when a respondent has a specific request for extending 

the comment period. 

0 Request to Extend the Comment Period 


Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November, 2003 


Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA 

The coding structure is a topical outline with alpha and numeric codes attached. It is a tool to 

identify public comments and sort them into recognizable topic categories. Once comments 

are assigned codes, they are then entered into a database from which they can be reported and 

sorted in any combination needed for analysis. 

The coding structure is organized into required fields called subject and category codes. 

Subject codes are five-character alpha codes that represent broad themes associated with a 

project. Category codes are five-digit numeric codes that define specific subtopics within 

each subject code, and they are generally arranged from the general to specific with 

subcategories nested within categories. 

PLANN (Subject Code) - Introduction - Chapter 1 and 

Coordination with Others - Chapter 5 

10000 (Category Code) Planning Process and Policy 

10100 Timeframes for planning/Length of comment period (adequacy of, timing) 

10200 Public Involvement (General strategies, methods & techniques, collaborative 

efforts, pre-EIS/CCP consultation) 

10300 Scoping (General comments, planning before the EIS) 

10400 Relationship to other planning processes (Conflicts with other area projects, 

general planning) 

10500 Statutory Authority (Compliance with laws and regulations; general references to/ 

violations of NEPA, APA, NFMA, Planning Regs. For resource-specific regulations, 

code to resource) 

10600 Science/Resource-Based Decision-Making (Use of science in Decisionmaking; 

general references to use of science and scientific documents) 

10700 Budgetary Ramifications (References to the cost of implementing the proposed 

rule, project funding) 

10800 Agency Organization, Structure and Staffing (General comments not specific 

to project, includes trust and integrity issues) 

10810 Trust and Integrity 

10900 Coordination & Consultation (Interagency, State, Private, Tribal) 

11100 Clarity/organization of planning documents 

11200 Technical and Editorial Comments 

12000 Purpose and Need (General references to the purpose and need of the CCP/EA and needs for 

further analysis; if specific, code to the resource). 

12100 Project Area (Scope of project) 

12200 Proposed Action/ Decision to be Made (What it should/should not include) 

Appendix C: Demographics A-1


12300 Range of Issues Identified through Public Scoping (General; Comments 

specific to resource areas go to AFFEC) 

12400 Issues and Concerns Considered Outside the Scope of This Analysis 

12500 Permits and Agency Approvals Required 

12600 Guiding Policy for Public Lands (General land management philosophies) 

ALTER - Alternatives - Chapter 2 

13000 Alternatives (Comments that simply vote, without rationale) 

13100 Alternative A: Current Management (General comments not specific to a 

resource; Assumptions made in the analysis) 

13200 Alternative B: Proposed Action 

13300 Alternative C 

13400 Formulating Alternatives (Issues used, Design criteria, Development, etc.) 

13500 Features common to all Alternatives 

13600 Features common to Action Alternatives only (B & C) 

13700 Alternatives Considered But Not Given Detailed Study (Same as eliminated 

alternatives) 

13800 Range/Comparison of Alternatives (General comments, adequacy of range; I 

like A &C better than B) 

13900 New Alternatives (Support for or recommendation for a new one) 

13910 Alternative Matrices (Including Map comments and references) 

AFFEC - Affected Environment - Chapter 3, and 

Environmental Consequences - Chapter 4 

14000 Physical, Biological, and Socio-Economic Resources (general 

Climate comments, extensive lists) 

15000 Geology/Topography 

16000 Soils 

15100 Analysis of Existing Conditions and Need for Further Analysis 

15200 General Management Direction (including other Management Impacts on this 

Resource) 

15300 Cumulative Impacts 

15400 Mitigation and Monitoring 



Resource) 





17000 Hydrology 

18000 Air Quality 

19000 Water Quality 



Resource) 





Resource) 





Resource) 



20000 Vegetation and Habitat Types 



Resource) 

20300 Forested and Shrub Dominated Wetlands 

20400 Vernal Pools and Ponds 

20500 Bordering Communities (Uplands, Marshes, Swamps) 

20600 Invasive or Overabundant Species 



21000 Wildlife and Fisheries 


(Fencing) 


Resource; general habitat comments. 

21300 Migratory Birds 

21400 Mammals 

21500 Reptiles and Amphibians 

21600 Fisheries 

21700 Invertebrates 





22000 Cultural Resources and Special Designations (focus areas) 



Resource) 

22210 Land Acquisitions 

22300 Refuge Buildings and Facilities 

22400 Refuge Administration and Staffing 

22410 Volunteers 

22420 Enforcement 

22500 Wild & Scenic River Plan / Designation 



23000 Priority Public Uses 



Resource) 

23210 Access 

23220 Fees 

23230 Passes and Permits 

23240 Visitor Safety 

23241 Hunting 

23242 Dog Walking 

23300 Hunting (If safety concern, code to 23241) 

23310 Big and Upland Game Hunting 

23320 Migratory Bird Hunting 

23400 Fishing 

23500 Wildlife Observation and Photography 

23600 Environmental Education and Interpretation 

23610 Natural and Cultural History Tours 

23620 Outreach for Public Awareness 



24000 Recreation and Other Opportunities 



Resource) 



24300 Motorized Recreation 

24310 Snowmobiling 

24400 Non-Motorized Recreation 

24410 Snowshoeing / X-Country Skiing 

24420 Walking/Jogging 

24430 Picnicking 

24440 Biking 

24450 Horseback Riding 

24460 Dog-Walking, general (if safety concern, code to 23242) 

24470 Bird Watching 



25000 Socio-Economic Resources 



Resource) 

25300 Population and Demographic Conditions 

25400 Schools 

25500 Neighboring Communities 

25510 Infrastructure (Roads, Plazas, Utility Corridors, etc.) 

25520 Revenue Sharing 



26000 Appendices (General Comments and Technical/Editorial) 

ATTMT – Attachments 

27000 [Attachment No., Title, Author’s name] 

Site Specific 1 

The Site Specific 1 code is an up to four digit alpha/numeric comment specific code. For this 

project, the alpha-code is used to indicate which refuge the comment addresses. 

A Assabet River NWR 

G Great Meadows NWR 

O Oxbow NWR 

X Multiple NWRs/Null 



Appendix B 

Demographics 

Demographic coding allows managers to form an overall picture of who is submitting 

comments, where they live, their general affiliation with various organizations or government 

agencies, and the manner in which they respond. The database can be used to isolate specific 

combinations of information about public comment. For example, a report can include public 

comment only from people in Massachusetts or a report can identify specific types of land 

users such as recreational groups, agricultural organizations, or businesses. Demographic 

coding allows managers to focus on specific areas of concern linked to respondent categories, 

geographic areas, and response types. 

Although demographic information is captured and tracked, it is important to note that the 

consideration of public comment is not a vote-counting process. Every comment and 

suggestion has value, whether expressed by one or a thousand respondents. All input is 

considered, and the analysis team attempts to capture all relevant public concerns in the 

analysis process. The Content Analysis Team processed 1,907 responses. Because 28 

responses are duplicates, the team entered 1,882 responses into the database representing 

1,959 signatures, for the Draft CCP/EA. 

In the tables displayed below, please note that demographic figures are given for number of 

responses, respondents, and signatures. For the purposes of this analysis, the following 

definitions apply: “response” refers to a discrete piece of correspondence; “respondent” 

refers to each individual or organization to whom a mail identification number is assigned 

(e.g., a single response may represent several organizations without one primary author); and 

“signature” simply refers to each individual who adds his or her name to a response, 

endorsing the view of the primary respondent(s). 

Geographic Representation 

Geographic representation is tracked for each response during the course of content analysis. 

Letters and emails were received from 49 of the United States, the District of Columbia, and 

one foreign country. The response format did not reveal geographic origin for 102 

respondents. 

Table C1 - Geographic Representation of Respondents by Country and State 

Country State Number of 

Respondents 

Number of 

Signatures 

Costa Rica 1 1 

United States Alabama 9 9 

Alaska 2 2 

Arizona 22 22 

Arkansas 6 6 

Appendix C: Demographics B-6



Respondents 

Number of 

Signatures 

California 201 208 

Colorado 16 16 

Connecticut 19 19 

Delaware 1 1 

District of Columbia 4 6 

Florida 63 65 

Georgia 16 16 

Hawaii 4 4 

Idaho 2 2 

Illinois 45 45 

Indiana 16 16 

Iowa 3 3 

Kansas 10 10 

Kentucky 4 4 

Lousiana 7 7 

Maine 8 9 

Maryland 36 39 

Massachusetts 710 752 

Michigan 30 32 

Minnesota 21 21 

Mississippi 2 2 

Missouri 17 17 

Montana 2 2 

Nebraska 2 3 

Nevada 12 12 

New Hampshire 16 16 

New Jersey 35 38 

New Mexico 6 6 

New York 110 111 

North Carolina 28 29 

Ohio 30 31 

Oklahoma 6 6 

Oregon 14 14 

Pennsylvania 58 60 

Rhode Island 10 10 

South Carolina 13 14 




Respondents 

Organizational Affiliation 

Number of 

Signatures 

South Dakota 1 1 

Tennessee 8 8 

Texas 68 69 

Utah 6 6 

Vermont 6 6 

Virginia 19 20 

Washington 29 29 

West Virginia 5 5 

Wisconsin 21 21 

Wyoming 2 2 

Unidentified 102 106 

Total 1,884 1,959 

Responses were received from various organizations and unaffiliated individuals. 

Respondents include conservation organizations, wood products associations, as well as 

unaffiliated individuals and others. Organization types were tracked for each response. 

Organization 

Field 

Table C2 - Number of Respondents/Signatures by Organizational Affiliation 

Organization Type Number of 

Respondents 

Number of 

Signatures 

AR Animal Rights 5 7 

B Business 1 1 

D Place-Based Group 6 6 

F Federal Agency/Elected Official 2 2 

HT Hunting/Trapping Organization 8 8 

I Unaffiliated Individual or Unidentifiable Respondent 1,820 1,885 

J Civic Organization 2 2 

P Preservation/Conservation Organization 14 14 

RB Recreational – Mechanized 1 1 

RC Recreational – Conservation Organization 2 2 

RM Recreational - Motorized 2 2 

RN Recreational – Non-motorized/Non-mechanized 2 2 



Organization 

Field 

Organization Type Number of 

Respondents 

Number of 

Signatures 

S State Government Agency 6 6 

SC Schools 1 1 

T Town/City Government Agency/Elected Official 12 20 

Total 1,884 1,959 

Response Type 

Response types were tracked for each response received on the project. Responses were 

received as letters and public meeting transcripts. 

Table C3 - Number of Responses/Signatures by Response Type 

Response Type # Response Type Number of 

Responses 

Number of Signatures 

1 Letter 497 543 

2 Form 1,334 1,365 

5 Transcript 51 51 

Total 1,882 1,959 

Delivery Type 

Delivery types were tracked for each response received on the project. Responses were 

received as email, fax, hand-delivered, standard mail, and one telephone call. Delivery type 

was not revealed for 11 responses. 

Table C4 - Number of Responses/Signatures by Delivery Type 

Delivery Type Code Delivery Type Number of 

Responses 


E Email 1,630 1,677 

F Fax 1 1 

H Hand-delivered 67 67 

M Mail or commercial carrier 172 202 

T Telephone 1 1 

U Unknown 11 11 

Total 1,882 1,959 



User Type 

User type was tracked for each response received on the project. User types include anglers, 

bikers, area residents, dog walkers, photographers and others. 

Table C5 - Number of Responses/Signatures by User Type 

User Type Code User Type Number of 

Responses 


A Area Residents 202 220 

B Businesses and Services 1 2 

D Dog Walkers 14 15 

E Environmental Education 2 2 

F Anglers 2 2 

H Hikers 19 23 

K Bikers 7 7 

M Motorized Recreation 3 3 

P Photographers 2 2 

S Horseback Riding 25 26 

T Hunters 39 39 

W Non-motorized Recreation 8 8 

X No Identifiable Type 1,558 1,610 

Total 1,882 1,959 



Appendix C 

Early Attention Letters 

The early attention designation is attached to public responses in the content analysis 

database for a variety of reasons. Our intent is to identify responses that fall into certain key 

categories, such as threats of litigation or comments from government officials, etc. These 

designations alert the project team members to public concerns or inquiries that may require 

an agency response or may necessitate detailed project team review for policy, political, or 

legal reasons. 

The early attention designated responses are primarily intended for an internal audience. The 

categories of responses selected are designed to meet project team needs. This report is not 

intended to, nor should it be construed to, obviate the need to review all responses. 

CAT identified seven early attention categories. The relevant designations are outlined below 

and followed by report tables. 

1 Threat of harm – Any response that threatens physical harm to administration, 

agency, or project personnel. 

2 Notice of appeal or litigation – Any response that describes the respondents' intent 

to appeal an action or bring legal suit against the agency. 

3 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests – Any response that officially 

requests information and documentation under the FOIA. 

4 Provides proposals for new alternatives – Any response that suggests a new 

alternative to the proposed action. These do not include critiques of alternatives or 

partial changes of existing alternatives. 

5 Requires detailed review – Any response that requires detailed review. These 

responses may include detailed scientific or technical analysis, or significant 

enclosures. 

5A Provides extensive technical edits – includes extensive use of lined out text, 

suggestions to delete text, and/or replace text. 

5M Provides maps – Any response that includes map enclosures. 

6 Government entities – Any response from an elected official, writing in his/her 

official capacity, representing a Federal, State, county, or municipal government. 

Also includes official correspondence from any government agency. 

6A Request for cooperating agency status from a government entity. 

7 Public hearing – Any response that requests a public hearing. 

Appendix D: Early Attention Letters C-1


Letter 

Number 

Name and 

Address 

41 Bette Stallman, Wildlife Scientist 

Linda Huebner, Program Coordinator 

Humane Society of the United States 

New England Regional Office 

2100 L St. NW 

Washington, DC 20037 

Letter 

Number 


Address 

97 Brenda Kelly 

Conservation Commission 

Chair 

10 Mudge Way 

Bedford, MA 01730-2144 

98 Tricia Smith 

Carlisle Conservation Commission 

Chair 

P.O. Box 827 

66 Westford Street 

Carlisle, MA 01741 

99 Ann Thompson 

Maynard Board of Selectmen 

Chair 

Municipal Building 

195 Main Street 

Maynard, MA 01754 

100 Maureen Valente 

Town Manager 

288 Old Sudbury Road 

Sudbury, MA 10776-1843 

101 Brian Monahan 

Wayland Conservation Commission 

Conservation Administrator 

Town Building 

41 Cochituate Road 

Wayland MA 01778 

Table D1 – (4) Proposes a New Alternative 

Remarks 

Respondent requests that the USFWS prohibit hunting 

and trapping in wildlife refuges. Respondent requests 

the inclusion of an alternative that emphasizes nonconsumptive 

land uses. 

Table D2 – (6) Government Entities 

Remarks 

Respondent expresses concern for resident safety with 

regard to nearby hunting and asks the USFWS to 

address this issue. 

Respondent expresses concern for public safety from 

proposed hunting on USFWS land. Also, respondent 

expresses concern regarding access for hunters across 

private land. 

Respondent requests additional allowed uses of the 

refuge and encourages consistency with local planning 

processes. 

Respondent encourages increased refuge use for passive 

recreation activities; no hunting with firearms; and 

additional law enforcement. 

Respondent requests no, or strictly regulated hunting in 

the refuge. Respondent also encourages the USFWS to 

increase its number of staff. 



Letter 

Number 


Address 

102 John Dwyer 

Maynard Conservation Commission 

4 Durant Ave 


103 Pamela Resor 

Massachusetts Senate 

State Senator 

District Office 

P.O. Box 1110 

Marlborough, MA 01752 

104 Susan Pope 

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

House of Representatives 

State Representative 

State House, Boston 02133-1020 

106 Kathleen Farrell 

Board of Selectmen 

Chair 

380 Great Road 

Stow, MA 01775 

108 Priscilla Ryder 


Conservation Officer 

140 Main Street 

Marlborough, MA 01752 

109 William Galvin 

Massachusetts Historical Commission 

Secretary of the Commonwealth 

Massachusetts Archives Building 

220 Morrissey Boulevard 

Boston, MA 02125 

110 Wayne MacCallum 

Division of Fisheries and Wildlife 

Director 

111 Anne Gagnon 


Conservation Administrator 

105 Charlie Gorss 


Chair 

Remarks 

Respondent expresses concern regarding hunting 

impacts on public safety, wildlife populations, and other 

recreation activities. 

Respondent discourages hunting and trapping in the 

refuge. 

Respondent requests that hunting not be allowed in the 

refuge for safety and environmental reasons. Also, 

respondent discourages the USFWS from charging user 

fees. 

Respondent requests expansion of the proposed refuge 

acquisition boundary. Respondent also requests 

limitations on hunting as well as increased law 

enforcement for hunting activities. 

Respondent encourages expansion of the proposed 

refuge acquisition boundary, increased law enforcement 

for unauthorized land use, and public education 

regarding the proposed introduction of hunting to the 

refuge. 

Respondent commends the proposed Draft CCP’s 

compliance with Section 6 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966. 

Respondent expresses concern for rare, threatened, and 

endangered species in the refuge, and encourages the 

USFWS to update species information. 


refuge acquisition boundary, and increased staffing to 

decrease user conflicts. 

Respondent supports proposed Alternative B. 



Letter 

Number 


Address 

407 Patricia Perry 


Administrative Assistant 

380 Great Road 


Remarks 


refuge acquisition boundary, discourages hunting within 

the refuge, and encourages coordination of refuge 

management with local communities. 



Appendix D 

Information Requests 

Requests for additional information, excluding Freedom of Information Act requests, are 

presented in this appendix. CAT identified five information request categories. The relevant 

designations are outlined below and followed by report tables. In addition, requests for 

extension of the comment period are displayed below. 

A Mailing List Only/Nothing to Code 

B Request to be Removed from the Mailing List 

C Request for Copy of Federal Register Notice 

D General Request for Other Information 

E Request for Confirmation of Receipt of Letter 

Letter 

Number 


Address 

4 Kate Wheeler 

Maynard Open Space Planning Committee 

Chair 

31 Harrison St 


18 Bonnie and John Chandler 

183 Prospect Hill Road 

Harvard, MA 01451 

117 Daniel Cassidy 

danc@arguscl.com 

132 Edmund Schofield 

P.O. Box 598 

Boylston, MA 01505-0598 

200 John Dwyer 

mjohn.dwyer@verizon.net 

307 Jason Hetherington 

hetherjw@yahoo.com 

342 David Stepp 

69 Peabody Dr. 


353 Sally Hewitt 

Sarah.Hewitt@Simonandschuster.com 

Table E1 – (D) General Requests for Information 

Remarks 

Respondent requests specific agency response to the 

Committee’s concerns and notification of the final 

documents release. 

Respondents request information on leasing part of the 

cow field across from their house for sheep and goat 

grazing. 

Respondent requests a copy of the Draft CCP and EA, 

and would like to be notified of any public hearings on 

the subject. 

Respondent requests hard copy of the Draft CCP and 

EA. 

Respondent requests Lindsay Krey’s email address. 

Respondent requests online links to information 

regarding the proposed project. 

Respondent requests information regarding proposed 

types of hunting and seasons for the refuge. 

Respondent requests notification regarding meetings or 

plans about bicycling in the Assabet River NWR. 

Appendix E: Information Requests D-1


Letter 

Number 


Address 

374 Steve Parker 

109 Moore Road 

Sudbury, MA 01776 

Letter 

Number 


Address 

Table E2 – (E) Request for Confirmation of Receipt 

Remarks 

Table E3 – Requests for Comment Period Extension 

13 Michael Ojemann 

Great Meadows Neighborhood Association 

153 Monsen Road 

Concord, MA 01742 

69 Hope Luder 

5 Edgehill Road 

Billercia, MA 01862 

138 Kathleen Farrell 

267 Sudbury Road 


121 Louise Berliner 

Strongwhitepine@aol.com 

232 Rob Aldape 

Joropab1@mac.com 

Respondent requests confirmation of receipt 

of letter. 

Remarks 

Respondent requests extension of comment 

period, no specific length of time specified. 









Appendix E: Information Requests D-2


Appendix E 

Organized Response Report 

Organized response campaigns (forms) represent 70 percent (1,334 of 1,907) of the total 

responses received during the public comment period for the proposal. 

Forms are defined as five or more responses, received separately, but containing nearly 

identical text. Once a form is identified, a “form master” is entered into the database with all 

of the content information. All responses with matching text are then linked to this master 

form within the database with a designated “form number.” If a response does not contain all 

of the text presented in a given form, it is entered as an individual letter. Duplicate responses 

from four or fewer respondents are also entered as individual letters. 

Number of 

Form 

Table F1 – Description and Number of Signatures for Each Form 

Number of 

Signatures 

Description of Form 

1 11 FWS should reconsider the determination that horseback riding is not 

compatible with the purpose of the refuge. Opposes acquisition boundaries 

expansion. 

2 1,104 FWS should not increase hunting/trapping in Oxbow National Wildlife 

Refuge, and prohibit hunting/trapping in the Assabet River and Great 

Meadows National Wildlife Refuges. 

3 250 FWS should not increase hunting/trapping in Oxbow National Wildlife 

Refuge, and prohibit hunting/trapping in the Assabet River and Great 

Meadows National Wildlife Refuges. FWS should focus on habitat 

improvement and non-lethal methods of wildlife management. 

Total: 1,365 

Appendix F: Organized Response Report E-1


Appendix F 


Content Analysis Team 

Project Coordination 

Shari Kappel, Team Leader 

John Adams, Assistant Team Leader 

Program Coordination 

Jody Sutton, Coordinator 

James MacMillen, Contracting 

Content Analysts 

John Adams, Editor/Analyst 

Angela Concepcion, Writer/Analyst 

Theodore Hughes, Writer/Analyst 

Database Administration 

Buell Whitehead, Technical Support 

Information Systems 

Lori Warnell, Project Lead/Response Processing/Data Technician 

Julie Easton, Data Technician 

Kay Flink, Data Technician 

Jon Hardes, Data Technician 

Geraldine Hill, Data Technician 

Linda Kenaston, Data Technician 

Shanna Robison, Data Technician 

Barbie Gibson, CD Production 

Anne Jensen, Writer/Analyst 

Holly Schneider, Writer/Analyst 

Karl Vester, Coder/Analyst 

Appendix G: List of Preparers F-1

- 164 - 

Appendix B: U.S. Forest Service Report 



Appendix C: Responses to Substantive Comments 

Planning Process 

Length of comment period 

Appedix C: Response to comments 

Some commentors were unhappy with the timing and length of the comment period. 

The comment period was 45 days long, which is a standard period for a document such as a 

CCP. Unfortunately, the timing of the draft CCP release came during the summer 

months. We knew that there were many people eagerly anticipating its release and 

focused on releasing the plan to the public as quickly as we could. While, there were 

requests to extend the comment period, they came at the very end of the comment period. 

The notification process to ensure that all individuals and groups were aware of an 

extension could not have been completed before the scheduled end of the comment period. 

Despite the concerns of some commentors, we did receive nearly 2,000 comments and we 

feel confident that we heard from all viewpoints. 

Public Involvement 

Many respondents feel satisfied with the FWS’s level of public involvement and 

education; they praise the agencies past efforts and eagerly anticipate additional 

opportunities for interest groups and communities to stay involved in the refuge’s 

management. Civic and conservation organizations express interest in collaborating 

with the FWS on management issues. 

We look forward to continued involvement and collaboration as we implement the 

provisions of the CCP, continue day-to-day operations, and develop necessary step-down 

plans. 

Planning Vision 

Relationship to Regional Planning Efforts and Legislation 

Some respondents ask for clarification of the CCP’s compatibility with other regional 

management efforts and role in an ecosystem context. 

We realize that we are one of several conservation partners in a regional ecosystem. 

Where appropriate, we have worked with surrounding landowners and communities to 

ensure management that complements adjacent lands. Unfortunately, the missions of 

adjacent landowners do not always match the mission and purposes of the refuge. Because 

of these differences, there will be times when activities that are allowed in one area are 

prohibited in another, or vice versa. 

We look forward to continuing to work with our various conservation partners. Our 

management actions are focused on the NWRs by design. Our jurisdiction and planning 

efforts include only these lands. We will continue to consider the effects our management 


- 161 -

- 162 - 

Appendix C: Response to comments 

actions have on the surrounding landscape. The patchwork of lands that create these 

refuges creates unique challenges and partnerships. The Service mission and refuge 

purposes must be our first priority. We understand that this priority does not always 

mesh with adjacent landowners’ wishes and concerns. We are a part of the larger Refuge 

System and must consider not only our role in the surrounding ecosystem, but our role in 

the Refuge System, as well. 

Priority Public Uses 

Hunting – General 

Hunting was the issue most frequently addressed in comments on the draft CCP. General 

hunting comments include advocates for hunting on public lands and individuals that 

are opposed to hunting in any form. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Refuge Improvement 

Act) lists hunting as one of six priority, wildlife-dependent public uses to receive enhanced 

and preferential consideration in refuge planning and management. In addition to hunting, 

other priority uses include fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental 

education and interpretation. Our mandate is to provide high-quality opportunities for 

these priority uses where they are compatible with respective refuge purposes, goals, and 

other management priorities. 

Regardless of individual opinions about the appropriateness of hunting on the refuges, the 

Refuge Improvement Act requires that we give preferential consideration to the six 

priority, wildlife-dependent uses. We are also concerned about the potential for hunting to 

impact other priority uses. There appears to have been some confusion about where we 

are proposing to allow hunting. We have outlined the areas where hunting is to be allowed 

on the maps that are included as a part of the CCP. 

We have included some of the additional details in regard to hunting in the Final CCPs. In 

order to open the refuges to additional hunting opportunities, Federal regulations will 

need to be changed. There will be an additional public comment period when proposed 

hunting regulations are released in the Federal Register. This will likely occur during the 

winter/spring of 2005. 

Additionally, we will be developing a Hunt Management Plan for each Refuge that will 

outline all of the details for each specific hunting program. 

Each plan will be completed in cooperation with the Massachusetts Department of Fish 

and Game (MA DFG), Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Refuge areas that meet certain 

criteria have been evaluated to determine tracts of land that have the ability to support a 

high quality public hunt. We have determined that certain areas are appropriate for 

certain types of hunting and not others. The criteria used included: 1) an area of sufficient 

size to insure public safety; 2) an area more than 500 feet from occupied dwellings 

(Massachusetts state law); and 3) an area that provides reasonable opportunities for a 

successful hunt. An additional consideration that was considered in some instances is 



whether hunting of an area of the refuge is consistent with or complements other hunted 

areas in surrounding towns. 

Hunting – Safety and Conflicts with Other Users 

There were a large number of individuals that expressed concerns about safety and 

hunting. Some individuals expressed concerns about safety while using the refuge 

during hunting season and the assertion that the non-hunting public will not participate 

in other wildlife dependent activities during the hunting seasons. Other people indicated 

their concerns about the proximity to the refuge boundary of homes, schools, and 

conservation areas. Additionally, individuals raised the possibility of hunters accessing 

non-refuge lands or misguided arrows, shotgun slugs, or pellets injuring someone not on 

the refuge. 

There will be areas on the refuges where no hunting will be allowed. In some cases, these 

are highly used areas, such as the Concord Impoundments at Great Meadows NWR. In 

others, we have restricted hunting because of the mandated safety zones. We realize that 

there may be people that will not visit the refuges during specific seasons. As mentioned 

previously, we have a responsibility to facilitate all forms of wildlife-dependent public use 

on the refuges, when possible, and there may be days when people engaged in hunting will 

have preferential access to parts of the refuges. National policy encourages refuges to 

follow state hunting regulations, but we do have the authority to set our own dates and 

times if needed and we can limit the number of hunting permits issued. We will evaluate 

these options in the development of the Hunt Management Plan for each refuge, but do 

not anticipate a need to include such restrictions at this time. 

We strive to achieve a balance between consumptive and non-consumptive uses on the 

refuges. Because Massachusetts does not allow hunting on Sunday, at a minimum nonhunters 

will be free to enjoy our nature trails with no concern about possible hunting 

conflicts on those days during the hunting seasons. In addition, experience managing 

hunts both at Oxbow Refuge and at other refuges within the system shows that many 

areas can safely support both hunting and non-consumptive uses, such as wildlife 

observation, at the same time. We are confident that we can develop a hunting program 

that will safely provide opportunities for wildlife-dependent public use to a majority of our 

refuge visitors. 

We contacted the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife to obtain hunting 

accident statistics. We considered investigating such statistics in other states, but decided 

that Massachusetts has a higher population density than the majority of other states with 

readily available accident statistics such as Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Texas. 

According to Massachusetts Law, any person involved in a hunting accident or any person 

with knowledge of a hunting accident must file a report with the state or local police, who, 

in turn, must file a report with the Division of Law Enforcement. The Massachusetts 

Environmental Police, Hunter Education Program reports hunting accidents in the 

Hunting Accident Report: 1995 – 2002. During the reporting period, there were 38 

hunting accidents. None of the accidents were fatal and none involved any individuals who 

were not hunting at the time of the accident. According to the 2001 National Survey of 

Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, there were 1.58 million days of 


- 163 -

- 164 - 


hunting that occurred in Massachusetts in 2001. During that year there were 3 hunting 

accidents, the corresponding accident rate is extremely low. 

Specific areas were mentioned by local residents as being of concern. Some commentors 

indicated distances that bullets travel when fired from a rifle (effective range). The areas 

that were mentioned by commentors as being potential safety areas were: 

Great Meadows NWR 

Concord Impoundments 

O’Rourke, Greenough, and Foss Properties in Carlisle 

Dudley Road area in Bedford 

Area along the Concord River in Billerica 

Areas adjacent to Wayland Conservation Property 

Heard Pond 

Assabet River NWR 

Stearns Lane and Hudson Road in Sudbury 

The Maynard School Complex 

Firecut Lane area in Sudbury 

Based upon the concerns expressed in response to the draft, we reviewed the most up-todate 

aerial photographs available. We analyzed the locations of the 500-foot safety zones 

around existing homes to determine whether or not a reasonable hunting area could be 

provided given the constraints associated with the safety zones. In addition to the aerial 

photo analysis, we went to the refuges to determine how visible the homes near the refuge 

are from inside the refuge. We would like to remind individuals that by state regulation 

there is a 500 foot zone around any inhabited structure. Hunting, whether by gun or bow, 

is not allowed in this area unless the hunter received permission from the owner of the 

building. It is the hunter’s responsibility to ensure that he/she is more than 500 feet from 

any such buildings. There are times in which the safety zone extends into the refuge. 

Hunting will not be allowed within these areas. 

However, the Service will assist hunters in delineating any areas where there may be 

confusion as to the actual location of the safety zone. The information that we gathered 

enabled us to make informed decisions about the appropriateness of areas for different 

hunting activities. We will require hunters to obtain an annual hunting permit. We may 

prepare maps showing the hunt areas in detail. Areas with adjacent homes can be 

depicted on the maps as a further guide to inform hunters of safety zones adjacent or 

within the refuge. 

Also, there is some confusion as to whether or not hunting is being proposed in certain 

locations. We would like to clarify our original proposal and highlight the following 

changes: 

o Hunting is not proposed for the Concord Impoundments. 

o The waterfowl hunting area on the Concord River and associated wetlands starts 

at the Route 225 Bridge and extends upstream to the area where refuge ownership 



ends on the west side of the Concord River in the town of Carlisle. This is the area 

at the northern end of the O’Rourke property. The area along the Concord River in 

Billerica has been removed from consideration for waterfowl hunting. The entire 

river in that area is within the 500 foot safety zone required by state hunting 

regulations. Hunting on the river in that area is illegal. 

o We understand the concern regarding hunting on the Greenough property. We 

will ensure that the boundary is clearly marked. The deer hunting opportunities 

on the property will be limited to archery only. 

o The area adjacent to private and conservation property in the vicinity of Dudley 

Road in Bedford is proposed as archery only for deer hunting. 

o In the Sudbury Division of the refuge, the proposed waterfowl hunting area south 

to Route 20 has been reduced. The waterfowl hunting opportunities adjacent to 

refuge lands ou to the center line of the Sudbury River south of Route 20 have bee 

reduced from 193 acres to 77. Additionally, no waterfowl hunting will be allowed 

between Route 20 and the Wayland School Complex. Waterfowl hunting will be 

allowed in a limited area upstream of the school along the Sudbury River south of 

Heard Pond. The revised hunting area will be a minimum of 1,000 feet from the 

school playing fields. Please see the maps in the Great Meadows NWR CCP for a 

depiction of this area. 

o In the South section of the Assabet River NWR, we have changed the designation 

to Archery Only. 

o Based upon the comments that we received regarding Hudson Road and Stearns 

Lane, we made a revision to the hunting areas on the North section of the Assabet 

River NWR. The area outside of the entire Patrol Road has been designated 

Archery Only. 

Hunting – Various Species 

Commentors indicated that it was necessary for the Service to conduct detailed surveys of 

wildlife populations before implementing a hunt program. 

The hunting of migratory bird species is managed from a national point of view. The 

Service monitors the population status of all migratory bird game species and works with 

the States to set season lengths and harvest limits. Hunting is managed in a way that does 

not contribute to a decline in waterfowl and other migratory game bird populations. 

The hunting of resident species, such as deer, rabbits, and squirrels, falls within the 

responsibility of state fish and wildlife agencies, which also monitor and manage 

populations to ensure healthy ecosystems, sustainable populations, and a certain level of 

hunter success. We work in partnership with the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and 

Wildlife and rely on their knowledge and expertise to determine the appropriateness of 

hunting seasons. Any decisions we make to limit or prevent the harvest of resident species 

on any refuge is based on other management concerns and not on a concern about the 


- 165 -

- 166 - 


population of a given species. State fish and wildlife agencies have an excellent record of 

sound, professional wildlife management, and this is true in Massachusetts as well. 

Fishing 

Most fishing comments are directed toward the proposal to allow fishing at Puffer Pond 

on the Assabet River NWR. There is considerable support for fishing on Puffer Pond. 

There are also a number of respondents who request that fishing be prohibited on Puffer 

Pond. These individuals argue that anglers will disturb nesting birds, erode the shoreline, 

trample vegetation, contribute to the spread of invasives, and drag boats through the 

refuge. 

Fishing is one of the priority wildlife dependent uses for national wildlife refuges, where 

compatible. As such, the staff has determined that fishing is compatible with refuge 

purposes. Staff from Assabet River NWR will finalize the details of fishing on Puffer Pond 

as a part of the Fishing Management Plan. Staff will ensure that impacts to the resources 

in and surrounding the pond are minimized. This is evidenced by the stipulations already 

included in the draft plan. No motorized boats will be allowed, greatly reducing the 

likelihood of invasive species being brought to the pond. Public use in general causes some 

disturbance of vegetation and wildlife. We will manage all public uses, including fishing, to 

minimize the disturbance and ensure that the level of disturbance does not materially 

interfere with the purposes of the refuges. We share the concern about the potential 

introduction of invasive species, as well as other types of disturbance. We will continue to 

monitor disturbance caused by public uses of the refuges and take any action that we deem 

necessary or appropriate. 

Environmental Education 

A majority of commentors who chose to address environmental education support the 

efforts and facilities proposed in Alternative B, advocating more environmental 

education for people of all ages. Several respondents encourage completion of the 

proposed Sudbury River interpretive canoe trail. Some of the commentors encourage the 

FWS to think bigger, and develop its educational plan in concert with other regional 

entities and efforts. 

Environmental education is one of the priority wildlife dependent uses for national wildlife 

refuges. As such, the staff has determined that it is compatible with refuge purposes and 

will continue to work to provide these opportunities. The staff is encouraged by the 

support that individuals and groups have shown for environmental education. We look 

forward to continuing and expanding educational opportunities associated with the 

refuges. 

Wildlife Observation Trails 

Some of the organizations and towns that commented on the CCP included requests for 

trails to be developed in specific areas that would connect to adjacent trail systems. In 

some cases, the requests are for formalizing trails that have been created by individuals 



for unauthorized access. In other cases, the requests are for new trails that would provide 

access to new areas. 

Refuge staff will develop a system for evaluating such requests. This review system will 

provide refuge staff with the necessary tools to evaluate the need for and effects of 

recommended trails. 

Non-wildlife Dependent Public Uses 

Dog Walking 

A large number of commentors assert that given the popularity and demand for areas to 

walk dogs, and the fact that parts of the refuge have been used responsibly for decades by 

dog-walkers, FWS should continue to allow dog walking and should authorize it at 

Assabet River NWR. Some commentors express support for a ban of dogs from the refuge; 

they cited safety concerns, conflicts between dog walkers and bird watchers, and owners 

that do not clean up after their dogs. 

All of the refuges in the Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex were 

created with purposes related to protecting, managing, and conserving native wildlife. The 

1997 Refuge Improvement Act establishes the mission of the Refuge System as “to 

preserve a national network of lands and waters for the conservation and management of 

fish, wildlife, and plant resources of the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations.” The Refuge Improvement Act further stipulates that all activities occurring 

on refuges must be compatible with wildlife conservation and the specific purposes for 

which a refuge was established. This is an important distinction from other public lands 

and recreation areas; refuges have a narrow management focus and are not multi-purpose 

lands. Six public uses were identified by the Refuge Improvement Act as the priorities for 

receiving enhanced consideration on refuges. Dog walking is not one of the six priority 

public uses, nor are dogs (except hunting, seeing or hearing dogs) necessary to support the 

safe, practical, and effective conduct of the priority public use programs we would be 

implementing on the refuge. 

Dogs running off leash and piles of dog waste left on trails or tossed in the bushes are 

consistent problems, not isolated incidences. Several circumstances prompted the 

elimination of this activity on the refuges, including 

• Dogs can intimidate other refuge visitors, and deprive them of the peace that 

refuges provide. Visitation to the National Wildlife Refuges is expanding, 

potentially aggravating user conflicts; 

• Dog feces left on trails are an unhealthy and unsightly nuisance to refuge visitors 

and impact refuge vegetation. The presence of dog feces on public trails is one of 

the most common complaints we receive; 

• Dogs, whether leashed or unleashed, conflict with refuge efforts to provide 

recreational opportunities for a diversity of visitors, including those limited to 

handicapped accessible trails, and the many school groups which visit the refuges 

for environmental education; 

• Dog walking has resulted in user conflicts with persons engaged in priority public 

uses (bird watching, photography, see below); 


- 167 -

- 168 - 


• Instinctively, dogs want to chase wildlife. Unleashed dogs commonly chase nesting 

wildlife, which can result in destruction of ground nests and young. Dogs may step 

on nests or young chicks, as they “freeze” in response to danger; 

• Many dog owners consistently remove their dogs from leashes when they are away 

from the parking lots and believe they are unlikely to be observed by a refuge 

ranger; 

• Wildlife can’t distinguish between dogs on leashes and unleashed dogs. In the 

presence of a dog, many species will abandon their nests or young, leaving them 

vulnerable to be killed by predators, or die from starvation or exposure. 

We realize that many dog owners are responsible owners and have a strong emotional 

connection to the refuge and to walking their dog on the refuge. We realize that many 

people will not be happy with this decision. Nevertheless, we firmly believe that the 

overall adverse impacts from dog walking on wildlife and other visitors engaged in wildlifedependent 

public use justify this prohibition. Our decision is also consistent with land 

managers throughout the State who manage lands specifically for wildlife. Massachusetts 

Audubon Society and State of Massachusetts wildlife sanctuary lands also do not allow 

pets. 

Horseback Riding 

A large number of commentors are opposed to a prohibition on horseback riding on any 

of the refuges. They are concerned that not allowing horseback riding in the refuge will 

compromise access to other conservation/state/local forest trails immediately 

surrounding the refuge. In addition, they point to the economic benefits of horseback 

riding. 

We have decided to maintain our prohibition of horseback riding on refuge trails. This 

activity does not promote wildlife conservation, is not one of our six priority public uses, 

nor is it necessary to support the safe, practical, and effective conduct of a priority public 

use on the refuges. 

While we appreciate the desire for horseback riding opportunities on Assabet River, Great 

Meadows, and Oxbow National Wildlife Refuges, we do not believe that these relatively 

small refuges are appropriate places for horseback riding. Existing refuge trails are not 

designed to accommodate horses. Most of our trails are not wide enough for riders and 

walkers to avoid each other, nor are trails designed to withstand the impact of horses. 

This is especially true in wetter areas. Another issue with horse use is the waste left on 

trails. It is well-documented that horse waste introduces seeds from non-native and 

invasive vegetation. Further, the horse waste is unsightly and detracts from other visitors’ 

experiences when they have to watch for and avoid stepping in it. We are supporting an 

appropriate level and type of public use on our refuges by maintaining our focus on 

wildlife-dependent public uses. 

Jogging 

Joggers view the refuge as a safe, peaceful place to pursue their activity, and would like 

more information as to why jogging would be banned. 



As indicated in the draft CCP/EA, we will be investigating the impacts of jogging to 

determine whether or not this is an appropriate use and a compatible use. Jogging is not a 

priority public use nor is it necessary to support one of the six priority public uses. 

Currently, there are a relatively high number of individuals that participate in jogging on 

the refuges. Other refuges have documented impacts to wildlife caused by jogging. We 

have issued a compatibility determination that indicates that, based on our current 

knowledge, jogging is compatible with refuge purposes. If we gather information to the 

contrary, we will issue a new compatibility determination with appropriate public comment 

opportunities. 

Picnicking 

Some respondents view picnicking as a harmless past time that allows people to enjoy the 

refuge’s beauty. 

We would like to take this opportunity to clarify our position on picnicking. We believe 

that the draft CCP/EA conveyed a change that we did not intent. We do not intend to 

prohibit a refuge visitor from sitting on a bench or under a tree and eating a snack or 

drinking a beverage. However, we will not issue permits for large events, such as family 

reunions, where a meal is a normal part of the event to occur on the refuges, nor will we 

provide picnic tables or specific locations for picnicking. 

Bicycling 

Similar to jogging, a number of commentors assert that the refuge offers a safe, trafficfree 

environment for bicycling. By not allowing bicycling on the refuges, it is asserted that 

the FWS will be creating a gap in the local trail systems. Some cyclists are willing to be 

flexible as to when and where they can pursue their sport. Some of the commentors 

suggest allowing cycling on paved roads only. Of greatest interest to many of the 

commentors are the Patrol Road on Assabet River NWR and the Tank Road on Oxbow 

NWR. 

Bicycling is not compatible with the refuge purposes for each of the 3 refuges. Bicycles 

frighten wildlife and cause changes in behavior that have potential adverse impacts to 

species. While there are places where bicycling can enhance wildlife dependent 

opportunities, in general the intention of a visitor on a bicycle is to engage in the act of 

cycling or transportation, not to observe wildlife. The refuges are small enough that 

bicycling is not needed to facilitate a wildlife-dependent public use. Additionally, while 

there may be some existing roads on the refuges (particularly Assabet River NWR) which 

seem to lend themselves to cycling, our long term plans for the refuges will include some 

road removal and return to a natural state. 

Snowmobiling 

Snowmobilers describe themselves as law-abiding recreationists that are respectful of 

others and wildlife. One local snowmobile club would like to establish a trail through the 

refuge, maintained by the club, for the club’s enjoyment. 


- 169 -

- 170 - 


Snowmobiling is not a wildlife-dependent use of the refuges. Snowmobiles tend to frighten 

wildlife and can adversely impact wintering species. The refuges are small enough that 

non-motorized use (such as cross-country skiing or snowshoeing) would be the preferred 

method of travel for facilitation of wildlife dependent uses of the refuges during winter 

months. 

Gathering 

One respondent requested permission to collect mushrooms and suggested a daily limit 

for individuals that would like to collect them. 

The picking of fruit, plants, and mushrooms is not allowed on the refuges. These plants 

and fungi are components of the natural ecosystem and can provide food for refuge 

wildlife. With the large volumes of refuge visitors, there could be significant depletion of 

certain plants and mushrooms as well as unauthorized access off-trail to collect these 

specimens if this were allowed. Our intention in managing these refuges is to allow natural 

processes to occur as much as possible, with specific land management techniques to 

maintain or restore specific habitat types for wildlife. Gathering of plants, mushrooms and 

other refuge resources (such as rocks found on stone walls) is not appropriate. 

Fees 

Commentors provided a number of arguments for and against fees. Additionally, some 

commentors questioned the viability of a fee system for the refuges. Some of the concerns 

raised include the appropriateness of fees on Federal land, a potential deterrence of 

visitors from low-income families or neighborhoods, and the costs of enforcement. Others 

point out the need to support local lands that are under-funded by Federal budgets. 

In response to concerns expressed about the cost of a pass, we have lowered the annual 

pass fee from $20 in our original proposal to $12. Additional detail about the fees has been 

added to the final CCPs for each of the refuges. 

Fees will be used to support local projects on the refuges. The only way the Service will be 

able to achieve, maintain and provide a high quality of visitor service in the future is with 

additional funds. Unfortunately, our budget is insufficient to meet our visitor services 

needs. Failure to receive additional revenues will have a significant impact on our ability 

to provide quality opportunities for visitors to engage in wildlife-dependent public uses. 

Fees are fair because they are paid by refuge users. 

Land Acquisition 

A large number of commentors expressed concern over the lack of additional lands within 

the proposed acquisition boundary. Some individuals specifically mentioned the Devens 

South Post land that has been identified as part of the Base Closure and Realignment Act 

as land to be transferred to Oxbow NWR. Other individuals expressed concern that some 

town conservation lands adjacent to the existing refuges were within the acquisition 



boundary. These individuals expressed a preference that the land remains in town 

control. 

Assabet River, Great Meadows, and Oxbow NWRs are a part of the much larger Refuge 

System. The Service is developing a plan for strategic growth of the Refuge System. This 

plan will allow the Service to prioritize land acquisition and boundary expansions for the 

System as a whole. The process for changing land acquisition boundaries is long and 

complex and takes a great deal of staff time. The plan for strategic growth will also allow 

Refuge System staff to focus boundary expansion efforts to those areas that are of 

greatest value to the System as a whole. Certainly, the refuges encompassed in the draft 

CCP/EA contribute a great deal to fulfilling the Refuge System mission. Any boundary 

expansion must also be shown to have a necessary contribution. Staff will continue to work 

toward boundary expansions within Service policy and guidelines. 

Expansion of the boundaries at locations that provide important habitats is still possible. 

Staff will need to pursue these acquisition boundary issues as a separate process. 

Congress has specifically identified the Devens South Post land as appropriate for transfer 

to the Service. The transfer would not be hindered by the lack of an acquisition boundary 

around that land. 

We would like to point out that the acquisition boundary identifies natural areas that are 

important to the purposes of the refuges. However, the Service does not plan to condemn 

land that is being protected by other entities. In the event that a group or individual, such 

as a town conservation commission, is attempting to sell some of this land, the Service 

would be interested in acquiring the land rather than allowing it to be developed. 

Buildings and Facilities 

Respondents voiced a myriad of opinions regarding what kinds of buildings and facilities 

should be provided at the refuge. Citing the importance of public education, many people 

ask the FWS to locate kiosks at strategic locations throughout the refuge. Comments 

regarding refuge parking focus on lot location with a number of people discouraging 

parking at Heard Pond. These respondents contend that there has been too much garbage 

dumping and vandalism at the Heard Pond site to make it a desirable parking place. 

We are sensitive to the fact that there are a wide variety of opinions regarding 

development of buildings, restroom facilities, and parking areas at the refuges. We will 

work to ensure that buildings are sited to provide the greatest benefit to the groups that 

will use them, while at the same time reducing any associated impacts. Where 

appropriate, we will site and build kiosks to provide educational and informational 

opportunities. We understand the concern over past activities at Heard Pond. The 

proposed parking lot will be located along the road and not set back like the previous lot. 

We have proposed a limited expansion of no more than 6 cars depending on available area 

that will allow more visitors to enjoy the area. 

NHESP suggested working cooperatively with the Service for review of impacts to statelisted 

species when construction or demolition projects are proposed. 


- 171 -

- 172 - 


The Service will continue to include NHESP in review of appropriate projects. 

Staffing 

Most commentors feel that adequate refuge staffing is essential. While many people 

assert that Alternative B will meet desired staffing levels, a number of other respondents 

contend that proposed staffing levels are too low. These people cite anticipated user 

conflicts, present refuge hazards, and the current downsizing trend in government as 

reasons to increase proposed staffing levels. Some respondents suggest utilizing 

community groups and/or to form partnerships with volunteer organizations to 

supplement staffing needs. 

We appreciate the support for increased staffing levels. We have proposed the level of 

staffing that we feel is appropriate to implement the programs outlined in the CCP. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The one concern regarding wild and scenic river designation expressed by several 

respondents is that hunting is incompatible with this designation and should be 

prohibited within these areas. 

The Wild & Scenic Rivers Act (WSR) does not prohibit hunting, nor does it indicate that 

hunting is incompatible with the intent of the WSR designation. 

Enforcement 

Respondents who comment on enforcement indicate that the level of enforcement on the 

refuge needs to increase. The key areas identified by respondents as needing increased 

policing efforts are off-highway vehicle trespass, poaching, dumping, trespass, and 

vandalism. 

We are aware of a number of violations that occur on refuge lands. Our law enforcement 

staff is working to correct these violations and are bringing in outside help when 

necessary. The number of violation notices issued during the past year is a testament to 

our focused law enforcement efforts. We look forward to implementation of the CCP and 

the opportunity to expand our law enforcement presence through the potential addition of 

staff, agreements with local law enforcement agencies, and continued cooperation with 

State environmental police officers. 

Invasives 

Many respondents support efforts to eliminate invasive non-native species. Several 

respondents raise concerns about invasives at Puffer Pond, given new fishing access. 

Concerns about targeted species are raised in two cases: one respondent argues that 

cattails are native, and should not be removed; a number of respondents argue that mute 

swans are harmless. 



We will develop specific strategies to deal with control and elimination of invasive species 

as a part of the Habitat Management Plan. We are aware of the problem with invasives at 

nearby lakes and ponds. We have proposed to allow only non-motorized boats on Puffer 

Pond to help ensure that new invasive species are not introduced to the pond. 

State Listed Species 

The Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NEHSP) 

provided changes and edits to the Species Lists for each of the refuges, especially 

concerning the state listed species. 

We have reviewed the suggestions and incorporated them into the species lists. 

Wildlife Surveys 

NEHSP suggested that we complete surveys to determine areas that should be closed to 

public use and prior to opening roads or trails for use. 

Staff will continue to use survey information, along with local knowledge and known 

locations of sensitive species to determine whether there is a need to close areas of the 

refuge that are open or before opening areas to new public access opportunities. 


An individual suggested inclusion of a comprehensive bibliography of biodiversity for the 

Great Meadows NWR area that has been published. 

We have included a reference to this bibliography in the Great Meadows NWR CCP. 

Editorial/Corrections 

A number of commentors made suggestions that were editorial or that offered corrections 

to place names, geography, or history. 

We have made the corrections where appropriate. 

Alternatives 

The Humane Society of the Unites States expressed concern that the CCP/EA did not 

consider a reasonable range of alternatives. HSUS urged the Service to “give full 

consideration to an alternative that would emphasize non-consumptive uses, non-lethal 

approaches to conflicts with wildlife, aggressive acquisition of land that could provide 

important habitat for refuge wildlife, and removal of invasive plant species. 

We worked hard to ensure consideration of the reasonable range of alternatives that were 

presented in the draft CCP/EA. Each of the items mentioned was considered and the 

majority are included in the final CCP. We analyzed the effects of continuing no-hunting 

on Assabet River and Great Meadows NWR, along with maintaining the existing level of 


- 173 -

- 174 - 


hunting on Oxbow NWR as a part of Alternative A. Our current management plan is a 

balance of consumptive and non-consumptive uses with a focus on non-consumptive uses 

only for the majority of the year. All of our alternatives emphasize non-lethal approaches 

to wildlife conflicts with lethal control only utilized when our managers and biologists have 

determined that non-lethal controls have not been effective. Similarly, we will continue to 

acquire land as dictated by Service policy and as outlined under the “land acquisition” 

heading earlier in this section. Finally, removal of non-native invasive plant species is 

included in our final CCP and will be outlined further in our Habitat Management Plan. 

Support for each alternative [No response required] 

A number of commentors expressed support for all or portions of specific alternatives 

without citing specific reasons for doing so. The greatest number of such respondents 

indicated support for Alternative B or variations of Alternative B. 



Table D-1: Birds at Oxbow NWR 

Appedix D: Species Lists 

Scientific Name Common Name Status References 

Phalacrocorax auritus Double-creasted cormorant Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Branta canadensis Canada goose Lockwood 2000; Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Anas platyrhynchos Mallard NAWCA Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Aix sponsa Wood duck NAWCA Lockwood - BBS 2000; Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Anas rubripes American black duck NAWCA Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Anas crecca Green-winged Teal NAWCA 

Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron SRC Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Butorides striatus Green heron SRC Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned night heron Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Actitis macularia Spotted sandpiper Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Tringa solitaria Solitary sandpiper Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Charadrius vociferus Killdeer Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned hawk Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Buteo platypterus Broad-winged hawk Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Falco sparverius American kestrel SRC Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Pandion haliaetus Osprey Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Cathartes aura Turkey vulture Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Bonasa umbellus Ruffed grouse Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Phasianus colchicus Ring-necked pheasant Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Scolopax minor American woodcock SRC Plagge 2000; Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Asio flammeus Short-eared owl NGSMC Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Zenaida macroura Mourning dove Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Columba livia Rock dove Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Caprimulgus vociferus Whip-poor-will SRC Plagge 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Archilochus colubris Ruby-throated hummingbird Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Megaceryle alcyon Belted kingfisher Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Colaptes auratus Northern flicker NGSMC Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Picoides pubescens Downy woodpecker Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Picoides villosus Hairy woodpecker Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Contopus virens Eastern Wood-pewee Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Myiarchus crinitus Great-crested flycatcher Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Empidonax minimus Least flycatcher Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Empidonax traillii Willow flycatcher Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern kingbird Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Tachycineta bicolor Tree swallow Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Hirundo rustica Barn swallow Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Chaetura pelagica Chimney swift Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Sayornis phoebe Eastern phoebe Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Cyanocitta cristata Blue jay Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Parus bicolor Tufted titmouse Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Parus atricapillus Black-capped chickadee Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Sitta carolinensis White breasted nuthatch Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Certhia americana Brown creeper Lockwood 2000 

Thryothorus ludovicianus Carolina Wren Friends of Oxbow 2000 


- 175 -

- 176 - 


Troglodytes aedon House wren Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Regulus calendula Ruby-crowned kinglet Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Polioptila caerulea Blue-gray gnatcatcher Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Mimus polyglottos Northern mockingbird Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Sialia sialis Eastern bluebird Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Dumetella carolinensis Gray catbird Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Turdus migratorius American robin Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Hylocichla mustelina Wood thrush NGSMC Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Catharus fuscescens Veery Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Seiurus aurocapillus Ovenbird Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Catharus guttatus Hermit Thrush Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Seiurus noveboracensis Northern Waterthrush Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar Waxwing Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Dendroica pinus Pine warbler Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Mniotilta varia Black-and-white warbler Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Dendroica palmarum Palm warbler Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Dendroica magnolia Magnolia warbler Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Dendroica coronata Myrtle warbler (Yellow-rumped) Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood 2000 

Setophaga ruticilla American redstart Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Vireo solitarius Blue-headed (solitary) vireo Lockwood 2000 

Vireo gilvus Warbling vireo Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Vireo olivaceus Red eyed vireo Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Vireo flavifrons Yellow throated vireo Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Dendroica virens Black-throated green warbler Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Dendroica pensylvanica Cheastnut-sided warbler Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Vermivora pinus Blue-winged warbler NGSMC Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood 2000 

Geothlypis trichas Common Yellowthroat Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Dendroica petechia Yellow warbler Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Wilsonia canadensis Canada warbler Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Cardinalis cardinalis Northern cardinal Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Melospiza georgiana Swamp sparrow SRC Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Melospiza melodia Song sparrow Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Zonotrichia leucophrys White-crowned sparrow Lockwood 2000 

Zonotrichia albicollis White-throated sparrow Lockwood 2000; Friends of Oxbow 

Spizella passerina Chipping Sparrow Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Pipilo erythrophthalmus Eastern towhee Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Carduelis tristis American goldfinch Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged blackbird Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Euphagus carolinus Rusty blackbird Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Molothrus ater Brown-headed cowbird Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Quiscalus quiscula Common grackle Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Carpodacus purpureus Purple finch Lockwood 2000 

Sturnella magna Eastern Meadowlark NGSMC Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Icterus galbula Baltimore Oriole Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Piranga olivacea Scarlet tanager Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Pheucticus ludovicianus Rose-breasted grosbeak Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood - BBS 2000 

Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed grebe Refuge Staff 

Table D-2: Mammals at Oxbow NWR 

Scientific name Common name Reference 

Blarina brevicauda Northern short-tailed shrew Friends of Oxbow 2000 



Scalopus aquiaticus Eastern mole Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Tamias striatus Eastern chipmunk Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Red squirrel Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Sciurus carolinensis Eastern gray squirrel Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern Cottontail Rabbit Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Castor canadensis American beaver Plagge & Lockwood 2000; Friends of Oxbow 

2000 

Microtus pennsylvanicus Meadow vole Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Microtus spp. Vole spp. Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Ondatra zibethicus Common muskrat Baseline Study 1993; Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Mus musculus House mouse Baseline Study 1993 

Rattus noregicus Norway rat Baseline Study 1993 

Napaeozapus insignis Woodland jumping mouse Baseline Study 1993 

Erethizon dorsatum Common porcupine Baseline Study 1993 

Canis latrans Eastern Coyote Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Vulpes fulva Red fox Plagge & Lockwood 2000 

Urocyon cinereoargenteus Gray fox McCarter, 2000 

Procyon lotor Common raccoon Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Mustela vison American mink Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Lutra canadensis Northern river otter Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Martes pennanti Fisher Friends of Oxbow 2000; Lockwood 2000 

Lynx rufus Bobcat Baseline Study 1993; Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Odocoileus virginiana White-tailed deer Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Alces alces Moose Lockwood 2000 

Eptesicus fuscus Big brown bat Baseline Study 1993; Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Lasiurus borealis Eastern red bat (*) Baseline Study 1993 

Lasiurus cinereus Hoary bat (*) Baseline Study 1993 

Myotis lucifugus Little brown bat Baseline Study 1993; Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Myotis keenii Keen’s myotis (*) Baseline Study 1993 

Pipistrellus subflavus Eastern pipistrelle (*) Baseline Study 1993 

* not positive ID 

Dr. Howard Thomas Research at Fort Devens 


Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum Thomas 1992 

Sorex cinereus Masked shrew Thomas 1992 

Sorex palustris Common water shrew SC Thomas 1992 

Parascalops breweri Hairy-tailed mole Thomas 1992 

Condylura cristata Star-nosed mole Thomas 1992 

Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern cottontail Thomas 1992 

Lepus americanus Snowshoe hare Thomas 1992 

Glaucomys volans Southern flying squirrel Thomas 1992 

Marmota monax Woodchuck Thomas 1992 

Peromyscus leucopus White-footed mouse Thomas 1992 

Microtus pinetorum Woodland vole (Pine vole) Thomas 1992 

Clethrionomys gapperi Southern red-backed vole Thomas 1992 

Zapus hudsonius Meadow jumping mouse Thomas 1992 

Ursus americanus Black bear Thomas 1992 

Mustela erminea Ermine Thomas 1992 

Mephitis mephitis Striped skunk Thomas 1992 

Blarina brevicauda Northern short-tailed shrew Thomas 1992 

Tamias striatus Eastern chipmunk Thomas 1992 


- 177 -

- 178 - 


Microtus pennsylvanicus Meadow vole Thomas 1992 

Canis latrans Eastern coyote Thomas 1992 

Procyon lotor Common raccoon Thomas 1992 

Mustela vison American mink Thomas 1992 

Lutra canadensis Northern river otter Thomas 1992 

Odocoileus virginiana White-tailed deer Thomas 1992 

Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Red squirrel Thomas 1992 

Sciurus carolinensis Eastern gray squirrel Thomas 1992 

Martes pennanti Fisher Thomas 1992 

Table D-3: Reptiles at Great Meadows NWR 


Coluber c. constrictor Northern black racer Baseline Study 1993 

Diadophis punctatus Northern ringneck snake Baseline Study 1993 

Elaphe guttata Corn snake Baseline Study 1993 

Lampropeltis triangulum Eastern milk snake Baseline Study 1993 

Nerodia s. sipedon Northern water snake Baseline Study 1993; Friends of 

Oxbow 2000 

Opheodrys vernalis Smooth green snake Baseline Study 1993 

Storeria dekayi Northern brown snake Baseline Study 1993 

Storeria occipitomaculata Northern redbelly snake Baseline Study 1993 

Thamnophis sauritus Northern ribbon snake Baseline Study 1993; Friends of 


Thamnophis s. sirtalis Common garter snake Baseline Study 1993; Friends of 


Chelydra serpentina Snapping turtle Baseline Study 1993; Friends of 


Chrysemys picta Painted turtle Baseline Study 1993; Friends of 


Clemmys guttata Spotted turtle SC Baseline Study 1993 

Clemmys insculpta Wood turtle SC Baseline Study 1993 

Terrapene carolina Eastern box turtle SC Baseline Study 1993 

Emydoidea blandingii Blanding’s turtle ST Baseline Study 1993; Friends of 


Sternotherus odoratus Stinkpot Baseline Study 1993 

Table D-4: Amphibians at Oxbow NWR 

Scientific Name Common name Status Reference 

Ambystoma laterale Blue-spotted salamander SC Baseline Study 1993; Friends of 


Ambystoma maculatum Spotted salamander Baseline Study 1993; Friends of 


Bufo americanus American toad Baseline Study 1993; Friends of 


Bufo woodhousei fowleri Fowler’s toad Baseline Study 1993 

Hyla crucifer Spring peeper Baseline Study 1993; Friends of 


Hyla versicolor Gray treefrog Baseline Study 1993 

Desmognathus fuscus Dusky salamander Baseline Study 1993 

Eurycea bislineata Two-lined salamander Baseline Study 1993 



Plethodon cinereus Red Backed salamander Baseline Study 1993 

Rana catesbeiana Bullfrog Baseline Study 1993; Friends of 


Rana clamitans Green frog Baseline Study 1993; Friends of 


Rana palustris Pickerel frog Baseline Study 1993; Friends of 


Rana pipiens Northern leopard frog Baseline Study 1993; Friends of 


Rana sylvatica Wood frog Baseline Study 1993; Friends of 


Notopthalmus viridescens Red spotted newt Baseline Study 1993; Friends of 


Table D-5: Moths at Oxbow NWR 

Scientific Name Status References 

Drepana arcuata Mello & Peters 1994 

Drepana bilineata Mello & Peters 1994 

Oreta rosea Mello & Peters 1994 

Eumacaria latiferrugata Mello & Peters 1994 

Itame pustularia Mello & Peters 1994 

Semiothisa aemulitaria Mello & Peters 1994 

Semiothisa minorata Mello & Peters 1994 

Semiothisa bisignata Mello & Peters 1992 

Semiothisa granitata Mello & Peters 1994 

Glena cognataria Mello & Peters 1994 

Anacamptodes humaria Mello & Peters 1994 

Anavitrinelia pampinaria Mello & Peters 1994 

Ectropis crepuscularia Mello & Peters 1994 

Melanolophia signataria Mello & Peters 1994 

Eufidonia nototaria Mello & Peters 1994 

Erannis tiliaria Mello & Peters 1994 

Cabera variolaria Mello & Peters 1994 

Euchlaena serrata Mello & Peters 1994 

Campaea perlata Mello & Peters 1994 

Ennomos magnaria Mello & Peters 1994 

Petrophora subaequaria Mello & Peters 1994 

Homochlodes discoventa Mello & Peters 1994 

Metanema inatomaria Mello & Peters 1994 

Cepphis decoloraria Mello & Peters 1994 

Anagoga occiduaria Mello & Peters 1994 

Probole amicaria Mello & Peters 1994 

Plagodis serinaria Mello & Peters 1994 

Plagodis alcoolaria Mello & Peters 1994 

Besma endropiaria Mello & Peters 1994 

Eusarca confusaria Mello & Peters 1994 

Prochoerodes transversata Mello & Peters 1994 

Antepione thiosaria Mello & Peters 1994 

Nematocampa limbata Mello & Peters 1994 

Nemoria bistriaria Mello & Peters 1994 

Chlorochlamys chloroleucaria Mello & Peters 1994 


- 179 -

- 180 - 


Cyclophora pendulinaria Mello & Peters 1994 

Scopula cacuminaria Mello & Peters 1994 

Scopula purata Mello & Peters 1994 

Scopula limboundata Mello & Peters 1994 

Eulithis diversilineata Mello & Peters 1994 

Thera juniperata Mello & Peters 1994 

Xanthorhoe lacustrata Mello & Peters 1994 

Orthonama obstipata Mello & Peters 1994 

Orthonama centrostrigaria Mello & Peters 1994 

Operophtera bruceata Mello & Peters 1994 

Heterophelps triguttaria Mello & Peters 1994 

Calledapteryx dryopterata Mello & Peters 1994 

Tolype velleda Mello & Peters 1994 

Tolype laricis Mello & Peters 1994 

Dryocampa rubicunda Mello & Peters 1994 

Callosamia promethea Mello & Peters 1994 

Sphinx gordius Mello & Peters 1994 

Paonias myops Mello & Peters 1994 

Pachysphinx modesta Mello & Peters 1994 

Clostera albosigma Mello & Peters 1994 

Costera inclusa Mello & Peters 1994 

Costera apicalis Mello & Peters 1994 

Nadata gibbosa Mello & Peters 1994 

Hyperaeschra georgica Mello & Peters 1994 

Peridea angulosa Mello & Peters 1994 

Peridea ferruginea Mello & Peters 1994 

Notodonta scitipennis Mello & Peters 1994 

Nerice bidentata Mello & Peters 1994 

Gluphisia septentrionis Mello & Peters 1994 

Macrurocampa marthesia Mello & Peters 1994 

Schizura badia Mello & Peters 1994 

Schizura unicornis Mello & Peters 1994 

Oligocentra semirufescens Mello & Peters 1994 

Oligocentra lignicolor Mello & Peters 1994 

Hypoprepia fucosa Mello & Peters 1994 

Holomelina aurantiaca Mello & Peters 1994 

Spilosoma congrua Mello & Peters 1994 

Spilosoma virginica Mello & Peters 1994 

Phragmatobia fuliginosa Mello & Peters 1994 

Apantesis carlotta Mello & Peters 1994 

Apantesis figurata Mello & Peters 1994 

Apantesis arge Mello & Peters 1994 

Halysidota tessellaris Mello & Peters 1994 

Cycnia oregonensis Mello & Peters 1994 

Cisseps fulvicollis Mello & Peters 1994 

Orgyia leucostigma Mello & Peters 1994 

Lymantria dispar Mello & Peters 1994 

Idia americalis Mello & Peters 1994 

Idia aemula Mello & Peters 1994 

Idia rotundalis Mello & Peters 1994 

Idia julia Mello & Peters 1994 

Idia diminuendis Mello & Peters 1994 


Idia lubricalis Mello & Peters 1994 

Zanclognatha protumnusalis Mello & Peters 1992 

Zanclognatha jacchusalis Mello & Peters 1992 

Zanclognatha ochreipennis Mello & Peters 1992 

Chytolita petrealis Mello & Peters 1992 

Hormisa absorptalis Mello & Peters 1994 

Hormisa litophora Mello & Peters 1994 

Hormisa bivittata Mello & Peters 1994 

Hormisa orciferalis Mello & Peters 1994 

Hormisa loiusiana Mello & Peters 1994 

Phalaenostola metonalis Mello & Peters 1994 

Phalaenostola larentioides Mello & Peters 1994 

Bleptina caradrinalis Mello & Peters 1994 

Renia factiosalis Mello & Peters 1994 

Renia flavipunctalis Mello & Peters 1994 

Lascoria ambigualis Mello & Peters 1994 

Palthis angulalis Mello & Peters 1994 

Palthis asopialis Mello & Peters 1994 

Rivula propinqualis Mello & Peters 1994 

Colobochyla interpuncta Mello & Peters 1994 

Melanoma aurinctaria Mello & Peters 1994 

Hypenodes caducus Mello & Peters 1994 

Hypenodes fractilinea Mello & Peters 1994 

Hypenodes palustris Mello & Peters 1994 

Hypenodes sombrus Mello & Peters 1994 

Dyspyralis puncticosta Mello & Peters 1994 

Bomolocha baltimoralis Mello & Peters 1994 

Lomanaltes eductalis Mello & Peters 1994 

Plathypena scabra Mello & Peters 1994 

Pangrapta decoralis Mello & Peters 1994 

Ledaea perditalis Mello & Peters 1994 

Metalectra discalis Mello & Peters 1994 

Gabara subnivosella Mello & Peters 1994 

Drasteria occulta Mello & Peters 1994 

Zale helata Mello & Peters 1994 

Zale horrida Mello & Peters 1994 

Parallelia bistriaris Mello & Peters 1994 

Caenurgina crassiuscula Mello & Peters 1994 

Caenurgina erechtea Mello & Peters 1994 

Catocala antinympha Mello & Peters 1994 

Catocala unijuga Mello & Peters 1994 

Catocala cara Mello & Peters 1994 

Catocala concumbens Mello & Peters 1994 

Catocala andromedae Mello & Peters 1994 

Catocala ultronia Mello & Peters 1994 

Pseudoplusia includens Mello & Peters 1994 

Autographa precationis Mello & Peters 1994 

Anagrapha falcifera Mello & Peters 1994 

Plusia putnami Mello & Peters 1994 

Plusia contexta Mello & Peters 1994 

Plusia venusta Mello & Peters 1994 

Baileya ophthalmica Mello & Peters 1994 



- 181 -

- 182 - 


Lithacodia bellicula Mello & Peters 1994 

Lithacodia muscosula Mello & Peters 1994 

Lithacodia albidula Mello & Peters 1994 

Lithacodia carneola Mello & Peters 1994 

Homophoberia cristata Mello & Peters 1994 

Homophoberia apicosa Mello & Peters 1994 

Neotarache curvata Mello & Peters 1994 

Tarachidia candefacta Mello & Peters 1994 

Panthea pallescens Mello & Peters 1994 

Raphia frater Mello & Peters 1994 

Acronicta lepusculina Mello & Peters 1994 

Acronicta noctivaga Mello & Peters 1994 

Acronicta distans Mello & Peters 1994 

Acronicta oblinita Mello & Peters 1994 

Harrisimemna Trisignata Mello & Peters 1994 

Crymodes burgessi Mello & Peters 1994 

Eremobina hilli Mello & Peters 1992 

Oligia exhausta Mello & Peters 1994 

Oligia bridghami Mello & Peters 1994 

Oligia mactata Mello & Peters 1994 

Oligia illocata Mello & Peters 1994 

Meropleon diversicolor Mello & Peters 1994 

Lemmeria digitalis WL Mello & Peters 1992 

Archanara oblonga Mello & Peters 1992 

Helotropha reniformis Mello & Peters 1994 

Papaipema impecuniosa Mello & Peters 1994 

Papaipema lysimachiae Mello & Peters 1994 

Papaipema speciosissima Mello & Peters 1994 

Papaipema inquaesita Mello & Peters 1992 

Papaipema birdi Mello & Peters 1994 

Bellura gortynoides Mello & Peters 1994 

Bellura obliqua Mello & Peters 1994 

Euplexia benesimils Mello & Peters 1994 

Phlogophora periculosa Mello & Peters 1992 

Nedra ramosula Mello & Peters 1992 

Fagitana littera Mello & Peters 1994 

Callopistria mollissima Mello & Peters 1994 

Amphipyra pyramidoides Mello & Peters 1994 

Amphipyra glabella Mello & Peters 1994 

Proxenus miranda Mello & Peters 1994 

Platyperigea multifera Mello & Peters 1994 

Platysenta videns Mello & Peters 1994 

Platysenta vecors Mello & Peters 1994 

Cosmia calami Mello & Peters 1994 

Xylena curvimacula Mello & Peters 1994 

Lithophane solidaginis Mello & Peters 1994 

Lithophane querquera Mello & Peters 1994 

Lithophane tepida Mello & Peters 1994 

Lithophane antennata Mello & Peters 1994 

Lithophane grotei Mello & Peters 1994 

Lithophane fagina Mello & Peters 1994 

Pyreferra hesperidago Mello & Peters 1994 


Eupsilia morrisoni Mello & Peters 1994 

Metaxaglaea semitaria Mello & Peters 1994 

Epiglaea decliva Mello & Peters 1994 

Epiglaea apiata Mello & Peters 1994 

Chaetaglaea tremula Mello & Peters 1994 

Chaetaglaea sericea Mello & Peters 1994 

Psectraglaea carnosa Mello & Peters 1994 

Eucirroedia pampina Mello & Peters 1994 

Sunira bicolorago Mello & Peters 1994 

Anathix ralla Mello & Peters 1994 

Xanthia togata Mello & Peters 1994 

Sutnya privata Mello & Peters 1994 

Cucullia convexipennis Mello & Peters 1994 

Lacanobia legitima Mello & Peters 1994 

Lacinipolia meditata Mello & Peters 1994 

Faronta diffusa Mello & Peters 1994 

Aletia oxygala Mello & Peters 1994 

Pseudaletia unipuncta Mello & Peters 1992 

Leucania linda Mello & Peters 1992 

Leucania multilinea Mello & Peters 1994 

Nephelodes minians Mello & Peters 1994 

Ulolonche modesta Mello & Peters 1994 

Agrotis vetusta Mello & Peters 1994 

Agrotis venerabilis Mello & Peters 1994 

Agrotis stigmosa Mello & Peters 1994 

Feltia jaculifera Mello & Peters 1994 

Feltia subgothica Mello & Peters 1994 

Feltia herilis Mello & Peters 1994 

Feltia geniculata Mello & Peters 1994 

Longivesica messoria Mello & Peters 1992 

Euxoa velleripennis Mello & Peters 1994 

Euxoa tessellata Mello & Peters 1992 

Euxoa albipennis Mello & Peters 1994 

Euxoa violaris Mello & Peters 1994 

Euxoa bostoniensis Mello & Peters 1994 

Euxoa obeliscoides Mello & Peters 1994 

Orchopleura plecta Mello & Peters 1994 

Euagrotis illapsa Mello & Peters 1994 

Peridroma saucia Mello & Peters 1994 

Spaelotis clandestina Mello & Peters 1994 

Xestia adela Mello & Peters 1994 

Xestia dolosa Mello & Peters 1994 

Xestia smithii Mello & Peters 1992 

Xestia bicarnea Mello & Peters 1992 

Anomogyna elimata Mello & Peters 1994 

Anomogyna dilucida Mello & Peters 1994 

Eugraphe subrosea opacifrons Mello & Peters 1994 

Protolampra brunneicollis Mello & Peters 1994 

Euretagrotis perattenta Mello & Peters 1994 

Abagrotis alternata Mello & Peters 1994 

Rhynchagrotis cupida Mello & Peters 1994 

Derrima stellata Mello & Peters 1994 



- 183 -

- 184 - 


Schinia spinosae Mello & Peters 1992 

Schinia lynx Mello & Peters 1994 

Schinia arcigera Mello & Peters 1994 

MOTHS—Biodiversity 2000 (* Previously Recorded by Mello & Peters, 1224) 


Acronicta americana American dagger Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Cosmia calami American dun-bar Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Idia americalis American idia Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Bomolocha baltimoralis Baltimore bomolocha Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Pantograpta limata Basswood leafroller Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Bleptina cardrinalis Bent-winged owlet Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Paonias excaecatus Blinded sphinx Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Hemicleuca maia Buck moth Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Melanolopha candaria Canadian melanolophia Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Udea rubigalis Celery leaftier Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Catocala blandula Charming underwing Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Schizura badia Chestnut chiizura Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Peridea ferruginea Chocoloate prominent Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Chytonix palliatricula Cloaked marvel Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Gluphisia septentrionis Common gluphisia Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Idia aemula Common Idia Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Petrophordae sp. Common petrophora Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Zanclognatha obscuripennis Dark zancolognatha Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Pangrapta decoralis Decorated owlet Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Datana drexelli Drexel’s datana Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Malacosoma americanum Eastern tent catapillar Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Ennomos subsignaria Elm spanworm Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Hyphantria cunea Fall webworm Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Pheosia rimosa False sphinx Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Amolita fessa Feeble grass moth Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Hydria prunivorata Fergerson’s scallop shell Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Bomolocha manalis Flowing-line bomolocha Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Chrysanympha formosa Formosa looper Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Renia flavipunctalis Fraternal renia Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Probole amicaria Friendly probole Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Polia goddelli Godells’ arches Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Desmia funeralis Grape leaf folder Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Aglossa cuprina Grease moth Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Nadata gibbosa Green oak caterpillar Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Peridea angulosa Green oak caterpillar Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Lymantria dispar Gypsy Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Harrisimemna trsignata Harris’s three spot Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Acronicta haesitata Hesitant dagger Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Acronicta ovata Hesitant dagger moth complex Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Nematocampa resistaria Horned spanworm Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Zale horrida Horrid zale Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Hemaris thysbe Hummingbird moth Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Catocala ilia Ilia underwing Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Phrrharetia isabella Isabella tiger moth catapiller Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Phyllodesma americana Lappet Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Scopula limboundata Large lacked border Friends of Oxbow 2000 


*Prochoerodes transversata Large maple spanworm Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Lithacodia muscosula Large mossy lithacodia Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Zeuzera pyrina Leapord moth Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Itame pustularia Lesser maple sapnworm Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Acronicta longa Long-winged dagger Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Ledaea perditalis Lost owlet Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Parallelia bistriaris Maple looper Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Locmaeus bilineata Marble prominent Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Drepana bilineata Masked birch caterpillar Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Euchactias Milkweed tiger moth caterpillar Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Schizura ipomoeae Morning glory prominent Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Pero morrisonaria Morrison’s pero Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Macrurocampa marthesia Mottled prominent Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Lapara bombycoides Northern pine sphinx Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Lapara coniferarum Northern sphnix Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Hetrocampa obliqua Oblique heterocampa Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Zale orbliqua Oblique zale Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Hypagytis unipunctata One-spotted variant Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Idia diminuendis Orange spotted idia Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Halysidota tessellaris Pale tussock Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Eudryas unio Pearly wood nymph Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Lithacodia carneola Pink barred lithacodia Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Callopistria mollissima Pink shaded fern moth Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Antheraea polyphemus Polyphemus moth Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Protoboarmia porcelaria Porcelain gray Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Panopoda rufimargo Red-lined panopoda Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Dryocampa rubicunda Rosy maple moth Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Phragmatabia fuliginosa Ruby tiger Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Ectropis crepuscularia Saddleback looper Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Euchaena serrata Sawwing Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Hypoprepia fucosa Scarlet winged lilchen moth Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Eueretagrotis sigmoides Sigmoid dart Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Callopistria cordata Silver spotted fern moth Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Paonias astylus Small eyed spinx Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Eugonobapta nivosaria Snowy geometer Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Catocala sordida Sordid underwing Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Euclea delphinii Spiny oak slug Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Dasychira obligata Streaked tussock Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Cyclophora pendulinaraia Sweetfern geometer Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Panthea pallescens Tufted white pine caterpllar Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Tussock moth Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Ctenucha virginica Virginia ctenuchid Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Laothoe juglandis White sphinx Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Woodland moth Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Pyrrharctia isabella Woolybear (Isabella tiger moth) Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Spilosoma viginica Yellow bear tiger Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Colobochyla interpuncta Yellow lined owlet Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Agrotis ipsilon Ypsilon dart (cutworm) Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Scientific Name Status References 

*Abagrotis alternata Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Acrobasis stigmella Friends of Oxbow 2000 



- 185 -

- 186 - 


Amolita roseola Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Anaplectoides prasina Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Anomogyna praevia Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Callima argenticinctella Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Choristoneura pinus Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Chrystoteucha topiaria Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Dasychira cinnamomea Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Efermaladia giradellus Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Euchlaena muzaria Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Eufernalda agitatellus Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Eulithis explanata Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Euliths diversilineata Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Gabara subnivosella Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Heptagrotis phyllophora Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Herculia binodularis Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Herpetogramma aegealis Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Herpetogramma pertextalis Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Holomelina opella Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Idia rotundalis Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Leucania insueta Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Lithacodes fascola Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Macrochilo litophora Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Nemorim bistriaria Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Noctura pronuba Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Olethreutes lacunara Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Orgyia leucostigma Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Paonias myops Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Peoria approximella Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Redectis vitrea Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Renia salusalis Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Scopula cacuminaria Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Semiothisa granitata Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Semiothisa pinistrobata Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Semiothisda bisgnata Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Semiothsa minorata Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Tetralopha asperatella Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Zanclognatha laevigata Friends of Oxbow 2000 

*Zanclognatha protumnusalis Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Table D-6: Butterflies at Oxbow NWR 


Celestrina ladon Spring azure Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Nymphalis antiopa Mourning cloak Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Nymphalis antiopa Mourning cloak Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Megisto cymela Little wood satyr Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Vanessa virginiensis American lady Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Celastrina ladon neglecta Summer azure Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Phyciodes tharos Pearl crescent Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Speyeria cybele Great spangles fritterlary Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Vanessa atalanta Red admiral Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Ebidua anthedon Northern Pearly eye Friends of Oxbow 2000 



Danaus plexippus Monarch Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Papilio polyxenes Black swallowtail Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Pieris rapae Cabbage white Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Colias philodice Clouded sulphur Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Colias philodice Clouded sulphur (white) Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Coenonnypha tullia Common ringlet Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Colias philodice Common sulphur (albino) Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Euphyes vestris Dun skipper Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Polygonia comma Eastern comma Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Papilio glaucus Eastern tiger swallowtail Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Sattrides eurydice Eyed brown satyr Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Strymon melinus Gray hairstreak Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Feniseca tarquinius Harvester Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Poanes hobomok Hobomok skipper Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Ancyloxpha numitor Least skipper Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Thorybes pylades Northern cloudywing Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Colias eurytheme Orange sulphur Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Polygoina interrogationis Question mark Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Limenitis arthemis astyanax Red-spotted purple Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Epargyreus clarus Silver-spotted skipper Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Satyrium liparops Striped hairstreak Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Limenitis archippus Viceroy Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Table D-7: Dragonflies and Damselflies at Oxbow NWR 


Lestes rectangularis Spreadwing Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Pachydiplax longipennis Blue Dasher Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Sympetrum spp. Meadow Hawk Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Everes comyntas Eastern tailed blue Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Stylunus spiniceps Arrow clubtail Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Gomphus spp. Clubtail Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Hagenius brevistylus Common dragon hunter Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Libellula luctosa Common ringlet Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Ischnura verticalis Eastern forktail Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Erythemis simplicicollis Eastern pondhawk (green jacket) Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Calopenyx maculata Ebony jewelwing Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Ischnura posita Fragile foxtail Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Leucorrhinia frigida Frosted whiteface Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Porocordulia libera Racket tailed emerald Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Sympetrum ribiculdulum Ruby meadowhawk Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Libellula incesta Slaty skimmer Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Lestes rectangularis Slender spreadwing Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Nehalennia gracilis Sphagnum sprite Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Argia fumiphennis Violet dancer Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Libellula lustucosa Widow skimmer dragonfly Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Sympetrum vicinum Yellow legged meadownhawk Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Stylunus scudderi Zebra clubtail Friends of Oxbow 2000 


- 187 -

- 188 - 


Table D-8: Insects at Oxbow NWR 


Carabidae sp. Ground Beetle Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Chrysomealinae sp. Flower Beetle (red spotted) Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Chrysomealinae sp. Flower Beetle (yellow striped) Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Lycosidae sp. Running Wolf Spider Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Salticidae sp. Jumping Spider Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Dytiscus harrisi Predacious Diving Beetle Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Acilius sp. Water Tigers Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Tropisternus sp. Water Scavenger Beetle Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Eubranchipus vernalis Fairy Shrimp Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Limnephilidae sp. Caddis Fly Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Stratiomyidae sp. Soldier Fly Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Haliplidae sp. Crawling Water Beetle Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Malacosoma disstria Tent Caterpillers Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Ixodes scapularis Deer Ticks Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Simuliidae spp. Black flies Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Bombus spp. Bumble bee Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Halictidae family Burrowing bees Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Chironomidae family Midges Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Locusta spp. Locust Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Magicicada spp. Cicada Friends of Oxbow 2000 

(?) Metwing Beetle Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Alaus oculatus Eastern click beetle Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Myrmeleon spp. Ant Lions Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Birch leaf minor Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Leioburnun spp. Daddy long-legs Spider Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Potato Leaf Hopper Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Calopteron recticulatum Banded Netwing Beetle Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Chrysops spp. Deer fly Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Camponotus pennsylvanicus Carpenter ant Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Hover fly Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Scorpion fly Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Populla japonica Japanese beetle Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Cicindela punctulata Tiger beetle Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Photuris pennsylvanicus Firefly Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Rose leaf hopper Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Snout beetle Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Placoadella sp. Turtle Leech Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Placoadella sp. Turtle Leech Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Macrobdella decora American Mediainal Leech Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Pyrrharetia isabella Wooly bear (Isabella tiger 

moth catapiller) Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Psylla alni American alder pysllid Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Eliss pennanut 

(calithemeis elisa) Calico pennant Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Dernacebtor spp Eastern wood tick Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Culex pipineas House mosquito Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Leaf beetles Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Trichloptera Log cabin caddishfly Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Sympetrum sp. Meadowhawk Friends of Oxbow 2000 



Philaenus spumarius Meadown spittlebug Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Lygaeus kalmii Milkweed bug Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Culicidae (family) Mosquito Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Silk worm Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Cincindela sexguttata Six spotteed tiger beetle Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Lygaeus kalmii Small mildweed bug Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Collembola Springtails Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Tortis shell catepiller Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Eylais sp. Water mites Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Wild cheery leaf rolling plant hopper Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Table D-9: Freshwater Mollusks at Oxbow NWR 


Physella heterostroyha Freshwater Snails Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Planorbidae gyrauls Coiled Snail Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Elliptio complanate Eastern elliptio Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Lampsilis radiata Eastern lampmussel Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Alasmidonta undulata Triangle floater SC Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Andononta implicata Alewife floater Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Margaritifera margaritifera Eastern pearlshell Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Amnicola limnosa Little pond snail Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Sphaerium occidentalle Fingernail clam Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Orconectes rusticas Crayfish Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Table D-10: Vascular Plants at Oxbow NWR 


Athyrium filix-feminia Northern Lady fern Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Botrychium dissectum 

obliquum Dissected fern Sorrie, 1987 

Cystopteris tenuis Fragile fern Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Cystopteris tenuis Brittle Fern Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Dennstaedtia punctilobula Hay-scented fern Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Deparia acrostichoides Silvery spleenwort Sorrie, 1987 

Diphasiastrum digitatum Southern ground-cedar Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Diphasiastrum habereri Hybrid clubmoss Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Diphasiastrum tristachyum Slender ground-cedar Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Dryopteris carthusiana Spinulose woodfern Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Dryopteris cristata Crested woodfern Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Dryopteris intermedia Grandular woodfern (intermediate) Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Dryopteris marginalis Marginal woodfern Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Lygodium palmatum Climbing Fern SC Sorrie, 1987 

Drypolteris spinulosa Wood fern Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Equisetaceae fluviatile River horsetail Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Equisetaceae hyemale Scouring horsetail Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Equisetum arvense Common horsetail Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Equisetum fluviatile Swamp horsetail Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Equisetum hyemale Rough horsetail Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Equisteum sp. Horsetail Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Huperzia lucidula Shining clubmoss Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Lycopodium clavatum Common clubmoss Friends of Oxbow 2000 


- 189 -

- 190 - 


Lycopodium complanatum Running pine Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Lycopodium hickeyi Hickey’s princess pine Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Lycopodium obscurum Princess pine Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Lycopodium spp Club moss Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Matteuccia struthiopteris Ostrich fern Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Oncoclea sensibilis Sensitive fern Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Osmunda cinnamomea Cinnamon fern Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Osmunda claytoniana Interrupted fern Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Osmunda regalis Royal fern Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Platyneuron Ebony spleenwort Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Polystichum acrostichoides Christmas fern Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Pteridium aquilinum Bracken fern Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Thelypteris noveboracensis New York fern Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Thelypteris pdustris Marsh fern Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Thelypteris simulata Massachusetts fern Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Eleocharis ovata Ovate Spike Sedge SE Hunt 1991 

Abies balsamea Balsam fir Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Juniperus spp. Juniper Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Pinus rigida Pitch pine Sorrie, 1987 

Pinus strobus White pine Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Aralia nudicaulis Wild sasparilla Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Arisaema atrorubens Jack-in-the-pulpit Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Calamagrostis coarctata Bluejoint Reed Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Carex crinita Fringed sedge Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Carex stricita Tussock sedge Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Cypripedium acaule Pink Lady’s slipper Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Dulichium arundianaceum Three-way sedge Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Epipactis helleborine Helleborine Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Eriocaylon septangulare Pipe Wort Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Erythronium americanum Trout Lily (Yellow alder’s tongue) Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Goodyera pubescens Downy rattlesnake plantain Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Iris versicolor Blue flag iris Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Juncus effusus Soft rush Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Leersia oryzoides Rice cut-grass Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Lemna minor Lesser Duckweed Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Lilium philadelphicum Wood lily Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Nughar variegatum Yellow cow lily Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary grass Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Plantago spp. Water Plantain Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Saggitaria latifolia Arrowhead Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Schizachyrium scoparium Little bluestem Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Scirpus atrovirens Black Bulrush Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Scirpus cyperinus Bulrush Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Sparganiaceae spp. Bur-reed spp. Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Spirodela polyrrhiza Greater Duckweed Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Symplocarpus foetidus Skunk Cabbage Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Sparganium minimum Small Bur-Reed SE Searcy 1994 

Typha latifolia Cat-tails Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Veratrum viride False Hellebore Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Acer rubrum Red maple Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Acer saccharinum Silver maple Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Aesculus hippocastanum Horse chestnut Friends of Oxbow 2000 



Alnus rugosa Speckled alder Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Betula papyrifera Paper birch Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Betula papyrifera White birch Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Betula populifloria Grey birch Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Carpinus carolinana Ironwood (Blue Beech) Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Castanea dentata American chestnut Sorrie, 1987 

Carya ovata Shagbark hickory Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Comandra umbellata Bastard-toadflax Sorrie, 1987 

Comptonia peregrina Sweet fern Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Corylus americana American hazelnut Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Crataegus spp Hawthorne Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Fraxinus americana White ash Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Hamamelis virginiana Witch hazel Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Malus prunifolia Plum-leaf apple Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Malus pumila Apple Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Myrica gale Sweet gale Sorrie, 1987 

Ostrva virginiaia Hop-hornbeam (Ironwood) Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Overcus bicolor Swamp white oak Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Pinus rigida Pitch pine Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Populus deltoides Cottonwood Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Populus grandidentata Big-toothed aspen Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Populus tremuloides Quaking aspen Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Populus balsamifera Balsam Poplar WL Hunt 1991 

Prunus serotina Black Cherry Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Quercus alba White oak Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Quercus palustris Pin Oak Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Quercus coccinea Scarlet oak Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Quercus prinus Chestnut oak Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Quercus rubra Red oak Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Quercus velutina Black oak Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Salix discolor Willow Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Salix nigra Black willow Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Sorbus americana Mountain-ash Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Tilia americana Basswood Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Ulmus americana American elm Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Viburnum dentatum Arrowood viburnum Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Elaeagnus angustifolia Autumn olive Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Berberis vulgaris European barberry Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Myrica pensylvanica Bayberry Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Verbena hastata Blue vervain Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Rubus spp Bramble Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Arctium minus Burdock Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Rhamnus cathartica Common buckthorn Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Sambucus canadensis Common elderberry Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Rubus flagellaris Dewberry Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Elaeagnus sp Eleganus Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Vitis labrusca Fox-grape Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Rhamnus frangula Glossy buckthorn Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Crataegus sp Hawthorne shrub Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Vaccinium corymbosum Highbush blueberry Friends of Oxbow 2000 


- 191 -

- 192 - 


Lonicera spp Honeysuckle Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Berberis thunbergii Japanese barberry Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Vaccinium vacillans Lowbush blueberry Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Lyonia ligustrina Maleberry Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Spiraea latifolia Meadowsweet Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Kalmia latifolia Mountain laurel Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Rose multiflora Multiflora rose Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Viburnum lentago Nannyberry Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Celastrus orbiculatus Oriental bittersweet Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Cornus racemosa Panicked dogwood Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Juniperus communis Pasture juniper Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Toxicodendron radicani Poison ivy Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Salix discolor Pussy Willow Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Actaea rubra Red Baneberry Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Uitis riparia Riverbank grape Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Amelanchier canadensis Shad Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Amelanchier laevis Shadbush Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Cornus sp. Shrubby dogwood Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Cornus amomum Silky dogwood Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Rhus glabra Smooth sumac Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Rhus typhia Staghorn sumac Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Spiraea tomentosa Steeplebush Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Chimaphila maculata Striped wintergreen Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Rosa palustris Swamp rose Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia creeper Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Clematis virginiana Virgins bower Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Verbena urticifolia White verbain Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Cornus racemosa White Dogwood Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Ribes americanum Wild currant Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Viburnum rudum 

var. cassinoidos Wild raisin Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Rosa sp. Wild rose Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Rhus copallinum Winged Sumac Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Ilex vertecillata Winterberry Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Acelepias syricaca Milkweed Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Achillea millefolium Yarrow Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Actaea pachypoda White baneberry (Doll’s eyes) Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Ambrosia artemisiifolia Common Ragweed Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Anemone quinquefolia Wood anemone Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Apios americana Groundnut Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Arctium minus Burdock (common) Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Aster cordifolius Heart leaved aster Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Aster divaricatus White wood aster Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Aster ericoides Many flowered aster Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Aster linariifolius Stiff aster Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Aster novae-angliae New England aster Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Liatris borealis New England Blazing Star SC Hunt 1991 

Aster novi-belgii New York aster Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Aster pilosus Heath aster Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Aster umbellatus Flat top white aster Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Baptisia tinctoria Wild indigo Friends of Oxbow 2000 



Barbarea spp. Winter cress Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Bidens coronata Tickseed sunflower Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Bidens frondosa Beggar ticks Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Geranium bicknellii 

var. bicknelli Bicknell’s Cranesbill WL Hunt 1991 

Boehmeria cylindrica Bog-hemp (fasle nettle) Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Centaurea jacea Brown knapweed Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Centaurea maculosa Spotted knapweed Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Chelone glabra White turtlehead Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Chimiaphila maculata Variegated pipsissewa Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Chimiaphila umbellata Pipsissewa Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Chrysanthemum 

leucanthemum Oxye daisy Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Cichorium intybus Chicory Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Cicuta maculata Water hemlock Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Circaea lutetiana Enchanter’s Nightshade Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Cirsium arvense Canadian thistle Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Cirsium vulgare Common Thistle Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Clematis virginiana Clematis Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Cuscuta gronovii Common Dodder Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Cusuta gronovii Dodder Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Daucus carota Queen Annes lace Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Desmodium canadense Showy tick trefoil Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Dianthus armeria Deptford pink Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Erigeron annuus Daisy fleabane Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Erigeron sp. Fleabane Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Eupatorium dubium Eastern Joe-Pye weed Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Eupatorium maculatum Joe-pye weed Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Eupatorium perfoliatum Boneset Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Euthamia graminifolia Grass leaved (lace-leaved) goldenrod Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Fragaria virginiana Wild Strawberry Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Galium mollugo Bedstraw - wild madder Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Galium spp trifidum Tree lobed bedstraw (small) Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Galium tinctorium Stiff Marsh-bedstraw Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Galium tomctproi Clayton’s bedstraw Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Gentiana clausa Bottle gentian Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Glechoma hederacea Ground ivy Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Helianthus tuberosus Jerusalem artichoke Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Hepatica nobilis var. obtusa Hepitica round leafed Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Hesperis matronalis Dame’s Rocket Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Houstonia caerulea Bluets (quaker lady) Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Hypericum perforatum St. Johnswort Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Hypericum punctatum St. Johnswort, spotted Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Hypericum virginiacum Marsh St. Johns wort Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Impatiens capensis Jewelweed (touch-me-not) Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Lactuca biennis Tall blue lettuce Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Lactuca canadensis Wild lettuce Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Linaria canadensis Blue toadflax Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Lycopus spp. Water Horehound Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Lysimachia ciliata Fringed loosestrife Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Lysimachia quadrifolia Whorled loosestrife Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Asarum canadense Wild ginger WL Friends of Oxbow 2000 


- 193 -

- 194 - 


Lysimachia terrestris Swamp Candle Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Maianthemum candaense Canada mayflower Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Matricaria discoidea Pineapple-weed Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Melilotus alba White sweet clover Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Mentha arvensis Wild mint Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Mimulus ringens Blue Monkey Flower Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Monotropa uniflora Indian Pipe Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Nuphar variegata Yellow water-lily Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Oenothera perennis Small Sundrops Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Bidens discoidea Small Beggar-Ticks WL Hunt 1991 

Oenothera sp. Evening primrose Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Phytolacca americana Pokeweed Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Pilea pomila Clearweed Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Plantago major Plantain Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Plantago major var. major Common Plantain Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Polygonum punctatum Smartweed Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Potentilla norvegica Rough Cinquefoil Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Potentilla simplex Old field cinquefoil Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Prunella vulgaris Self heal Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Pyrola elliptica Elliptic Shinleaf Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Ranunculus abortivus Small flowered buttercup (crowsfoot) Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Rubus idaeus Black raspberry Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Rubus idaeus Red raspberry Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Rudbeckia serotina Black eyed susan Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Rumex acetosella Sheep sorrel Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Rumex crispus Curled dock Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Sanguinaria canadensis Bloodroot Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Saponaria officinalis Bouncing bet Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Solanum dulcamara Bittersweet Nightshade Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Solidago caesia Blue stemmed goldenrod Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Solidago juncea Early goldenrod Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Solidago patula Rough-leaved goldenrod Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Solidago puberula Downy goldenrod Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Solidago rugosa Rough-stemmed goldenrod Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Solidago spp. Field goldenrod Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Tanacetum vulgare Tansy Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Taraxacum officinale Dandelion Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Thalictrum polygamum Tall meadow rue Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Tragopogon porrifolius Goat’s Beard (Oysterplant) Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Trientalis borealis Starflower Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Trifolium arvense Rabbitfoot clover Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Trifolium pratense Red clover Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Trifolium procumbens Hop clover Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Trifolium repens White clover Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Trifolium spp. Clover Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Urtica dioica Stinging nettle Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Urtica procera Tall nettle Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Urtica sp. Nettle Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Verbascum thapsus Common mullen Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Verbena urticifolia White vervain Friends of Oxbow 2000 



Veronica officinalis Common speedwell Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Vicia craecca American vetch Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Vicia spp. Vetch Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Viola septentrionalis Violet, northern blue Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Viola spp Violet (long leaved) Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Viola spp. Blue violet Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Virginia otenucha Native loosestrife Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Vitis spp. Wild Grape Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Ganoderma applanatum Artists conch Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Poloyporus betulinus Birch polypore Friends of Oxbow 2000 

not found Black knot of cherry Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Cantharellus cinnabarinus Cinnabar-red Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Laccaria laccata Common lacara Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Galerina autumnalis Deadly galerina Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Geastrum spp Earth star Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Russula emetica Emetic russula Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Scutellinia scutellata Eyelash cup Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Monotropa uniflora Indian pipes Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Ganoderma lucidum Ling chih Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Pleurotus ostreatus Oyster Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Lycoperdon umbrium Pear shaped Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Scleroderma citrinum Pigskin poison puffballs Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Mirasmius sp Pinwheel Friends of Oxbow 2000 

not found Scaly pugskin puffball Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Nymphodies Spagnum moss Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Collybia maculata Spotted collybia Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Tricentalis borealis Starflower Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Daedalea conjiagosa Thin mazae flat poloypore Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Thametes versicolor Turkey tail Friends of Oxbow 2000 

not found Vescolor polypores Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Poloyoporus albellus White chese polypore Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Tremella mesenterica Witches butter Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Cladonia cristatella British soldiers Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Candelariella sp Egg yoke lichen Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Evernia mesomorpha Flabby antler lichen Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Trapeliopsis granulosa Gray earth lichen Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Amandinea punctata Gret stupple lichen Friends of Oxbow 2000 

not found Haircap moss Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Cladonia cervicornis Lichen (Cladonia cervicornis) Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Cladonia grayi Lichen (Cladonia grayi) Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Cladonia rei Lichen (Cladonia rei) Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Lecanora dispersa Lichen (Lecanora dispersa) Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Micaria sp. Lichen (Micaria sp). Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Peltigra didactyla Lichen (Peltigra didactyla) Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Placynthiella icmalea Lichen (Placynthiella icmalea) Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Placynthiella oligotropha Lichen (Placynthiella oligotropha) Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Trapelia involuta Lichen (Trapelia involuta) Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Verrucaria sp Lichen (Verrucaria) Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Caloplaca sp. Orange lichen (fire dots) Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Dibaeis baeomhyces Pink earth lichen Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Cladonia conicoraea Power horn lichen Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Hypogymnia physodes Puffed shield lichen Friends of Oxbow 2000 


- 195 -

- 196 - 


Cladina rangiferina Reindeer lichen Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Cladina subtenuis Reindeer lichen Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Micarea erratica Rock tar lichen Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Physcia stellaris Rosette lichen Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Placynthiella uliginosa Tar lichen Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Cladonia macilenta White pine lichen Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Flavoparmelia caperata Wrinkled shield lichen Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Anthoceros laevis not found Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Ptilidium pulcherrimum not found Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Bazzania trilobata not found Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Norwellia curvifolia not found Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Geocalyx graveolens not found Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Lophozia capitata not found Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Porella pinnata not found Friends of Oxbow 2000 

Frullania not found Friends of Oxbow 2000 

References Used for the Oxbow NWR Species List 

Baseline Study 1993 Biological and Endangered Species Baseline Study Fort Devens, Massachusetts. ABB 

Environmental Services, Inc. August 1993 

Mello & Peters 1994 Mello, Mark J. and Edward Peters. List of Macrolepidoptera collected at Oxbow Wildlife 

Refuge in 1994. 

Mello & Peters 1992 Mello, Mark J. and Edward Peters. Survey of Lepidoptera at Fort Devens with notes on 

Sudbury Annex. Lloyd Center for Environmental Studies. April - November 1992. 

Thomas 1992 Thomas, Howard H. , PhD. Small Mammal Surveys of the Sudbury Training Annex, Sudbury, 

Middlesex County, Massachusetts and Fort Devens Military Reservation, Lancaster, Worcester County, 

and Shirley, Middlesex County, Massachusetts. Fitchburg State College. April - December 1992. 

USFWS 1999 USFWS Fisheries Sections for Comprehensive Conservation Plan “Affected Environment”. 

David A Tilton and Melissa Brewer 

Brewer 2000 Correspondance from Melissa Brewer dated January 11, 2000 (An update to the fish species list 

in the Nashua River) 

Hunt 1991 David M. Hunt. Floristic Survey with Emphasis on Rare Species of Fort Devens, Massachusetts. 

December 1991 

Searcy 1994 Karen Searcy, Matthew Hickler and Bruce Lindwell. Progress Report: Critical Habitata and 

Floristics Survey of Fort Devens, Massachusetts, 1994 continuation. Biology Department, University of 

Massachusetts. October 15, 1994 

Lockwood 2000 Observations by Ron Lockwood while birding on refuge land during field season. 

Lockwood - BBS 2000 Year 2000 survey results from breeding bird survey by Ron Lockwood & Lisa Plagge 

Friends of Oxbow 2000 Observations by the Friends of Oxbow NWR during Biodiversity Days 2000 Programs 

(John McCarter 3/19; Bryan Windmiller 4/15; Wayne Peterson 4/29; Elizabeth Bagdonas 4/29; Roy 

Christoph 5/12, Peter Alden 5/13, Russ Cohen 6/17, Kathy Leahy 7/19, Joe Choinere 7/29, Kate O’Brien 

7/29, Richard Hartley 8/12, John McCarter 8/13, Ray Abair & Dan Lubin 8/13, Paul Wanta 8/13 

Plagge 2000 Observations by Lisa Plagge, Biological Technician at Great Meadows NWR while completing 

wildlife field surveys 

McCarter 2000 Mammals documented at Oxbow NWR, Summer 1998 - Winter 2000 by Jon McCarter 

KEY TO “STATUS” COLUMN NOTATIONS 


FE Federally Endangered 

FT Federally Threatened 

SE State (MA) Endangered 

ST State (MA) Threatened 

SC State (MA) Special Concern 

WL State (MA) Watch List Species 


NAWCA North American Waterfowl Management Plan Priority Species 

NGSMC US Fish & Wildlife Service Region 5 Nongame Species of Managemtent Concern 

SRC US Fish & Wildlife Service Region 5 Species of Regional Concern 

Friends of the Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge 

Biodiversity 2000 

Naturalist Leaders Resumes 

Ray Abair - Ferns and Mosses 

Ray Abair began studying plants in 1989 and has since taken many courses at the New 

England Wildflower Society and The Arnold Arboretum. He received Certificates ‘ Native 

Plant Studies, Field Botany and Floristic Survey Techniques from the New In England 

Wildflower Society where he also conducts field trips and teaches fems and mosses. He 

studied mosses at the Farlow Herbarium. Membersh’ps include the Arnold Arboretum, 

Friends of the Farlow, New England Wildflower Society and the New England Botany 

Club. 

Peter Alden - Envasive Plants, Birds, General Ecology 

Peter Alden was the sparkplug for the July 1998 Biodiversity Day in Concord and Lincoln, 

Massachusetts. He is working with the Secretary of Environmental Affairs to implement 

a state-wide program. Peter is nationally recognized naturalist and has written several 

field guides for the National Audubon Society such as the “Field Guild to African Wildlife.” 

Closer to home, he the recently wrote the National Audubon Society “Field Guide to New 

En land.” 

Elizabeth Bagdonas - Emeruent Spring Plants 

Elizabeth Bagdonas is a wetlands biologist and Conservation Administrator for the town 

of Bedford, Massachusetts. She has taught botany at the Worcester Horticultural Society 

Tower Hill facility and lead workshops on vernal pools and wetlands for the Massachusetts 

Association of Conservation Commissions. 

Rona Balco - Vernal Pools and Wildflowers 

Rona Balco has a long history of teaching the natural world to children. She has led a 

project resulting in the restoration of a dam and associated freshwater marsh on local 

conservation land and conducted plant and animal inventories. Rona is a guide teacher for 

the Massachusetts Audubon Society Wachusett Meadow Wildlife Sanctuary. She has a 

Certificate in Native Plant Studies from the New England Wildflower Society and is a 

graduate of the University of Massachusetts Coverts Program. She has also served as a 

Director of the Bolton Land Trust and been an Associate Member of the Bolton 

Conservation Commission. 


- 197 -

- 198 - 


Joe Choiniere - Nesting Birds and General Ecology 

Joe Choinere is Director of the Massachusetts Audubon Society Wachusett Meadow 

Wildlife Sanctuary. In addition to managing all aspects of Sanctuary operations, he 

develops and teaches natural history programs on New England pants and animals. At 

Wachusett he has lead programs focused on bringing school age children to the Sanctuary 

to provide on-the-ground natural history experiences. Joe trains and supervises 

undergraduate college intems in field biology. He has been guest lecturer on old growth 

forests and wildlife management at colleges and universities throughout the region and 

has a degree in Natural History from the University of Massachusetts. 

Gene Christoph - Mushrooms 

ene Christoph is a retired science teacher. He has been active in community affairs, 

serving on the Lancaster Planning Board and is a member of the Lancaster Land Trust. 

Rov Chistorph - Birds 

Inspired by at teacher when he was 8 years old, Roy Chn’stoph has been a bird lover 

specializin- in warblers. He has a BS degree in biology from Atlantic Union Collece. 

Russ Cohen - Edible Plants 

Russ has been a wild foods enthusiast since his high school years. He leads dozens of wild 

foods teachin- pro,-rams yearly. He holds a Bachelors Degree in land use planniny from 

Vasser College and a law degree from Ohio State University. Russ works in the 

Riverways Program of the Massachusetts Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Law 

Enforcement. Among his awards are: the Environmental Achievement Award from Save 

the Bay, Environmental Service Award from the Massachusetts Association of 

Conservation Commissions and the Public Servant of the Year Award from the 

Environmental League of Massachusetts. 

Al Ferry - Mushrooms 

Al Ferry is a member of the North American Mycology Association, has co-chaired the 

North East Mushroom Foray for more 15 years and has been on the Identification 

Committee of the Boston Mycological Club, the oldest such organization in North America. 

Richard Hartley - Fishes 

Mr. Hartley has been the Massachusetts State Warm and Coldwater Project Leader for 9 

years. He is a 1990 graduate from the University of Maine with a Masters Degree in 

Zoology, with a concentration in fisheries. 

Pat Huckery - Mollusks 

Ms. Huckery has worked as Conservation Biologist for the Massachusetts Natural 

Heritage and Endangered Species Program for 10 years where she conducts surveys for 

state-protected rare vertebrates and invertebrates and oversees vernal pool certification 

and education. She is a leader in freshwater mussel conservation and coordinated the 

publication of the first Massachusetts Freshwater Mussel Atlas. Ms. Huckery has a 

Bachelors Degree from Florida Southern College and a Masters Degree in Environmental 

Science from the University of Massachusetts. She is a Professional Wetlands Scientist 

and is member of the National Biological Society 



Elizabeth Knieper - Lichens 

Ms.KnelperhasaMastersinBioloo,ydegree,withspecialty’nlichenology. She is a teacher at 

the New England Wildflower Society Garden in the Woods focusing on lichens and their 

habitat, is a volunteer at the Harvard University Herbarium and is a member of the New 

England Lichen Network-. Ms. Knelper conducts lichen inventories as a consultant and 

participated in the 1998 pilot “Blodiversity” program in Concord and Lincoln 


Kathleen Leahy- Day Insects 

Kathleen Leahy is an orchard ecosystem consultant who works with over twenty growers 

in central New England, including, the Bolton/Harvard area. She is a specialist is 

Integrated Pest Manacement, a technique for managing pests in ways that are least 

disruptive to the ecosystem. Most of her clients refer to her as “the ladv bug.” 

Bob Leverett - Trees and Shrubs 

An expert on New England’s old growth forests, Bob Leverett has lead educational 

programs for the Massachusetts Audubon Society, Appalachian Mountain Club and other 

conservation organizations. Co-founder of the Eastern Native Tree Society, he has 

written extensively about ancient forests in the northeast. His works include co-authoring 

“Eastern Old Growth Forests - Prospects for Rediscovery and Recovery”, “Stalking the 

Forest Monarch - A Guide to Measuning Champion Trees” and “Re-Wildlng the Northeast 

- A New Wilderness Paradigm.” The Massachusetts Natural Heritace Program recognizes 

Bob as the discoverer of most of the 40 odd known old growth stands in Massachusetts. 

Don Lubin - Ferns and Mosses 

Don Lubin has a BA degree in physics from Brandeis University with lonc, experience 

identifying and cataloging fems. He has found uncommon hybrid wood fems and collected 

specimens for the New England Botanical Club collection at the Asa Gray Herbarium. 

Don leads classes and field trips for the New England Wildflower Society and is 

conducting a census of fems and fem allies the Wachusett Mountain Reservation. He has 

conducted surveys for the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program, Metropolitan 

District Commission, Sudbury Valley Trustees, Nature Conservancy and Trustees of 

Reservations. 

Mark Mello - Night Insects 

Mark Mello is a Director of the Lloyd Center for Environmental Studies in South 

Dartmouth, Massachusetts. 

John McCarter - Mammals 

Animal tracker John McCarter is a staff instructor for Paul Rezendes Photography and 

Nature programs. He has taught for Outdoor Recreation Services in Carlisle and has lead 

outings for the Friends of the Oxbow National Wildlife Refuce. 


- 199 -

- 200 - 


Kate O’Brien - Emergent Wetlands Plants 

Kate O’Brien received her Masters in Wildlife Ecology from the Yale School of Forestry 

and Environmental Studies. Her projects have included studies of the Hawaiian monk 

seal, moose and deer in the boreal forests of Saskatchewan and sonc7bird research in 

South Carolina. She specializes in quantifying wildlife habitat by surveying vegetation. 

Kate works for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at the Rachel Carson National Wildlife 

Refuge in Maine. 

Jessie Panek - Wildflowers 

Jessie Panek leads tours at the Garden in the Woods, the display garden of the New 

England Wildflower Society. She has taken numerous courses there, and designed their 

exhibit for the New England Flower Show in 1997. She has studied at Radcliffe’s 

Landscape Design Program, and works as a landscape designer. Her interest in 

wildflowers grew out of a love of gardening and birdwatching. 

Wayne Peterson - Birds 

Wayne Peterson is Field Omitholoaist with the Massachusetts Audubon Society. 

Throughout his career, he has led trips and tours, lectured and conducted birdiny 

workshops throughout North America. His tour leading experience has taken him from 

arctic Canada to South America, Antarctica, Iceland, Africa and Madagascar. Wayne is 

vice President of the American Birding Association, past Chairman of the Massachusetts 

Avian Report Committee, and is a New Encland Regional Editor for North American 

Birds. His writing projects have included co-authoring Birds of Massachusetts (with 

Richard Veit), contributor to the Audubon Society Master Guide to Birding, and writing 

the National Audubon Society’s Pocket Guide to Songbirds and Familiar Backyard Birds 

(East). 

Scott Reyonlds - Bats 

D. Scott Reynolds is a populations biologist and holds a PhD in biology. He manges his 

own consulting company, New England Ecological Sciences. 

David Small - Birds, Butterflies and Dragonflies 

David Small is Supervisor of Watershed Maintenance at the Quabbin Reservoir for the 

Metropolitan District Commission. He is a lifelong naturalist and President of the Athol 

Bird and Nature Club. 

Jeremiah R. Trimble - Dragonflies and Damselflies 

Jeremiah Trimble is symbolic of our hope for the future. A recent Connecticut College 

graduate majoring in zoology, he has established himself as a leading New England 

dragonfly expert. He served on the Zoology Advisory Board of the Connecticut College 

Zoology Department. Project work included profiling species of endangered dragonflies 

and damselflies for the Massachusetts Endangered Species Program and collecting data 

and conducting impact studies on odondates as part of the environmental impact 

statements at the former Otis Air Force Base. As a research assistant, he conducted 

studies on feeding habits of dragonflies, surveyed moth and butterflies at the 

Massachusetts Audubon Society Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary, researched the 

abundance and diversity of breeding birds on St. John in the U.S. Virgin Islands and 


developed dragonfly conservation plans. He is also a field trip leader for the 

Massachusetts Audubon Society. 


Paul Wanta - Mammals 

Paul Wanta teaches wilderness skills at the Tracking Project in Albuquerque, New 

Mexico, and for Paul Renzendes of Royalston, Massachusetts. He has fourteen years 

tracking experience and study. During his biodiversity program young people and their 

parents discovered tracks and other indications of animals who live on the Refuge. 

Participating trackers move quietly, camouflaging themselves in the terrain, and elevate 

their perceptions to detect animal signs. With Paul’s help young trackers gain an 

important element of outdoor literacy — the abillty to read the clues left behind by our 

animal neighbors. 

Jack Whelan - Vernal Pools 

Jack Whelan is a member of the Harvard Conservation Commission and has taught vernal 

pool certication programs. He is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts Coverts 

program. As a trail guide in the town of Harvard, he works with elementary school 

children in introducing them to the joys of understanding the natural world. 

Bryan Windmiller - Salamanders, Turtles, Snakes 

Bryan Wildmiller is the principal herpetologist of Hyla Associates, an environmental 

consulting firm that he founded. The company serves local conservation commission and 

state and federal environmental agencies in matters pertaining to the conservation and 

protection of amphibians, reptiles and vernal pools. Mr. Windmiller is an expert in the 

1998 Concord/Lincoln Biodiversity Day and served on the Concord Natural Resource 

Commission. 


- 201 -

- 202 - 





Appedix E: RONS and MMS 

The Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS) lists refuge projects over $20,000. The 

Management Maintenance System (MMS) identifies maintenace needs on refuges. 

Projects on both lists are prioritized and initated as funding becomes available. Funding is 

allocated through the Service’s Northeast Regional Office and is based on Congressional 

appropriation to the Service. 

Project: this list includes projects currently in the RONS database and projects proposed 

in the CCP. 

FTE: full time staffing equivalent. One fte equals one person working full time for one 

whole year; seasonal employees are considered 0.5 fte. (note: staff are often “shared” by 

multiple rons projects) 

Cost, year 1: estimated costs incurred during the first year of a project - typically higher 

than recurring costs, due to construction, equipment purchase, or other start-up expenses. 

Cost, recurring: estimated average annual project cost for subsequent years; includes 

recurring salary and maintenance costs. 

Project duration: estimated length of time for each project. Since this CCP will be revised 

in 15 years, the “maximum project duration” is 15 years, even though some projects may 

continue into the next planning cycle 

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

Oxbow NWR 

Project FTE Startup 

cost 

Oversee refuge management, planning, 

programs, administration and maintenance 

Provide wildlife and habitat management 

planning, implementation, and evaluation 

Collect essential biological data to 

efficiently manage the refuge 

Provide planning and implementation of 

wildlife-dependent public use programs 

Provide refuge visitor protection and law 

enforcement 

GS 11 

Refuge 

Ops. 

Spec. 

GS 11 

Wildlife 

Biologist 

GS 9 

Biol. 

Tech. 

GS 11 

Outdoor 

Rec. 

Planner 

GS 7 

(LE) 

Park 


Annual Duration 

cost (years) 

x1,000 x 1,000 

139 74 15 

133 68 15 

123 58 15 

133 68 15 

114 49 15 

- 203 -

- 204 - 


Project FTE Startup 

cost 

x1,000 

Provide refuge maintenance and facilities 

repair 

Provide habitat restoration, maintenance, 

and facilities repair 

Provide refuge Visitor Contact Station 

support, administrative programs, and 

visitor services 

Assessment and monitoring of hazardous 

waste landfills 

Inventory and evaluate status of key 

wildlife species 

Develop Habitat Inventory and 

Management Plan 

Conduct cultural resources overview of 

refuge 

Conduct wetland habitat restoration and 

maintenance 

Conduct upland habitat restoration and 

maintenance 

Ranger 

WG 8 

Maint. 

Worker 

WG 5 

Main. 

Worker 

GS 5 

Admin 

Tech. 

Annual 

cost 

x 1,000 

118 53 15 

110 45 15 

107 42 13 

21 0 1 

55 55 2 

50 12 2 

40 5 3 

72 15 15 

143 25 15 

Increase security through new gates 28 14 2 

Construct, improve and maintain visitor 

trails, wildlife viewing platforms, and 

photography blinds 

180 20 15 

Construct and maintain three on-site 

interpretive kiosks 

45 4 15 

With partners, construct and maintain 

three off-site interpretive kiosks 

25 2 15 

Construct exhibits and operate Visitor 

Contact Station 

95 25 2 

Restore and maintain grassland habitat 25 6 15 

Provide for seasonal employee/volunteer 

housing 

225 15 13 

Survey of mussels on the Nashua River 30 5 5 

Conduct essential migratory bird surveys 

for sound management 

43 8 15 

Reptile, amphibian, and invertebrate 

surveys 

45 10 5 

Control exotic and invasive species 85 25 8 

Develop and maintain parking areas and 

canoe launches 

120 12 15 

Total 2,304 715 


Duration 

(years)

Table E-2: Projects currently backlogged in the MMS for Oxbow NWR 

Project # 

(SAMMS) 

Appedix E: RONS and MMS 

Project Name Cost 

Estimate 

($1,000) 

00104419 Replace gates 50 

00104407 Rehab powerline trail 38 

01110810 Remove military foundations 43 

00104406 Nashua River trail 41 

01111833 Replace 1991 Blazer 28 

00110309 Office/VCS 1,357 

00 Manufactured home 254 

00123753 Accessible trail 90 

00123753 Two parking areas 108 

Total 2,009 

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

Complex 

Project # 

(SAMMS) 

Project Name Cost 

Estimate 

($1,000) 

01113926 Replace 1979 tractor trailer 55 

99104362 Replace 1992 S-10 32 

99104364 Replace 1991 Suburban 37 

00104409 Replace 17’ aluminum boat 27 

00104417 Replace 23’ Sea Ox 42 

00104412 Replace Boston Whaler 26 

01111811 Replace 00 Suburban 40 

01111813 Replace 00 Durango 37 

02120884 Replace 01 1-ton pickup 42 

02120936 Replace 19’ Carolina skiff 29 

02120939 Replace 02 crew cab pickup 28 

02120942 Replace 01 ½ ton pickup 25 

00110311 Visitor center phase I 522 

00110344 Visitor center phase II 908 

00110539 Visitor center phase III 5,386 

Total 7,026 


- 205 -

- 206 - 




Appendix F: Staffing charts 

Appendix F: Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Staffing Chart 


- 207 -

- 208 - 

Appendix F: Staffing charts 


-209- 

Maintenance 

Mechanic 

WG-9 

Maintenance 

Worker 

WG-7/8 

*Laborer 

WG-3 

Office Assistant 

GS-6 

*Administrative 

Support Asst. 

GS-5 

Park Ranger 

GS-5/7 

* Great Meadows 


GS-12 

Biologist 

GS-11 

Park Ranger 

GS-5/7 

Park Ranger 

GS-5/7 

Education Specialist 

GS-11 

Biotech 

GS-5/7 

Maintenance Worker 

WG-5/7 

Outreach Spec./ 

Volunteer Coord 

GS-11 

Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Assabet River, Great Meadows, and Oxbow National Wildlife Refuges 

Proposed Staffing Chart 


GS-12 

Biotech 

GS-9 

Equipment 

Operator 

WG-5 

Park Ranger 

(LE) 

GS-7/9/11 

*Oxbow Refuge 

Operations Specialist 

GS-11 

Project Leader 

GS-14 

Deputy Project 

Leader 

GS-13 

Oxbow/Assabet 


GS-12 

*Maintenance 

Worker 

WG-9 

*Admin Support 

Asst 

GS-6 

*Outdoor Recreation 

Planner 

GS-9 

*Park Ranger 

GS-5/7 

*Assabet Refuge 

Operations Specialist 

GS-11 

*Park Ranger 

GS-9 

*Maintenance 

Worker 

WG-8 

*Biologist 

GS-7 

Administrative 

Officer 

GS-9 

Wildlife 

Biologist 

GS-12 

*Outdoor Recreation 

Planner 

GS-9 

*Maintenance 

Worker 

WG-5 

Forester (Complex) 

GS-7/9/11 Admin Tech 

GS-3/5 

Highlighted boxes show proposed positions. 

This chart does not depict additional staff for Mashpee, Massasoit, Monomoy, Nomans Land Island, and Nantucket NWRs 

* Positions that are currently vacant. 

Biologist 

GS-11 

Supv. Outdoor 

Rec Planner 

GS-11/12 

*Park Ranger 

GS-5/7 

*Park Ranger 

GS-5/7 (term) 

*Field Training 

Officer 

GS-11 

Park Ranger 

GS-7 

Appendix F: Staffing Charts

Appendix G: Final Compatibility determinations 


- 210 - Oxbow NWR

Appendix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 


Appedix G: Final Compatibility Determinations 

- 211 -


Compatibility Determination 

Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Refuge Name: Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing Authority: Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1974 under an Act 

Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife, or Other Purposes. (16 U.S.C. 

667b). 

Refuge Purpose: Oxbow NWR’s purpose is its “...particular value in carrying out the national 

migratory bird management program.” (16 U.S.C. 667b-d, as amended) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: To administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 

Description of Use: Environmental education includes activities which seek to increase public 

knowledge and understanding of wildlife and the importance of habitat protection and 

management. Typical activities include teacher or staff-guided on-site field trips, off-site programs 

in classrooms, and nature study, such as teacher and student workshops and curriculumstructured 

instruction, and interpretation of wildlife resources. The refuge also conducts an Urban 

Education program which offers these programs to students from the Boston and Worcester 

schools. 

Interpretation includes those activities and supporting infrastructure that explain management 

activities, fish and wildlife resources, ecological processes, and cultural history among other topics 

to public users. Programs and activities may be developed, sponsored and supervised by the 

Friends of Oxbow NWR. 

Access to the refuge for these activities is achieved through walking, snowshoeing or crosscountry 

skiing. 

The refuge will continue the activities above plus provide additional volunteer led interpretive and 

education programs on the refuge. Additionally, the Urban Education Program may be expanded 

to other regional school systems. An annual teacher workshop, refuge-specific EE curriculum, and 

refuge-sponsored interpretive and educational events on the refuge might also be conducted. The 

Service will place three additional kiosks on the refuge as well as self- guided interpretive walking 

and canoe trails. Additionally, a visitor contact station could be built in a prime location to offer 

educational and interpretive programs to the greater Boston area. 

Availability of Resources: Environmental education and interpretation occur through the use of 

existing staff, resources, and facilities. Existing resources include staff, interpretive kiosks and 

displays, environmental education programs carried out through extensive help of volunteers, 

displays, and trails. The amount and character of environmental and interpretive programming 

will be a direct reflection of the refuge’s staff and funding levels. The following components of an 

environmental education and interpretation program will need to be developed to fully implement 



the program outlined in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Additional components may be 

added at later dates. Specific costs will be determined as implementation of specific programs 

occurs. 

• Planning and implementation of wildlife oriented public use and outreach programs 

• Interpretive and educational programs (cost of Park Rangers) 

• Construction of visitor contact station 

• Provide refuge visitor contact station support, administrative programs and services 

• Construction and maintenance of three new kiosks 

• Exhibits and operation visitor contact station 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: On-site activities by teachers and students using trails and 

environmental education sites may impose low-level impacts such as trampling of vegetation, 

removing vegetation, littering and temporary disturbance to wildlife. In the event of persistent 

disturbance to habitat or wildlife the activity will be restricted or discontinued. 

Placement of kiosks may impact small areas of vegetation. Kiosks will be placed where minimal 

disturbance will occur. 

Providing additional interpretive and educational brochures and materials may result in increased 

knowledge of the refuge and its resources. This awareness and knowledge may improve the 

willingness of the public to support refuge programs, resources, and compliance with regulations. 

There will be impacts from building a new visitor contact station. These impacts will be analyzed 

in an appropriate NEPA compliance environmental document after potential sites for the building 

are identified. 

Public Review and Comment: The compatibility determination was included in the Draft 

CCP/EA. The Draft CCP/EA was available for comment from July 20 through September 3, 2003. 

Refuge staff held four public meetings to collect public comments, written and verbal, on the draft 

CCP/EA, including all compatibility determinations. 

Determination: 

Use is not compatible ___. 

Use is Compatible with the following stipulations _X_. 

The following stipulations are required to ensure compatibility: Activities will be held in areas 

where minimal impact will occur. Periodic evaluation of sites and programs will be conducted to 

assess if objectives are being met and to prevent site degradation. If evidence of unacceptable 

adverse impacts appears, the location(s) of activities will be rotated with secondary sites, curtailed 

or discontinued. The known presence of a threatened or endangered species will preclude the use 

of an area until the refuge manager determines otherwise. 

Special use permits will be issued to organizations conducting environmental education or 

interpretive tours or activities. A fee may be charged for the special use permit. The areas used by 

such tours will be closely monitored to evaluate the impacts on the resource. If adverse impacts 

appear, the activity will be moved to secondary locations or curtailed or discontinued. Specific 

conditions may apply depending upon the requested activity and will be addressed through the 


- 213 -


special use permit. 

Guidelines to ensure the safety of all participants will be issued in writing to the teacher or group 

leader responsible for the activities and will be reviewed before the activity begins. 

Law enforcement patrol of public use areas should continue to minimize the above-mentioned 

types of violations. The current “Refuge open ½ hour before sunrise to ½ hour after sunset” 

regulation restricts entry after daylight hours, and should be maintained along with “Public Use 

Restricted to Trails Only”. 

Justification: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57) 

identifies six legitimate and appropriate uses of wildlife refuges: environmental education, 

interpretation, hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and wildlife photography. These priority 

public uses are dependent upon healthy wildlife populations. Where these uses are determined to 

be compatible, they are to receive enhanced consideration over other uses in planning and 

management. 

Environmental education and interpretation activities generally support Refuge purposes and 

impacts can largely be minimized (Goff et al., 1988). The minor resource impacts attributed to 

these activities are generally outweighed by the benefits gained by educating present and future 

generations about refuge resources. Environmental education is a public use management tool 

used to develop a resource protection ethic within society. While it targets school age children, it is 

not limited to this group. This tool allows us to educate refuge visitors about endangered and 

threatened species management, wildlife management and ecological principles and communities. 

A secondary benefit of environmental education is that it instills an ‘ownership’ or ‘stewardship’ 

ethic in visitors and most likely reduces vandalism, littering and poaching; it also strengthens 

Service visibility in the local community. Environmental education (outdoor classroom) is listed in 

the Refuge Manual (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1985) as the highest priority visitor use 

activity throughout the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

These activities will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the refuge was established. 

Literature Cited: 

Goff, G.R., D.J. Decker And G. Pomerantz. 1988. A Diagnostic Tool for Analyzing Visitor Impacts 

on Wildlife Refuges: A Basis for a Systematic Approach to Visitor Management. Trans. Northeast 

Sect. Wildl. Soc. 45:82. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Refuge Manual. Wash., D.C. U.S. Gov’t Printing Office. 

Signature - Refuge Manager: /s/ Elizabeth A. Herland 12/21/2004 

(Signature and Date) 

Concurrence - Regional Chief: /s/ Anthony D. Léger 12/27/2004 


Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: December 27, 2019 



Use: Fishing 

Refuge Names: Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge 


Establishing Authority: Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established in 1974 under 

an Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife, or Other Purposes. (16 

U.S.C. 667b). 







Description of Use: Fishing at Oxbow NWR is currently only allowed only on the Nashua River. 

Additional fishing access will be provided at designated river bank locations in the future. Fishing 

on the refuge is in compliance with State regulations. Fishing is a priority public use of the 

refuge. 

Availability of Resources: This program can be run with existing staff, although the hiring of 

additional public use and law enforcement staff would assist in managing the program and 

ensuring compliance. Maintenance costs for this activity are small. Costs which may occur include 

maintenance to trails and river access areas, as well as costs to stabilize designated river bank 

fishing sites. 

Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Purpose: The designated areas for fishing may need 

stabilization to prevent erosion before being opened and or to curb erosion after use of these areas 

has begun. Potential and actual refuge impacts include trampling vegetation, creation of 

unauthorized trails and subsequent erosion or over-harvesting. Some disturbance of roosting and 

feeding birds will probably occur (Burger, 1981) but is considered minimal. Discarded fishing line 

and other fishing litter can entangle migratory birds and cause injury and death (Gregory, 1991). 

Additionally, litter impacts the visual experience of refuge visitors (Marion and Lime, 1986). Law 

enforcement issues include illegal taking of fish, littering, illegal fires at night, fishing without a 

license, and disorderly conduct. 









- 215 -


The following stipulations are required to ensure compatibility: The designated areas for 

fishing may need stabilization to prevent erosion before being opened and or to curb erosion after 

use of these areas has begun. 

Enforcement will be conducted to help curb illegal fires, disorderly conduct and littering. 

Enforcement will also help to ensure that fishing regulations are observed, reduce creation of 

unauthorized trails and serve as a direct contact to the fishing public. Public meetings with local 

fishing clubs and interested parties will also be required to reinforce refuge regulations. If these 

measures do not curb unauthorized activities, other measures will be implemented to control 

activities and fishermen. 

Law enforcement patrol of public use areas should minimize the above-mentioned types of 

violations. The current “Refuge open ½ hour before sunrise to ½ hour after sunset” regulation 

restricts entry after daylight hours, and should be maintained along with “Public Use Restricted 

to Trails Only”. 


identifies six legitimate and appropriate uses of wildlife refuges: fishing, environmental education, 

interpretation, hunting, wildlife observation and wildlife photography. These priority public uses 

are dependent upon healthy wildlife populations. Where these uses are determined to be 

compatible, they are to receive enhanced consideration over other uses in planning and 

management. 

Fishing is a wildlife-oriented activity that provides substantial recreational opportunities to the 

public (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1992 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1997). Fishing is a 

traditional form of outdoor recreation. 




Burger, J. 1981. The Effect of Human Activity on Birds at a Coastal Bay. Biol. Conserv. 21:231- 

241. 

Gregory, M.R. 1991. The Hazards of Persistent Marine Pollution: Drift Plastics and Conservation 

Islands. J. Royal Soc. New Zealand. 21(2):83-100. 

Marion, J.L. And D.W. Lime. 1986. Recreational Resource Impacts: Visitor Perceptions and 

Management Responses. pp. 239-235. Kulhavy, D.L. and R.N. Conner, Eds. in Wilderness and 

Natural Areas in the Eastern United States: A Management Challenge. Center for Applied 

Studies, Austin State Univ., Nacogdochesz, TX. 416pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Fisheries USA. The Recreational Fisheries Policy of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Wash, D.C.,U.S. Gov’t Printing Office. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997a. Recreation Fee Programs Frequently Asked Questions. 









- 217 -



Use: Hunting – Big Game, Upland Game, Migratory Bird 




U.S.C. 667b). 

Refuge Purpose: The purpose of the Oxbow NWR is its “...particular value in carrying out the 

national migratory bird management program.” (16 U.S.C. 667b-d, as amended) 





Description of Proposed Use: 

Migratory Bird: Waterfowl and Woodcock 

This activity involves the taking of waterfowl along the Nashua River and associated wetlands and 

pools south of Route 2. Waterfowl hunting involves the use of calls and decoys to bring in 

waterfowl. Dogs and canoes may be used in areas to retrieve downed birds. No permanent blinds 

are allowed. Waterfowl hunting activities will be conducted according to State regulations and 

restrictions. Non-toxic shot is required. 

This activity also involves the taking of American woodcock south of Route 2, the area between 

Route 2 and Hospital Road, and the westerly side of the Nashua River north of Shirley Road. 

Big Game Hunting: White-tailed Deer and American Turkey 

Archery, shotgun and primitive firearm deer hunting opportunities would be provided on portions 

of Oxbow NWR in accordance with Massachusetts State regulations and requirements. Portions 

of the refuge located south of Route 2, except the “Watt Farm” addition, would be open for all 

three deer seasons and spring turkey. The Watt Farm would be open for the archery deer hunting 

only and for turkey (by archery only) in the spring season. The portions of the refuge from the 

Route 2 underpass to Hospital Road would be open for the turkey and archery deer season only. 

The portion of the Refuge from Hospital Road to Shirley Road would not be open for hunting. The 

portion of the refuge located on the westerly side of the Nashua River north of Shirley Road 

would be open for turkey and all three deer seasons, and the portion of the refuge on the easterly 

side of the Nashua River in this area would be open only for the archery deer season and archery 

turkey. 


Upland Game: Ruffed Grouse, Rabbit, Squirrel 


This activity involves the taking of ruffed grouse, rabbit, and gray squirrel. All applicable State 

hunting regulations are in force on the refuge. These animals are taken through traditional means 

with shotguns only; non-toxic shot is required. The use of unleashed dogs is permitted only while 

under the control of individuals actively engaged in hunting. 

Areas open to hunting at Oxbow NWR are south of Route 2, the area north of Route 2 and south 

of Hospital Road, and the westerly side of the Nashua River north of Shirley Road. 

All applicable Federal (50 CFR Part 32) and State hunting regulations will be in force on the 

refuge, including the discharge of firearms or arrows across or within 150 feet of any highway and 

the possession or discharge of any firearm or arrow within 500 feet of any dwelling or building in 

use. The use or possession of alcoholic beverages while hunting will be strictly prohibited. 

Hunting will occur within designated State seasons but could be restricted by time or day if 

determined necessary by the refuge manager to address resource or visitor use issues. All 

hunters will be required to obtain a permit from the refuge prior to scouting or hunting. The 

permit could contain both refuge-specific information, maps, and/or additional refuge 

requirements for hunter compliance. This may be modified on an annual basis if necessary. A fee 

will be charged for the permit. 

Access to the refuge for all hunt seasons is through walking, cross-country skiing or snowshoeing. 

Cutting of vegetation is prohibited. 

A limited special season for physically handicapped hunters, in accordance with State 

requirements for such hunts, will be provided. The physical configuration of trails and roads will 

allow us to provide accessible hunting opportunities in certain parts of the refuge. 

Availability of Resources: See Appendix F of the Final CCP for recurring cost estimates and 

duration of the proposed projects. 

The cost involved in offering this wildlife dependent activity is minimal. Hunting on the refuge will 

be by annual permit. The refuge will be collecting an annual fee of $20 for all hunting seasons on 

the refuge. One fee is valid for all the refuges in the Complex open to hunting. Fee money 

collected will help recover costs for funding the program. The refuge anticipates hiring a full time 

law enforcement officer to assist with managing priority public uses including the hunt program 

and will assist in refuge habitat projects. 

Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Purpose: The impacts of allowing hunting may include 

disturbance of non-target species in the course of tracking game, the trampling of vegetation, 

possible creation of unauthorized trails by hunters, littering and possible vandalism. 

White-tailed deer number about 90,000 in Massachusetts. In some areas, deer density is as high as 

25-30 deer per square mile. Many landowners suffer landscape damage due to deer on a regular 

basis, transmission of Lyme disease becomes a significant issue with large numbers of deer, 

starvation is a possibility when deer numbers are high as food supplies dwindle in bad weather 

and deer-vehicle collisions become more common and problematic. Woodcock and waterfowl 


- 219 -


populations are managed at a national level, with seasons and bag limits set annually to reflect 

population status and trends. 

The harvest of white-tailed deer, upland game, woodcock and waterfowl will not significantly 

decrease the populations of these game species. 

During the hunting season, non-hunters may limit refuge visits to Sundays or to portions of the 

refuge not open for hunting. River users may adjust their non-hunting use of the Nashua River to 

periods when hunters are not active or to Sundays. Some people may avoid the refuge or the river 

altogether to avoid any potential interaction with hunters. 




CCP/EA, including all compatibility determinations. Many people wrote in to express opposition 

to hunting in general. Others recommended hunting be restricted to archery deer hunting. 

Others either support hunting specifically or supported the preferred alternative, which included 

establishing new and expanding existing hunt programs. 




The following stipulations are required to ensure compatibility: 

� All hunters must obtain all necessary State, Federal, and refuge permits. 

� Hunters must abide by all applicable refuge, State, and Federal regulations. 

� Refuge staff will develop a Hunt Plan and amend the Code of Federal Regulations before 

permitting hunting on the refuge. 

� Staff will monitor hunting activities to determine any adverse impacts to refuge resources 

and adjust the hunt program as necessary. 

� Waterfowl hunting is permitted from on the Nashua River and in associated wetlands. 

Enforcement will be necessary to ensure compliance with refuge and State regulations 

regarding hunting of waterfowl. 

� Cutting of vegetation is prohibited. The use of unleashed dogs is permitted only while 

under the control of individuals actively engaged in hunting. 


identifies six legitimate and appropriate uses of wildlife refuges; hunting, environmental 

education, interpretation, fishing, wildlife observation and wildlife photography. These priority 



management. 



Hunting of big game (white-tailed deer and turkey), upland game (rabbit, squirrel and ruffed 

grouse), and migratory bird (waterfowl and woodcock) on Oxbow NWR is justified within refuge 

objectives by providing wildlife-oriented recreation and promoting appreciation of wildlife and the 

outdoors. 









- 221 -



Use: Jogging/Running 



an Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife, or Other Purposes (16 

U.S.C. 667b). 

Refuge Purpose: Oxbow’s purpose is its “...particular value in carrying out the national migratory 

bird management program.” (16 U.S.C. 667b-d, as amended) 





Description of Use: Jogging or running on refuge trails. Maps showing these trail systems are 

included in the refuge brochure for Oxbow NWR. Jogging occurs year-round on the refuge with 

the majority of use from April through October. At Oxbow NWR, jogging occurs mainly on the 

Tank Road. Occasionally, joggers stop at the informational kiosk to obtain refuge or wildlife 

viewing information. Use is heaviest during the summer months and occurs more frequently early 

in the morning and in the evening when individuals jog before and after work and while the 

weather is more pleasant. Exact numbers are currently not available. The activity is primarily 

athletic in nature. It is likely that some joggers observe wildlife while they are jogging on the 

refuge. However, such observation tends to be incidental to the primary activity of jogging. 

Availability of Resources: Maintenance of the trails and facilities include costs. These costs are 

not directly related to jogging or running. Jogging and running may cause incremental needs for 

additional trail maintenance activities. The major portion of the funds needed to support this 

activity is in the form of salaries to maintain the trails for wildlife observation. Additional funds 

are needed for maintenance materials and other supplies. Also, funds are needed to provide 

resource protection and monitoring. The prorated portion of the cost for law enforcement, 

resource protection and monitoring is approximately $3,000. 

Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Purpose: Jogging or running as conducted on Oxbow NWR has 

not been studied in a rigorous fashion. Jogging has the potential of impacting shorebird, 

waterfowl, marshbird, and other migratory bird populations feeding and resting near the trails 

during certain times of the year. Use of upland trails is more likely to impact songbirds than 

other migratory birds. Human disturbance to migratory birds has been documented in many 

studies in different locations. 

Conflicts arise when migratory birds and humans are present in the same areas (Boyle and 

Samson 1985). Response of wildlife to human activities includes: departure from site (Owen 1973, 

Burger 1981, Korschgen et al 1985, Henson and Grant 1991, Kahl 1991, Klein 1993), use of suboptimal 

habitat (Erwin 1980, Williams and Forbes 1980), altered behavior (Burger 1981, Korschen 

et al. 1985, Morton et al. 1989, Ward and Stehn 1989, Havera et al. 1992, Klein 1993), and increase 



in energy expenditure (Morton et al. 1989, Belanger and Bedard 1990). McNeil et al. (1992) found 

that many waterfowl species avoid disturbance by feeding at night instead of during the day. 

The location of recreational activities impacts species in different ways. Miller et al. (1998) found 

that nesting success was lower near recreational trails, where human activity was common, than 

at greater distances from the trails. A number of species have shown greater reactions when 

pedestrian use occurred off trail (Miller, 1998). In addition, Burger (1981) found that wading birds 

were extremely sensitive to disturbance in the northeastern U.S. In regard to waterfowl, Klein 

(1989) found migratory dabbling ducks to be the most sensitive to disturbance and migrant ducks 

to be more sensitive when they first arrived, in the late fall, than later in winter. She also found 

gulls and sandpipers to be apparently insensitive to human disturbance, with Burger (1981) 

finding the same to be true for various gull species. 

For songbirds, Gutzwiller et. al. (1997) found that singing behavior of some species was altered by 

low levels of human intrusion. Jogging can impact normal behavioral activities, including feeding, 

reproductive, and social behavior. Studies have shown that ducks and shorebirds are sensitive to 

jogging activity (Burger 1981, 1986). Resident waterbirds tend to be less sensitive to human 

disturbance than migrants, and migrant ducks are particularly sensitive when they first arrive 

(Klein 1993). In areas where human activity is common, birds tolerated closer approaches than in 

areas receiving less activity. 

Public Review and Comment: The draft compatibility determination was available for public 

review and comment period by 1) a notice posted on the refuge kiosk bulletin board for a period of 

30 days, 2) a notice included in a planning update sent to all of the individuals on the 

comprehensive conservation plan mailing list, and 3) posted on the refuge website. The comment 

period was from June 21, 2004 to July 20, 2004. We received no comments on the compatibility 

determination. 




The following stipulations are required to ensure compatibility: Joggers and runners will 

utilize only established trails and other areas open to the public and not venture into closed areas. 

The current “refuge open ½ hour before sunrise to ½ hour after sunset” regulation restricts entry 

after daylight hours, and should be maintained along with “Public Use Restricted to Trails Only”. 

We will be undertaking research to examine whether or not there are site specific impacts on the 

refuge. We will examine impacts to wildlife and impacts to other recreationists participating in 

wildlife dependent recreational activities. We will reexamine the compatibility of jogging and 

running after this research is completed. 






management. 


- 223 -


Jogging and running are to be used only as a means to facilitate the priority public uses identified 

above. 




Belanger, L., and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow 

geese. Journal of Wildlife Management. 54:36-41 

Boyle, S. A., F. B. Samson. 1985. Effects of nonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: A review. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:110-116 

Burger, J. 1981. The effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biological Conservation. 

21:231-241. 

Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern 

United States. Environmental Conservation. 13:123-130. 

Erwin, R. M. 1980. Breeding habitat by colonially nesting water birds in 2 mid-Atlantic U.S. 

regions under different regimes of human disturbance. Biological Conservation. 18:39-51. 

Gutzwiller, K.J., R.T. Wiedenmann, K.L. Clements, 1997. Does human intrusion alter the 

seasonal timing of avian song during breeding periods? Auk 114:55-65. 

Havera, S. P., L. R. Boens, M. M. Georgi, and R. T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of 

waterfowl on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 20:290-298. 

Henson, P. T., and A. Grant. 1991. The effects of human disturbance on trumpeter swan breeding 

behavior. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 19:248-257. 

Kahl, R. 1991. Boating disturbance of canvasbacks during migration at Lake Poygan, Wisconsin. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin. 19:242-248. 

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin. 21:31-39. 

Korschen, C. E., L. S. George, and W. L. Green. 1985. Disturbance of diving ducks by boaters on 

a migrational staging area. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 13:290-296. 

McNeil, Raymond; Pierre Drapeau; John D. Goss-Custard. 1992. The occurrence and adaptive 

significance of nocturnal habitats in waterfowl. Biological Review. 67: 381-419 

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

communities. Ecological Applications. 8(1) 162-169. 



Morton, J. M., A. C. Fowler, and R. L. Kirkpatrick. 1989. Time and energy budgets of American 

black ducks in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management. 53:401-410. 

Owen, M. 1973. The management of grassland areas for wintering geese. Wildfowl. 24:123-130. 

Ward, D. H., and R. A. Stehn. 1989. Response of Brant and other geese to aircraft disturbance at 

Izembek Lagoon, Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Fish and Wildlife Research 

Center. Final report to the Minerals Management Service. Anchorage, Alaska. 193 pp. 

Williams, G. J., and E. Forbes. 1980. The habitat and dietary preferences of dark-bellied Brant 

geese and widgeon in relation to agricultural management. Wildfowl. 31:151-157. 







- 225 -



Use: Natural History Tours 

Refuge Name: Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge 



U.S.C. 667b). 







Description of Use: 

(a) What is the use? Is the use a priority public use? 

This activity consists of a group of people with a leader or guide walking or driving on refuge 

property to learn about plant and wildlife species, natural processes and wetlands and other 

habitats. Natural history tours will facilitate wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental interpretation and education, which are priority public uses of the refuge. 

(b) Where would the use be conducted? 

Natural history tours would normally occur on established refuge trails or roads. However, tours 

could be conducted in other areas of the refuge with approval from the refuge manager. 

(c) When would the use be conducted? 

Natural history tours would normally be conducted only during hours when the refuge is open, 

generally ½ hour before sunrise to ½ hour after sunset. Activities held at night, such as an owl 

prowl, would require approval from the refuge manager. 

(d) How would the use be conducted? 

Natural history tours would occur either by foot or motor vehicle. 

(e) Why is this use being proposed? 

Natural history tours offer an opportunity to expose visitors to the refuge purposes and Refuge 

System mission. Some of the tours may specifically be birding trips. Participants gain an extra 

understanding and appreciation for the Refuge and the environment. 

Availability of Resources: Before groups may conduct tours on the refuge they must obtain a 

special use permit (SUP). The cost of preparing the SUPs for natural history tours will be 

minimal. Maintenance of the trails and facilities will be encompassed in costs associated with 

routing refuge operations and maintenance activities. 



Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Purpose: The impacts associated with this activity are trampling 

of vegetation, littering, possible vandalism and temporary disturbance to wildlife in the area of the 

group. These impacts are minor in light of the appreciation and knowledge gained by participants 

in these activities. The known presence of a threatened or endangered species will preclude the 

use of an area until the refuge manager determines otherwise. 









An SUP will be issued to the organization conducting the tour. A fee may be charged for the SUP. 

The areas used by such tours will be closely monitored to evaluate the impacts on the resource. If 

adverse impacts appear, the activity will be moved to secondary locations or curtailed entirely. 

Specific conditions may apply depending upon the requested activity and will be addressed 

through the SUP. 




to Trails Only”, unless specifically authorized by an SUP. 






management. 

Natural history activities generally support refuge purposes and impacts can largely be 

minimized. The minor resource impacts attributed to these activities are generally outweighed by 

the benefits gained by educating present and future generations about refuge resources. Natural 

history activities are a public use management tool used to develop a resource protection ethic 

within society. This tool allows us to educate refuge visitors about endangered and threatened 

species management, wildlife management and ecological principles and communities. A 

secondary benefit of natural history activities is that it instills an ‘ownership’ or ‘stewardship’ ethic 

in visitors and most likely reduces vandalism, littering and poaching; it also strengthens Service 

visibility in the local community. 




- 227 -









Use: Non-motorized Boating 





U.S.C. 667b). 

Refuge Purpose: “...particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management 

program.” (16 U.S.C. 667b-d, as amended) 







Non-motorized boating consists of the use of canoes, kayaks, or row boats across open water. The 

use is not a priority public use, but would be allowed to facilitate participation in a variety of 

priority wildlife-dependent activities, including fishing, hunting, wildlife observation and wildlife 

photography. 


Non-motorized boating would be conducted only on the Nashua River, not in refuge wetland pools 

or other ponds. 


Non-motorized boating would occur during times when the refuge is open and access is provided. 


Access would be provided via a boat launch and from upstream or downstream of the refuge 

boundary. 


Non-motorized boating will facilitate participation in priority wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Availability of Resources: The costs of infrastructure associated with facilitating non-motorized 

boating are discussed in the compatibility determinations for the respective wildlife dependent 

public uses. These costs are also included in Appendix E of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(CCP) for the Oxbow NWR. Minor improvements and maintenance will be accomplished by 

refuge staff and volunteers from the Friends of the Oxbow NWR. At Oxbow Refuge, two 

additional canoe launches and parking areas may be constructed. The estimated cost of these 

facilities is $120,000. 


- 229 -


Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Purpose: Non-motorized boating at Oxbow NWR will be 

monitored to ensure the activity will not have adverse impact on wildlife habitat, or the 

management of migratory birds and other wildlife species. This activity will facilitate wildlifedependent 

recreation. 








The following stipulations are required to ensure compatibility: Non-motorized boaters will 

utilize only established trails and other areas open to the public and not venture into closed areas. 

The current “refuge open ½ hour before sunrise to ½ hour after sunset” regulation restricts entry 

after daylight hours, and should be maintained along with “Public Use Restricted to Trails Only”. 






management. 

Non-motorized boating is to be used only as a means to facilitate the priority public uses identified 

above. 










Use: Scientific Research 





U.S.C. 667b). 









The use is research conducted by non-Service personnel. The purposes of research conducted on 

the refuge are to further the understanding of the natural resources and to improve the 

management of such resources on the refuge or within the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(Refuge System). Priority will be given to research which is applicable to wildlife, habitat, or 

public use management on and near the refuge. Research conducted by non-Service personnel is 

not a priority public use of the Refuge System. 


The location of the research will vary depending on the individual research project that is being 

conducted. The entire refuge may be made available for specific scientific research projects. 

However, an individual research project is usually limited to a particular habitat type, plant or 

wildlife species. On occasion research projects may encompass an assemblage of habitat types, 

plants or wildlife. The research location will be limited to only those areas of the refuge that are 

necessary to conduct any specific, approved research project. 


The timing of the research will depend on the individual research project that is being conducted. 

Scientific research may be allowed to occur on the refuge throughout the year. An individual 

research project could be short-term in design, requiring one or two visits over the course of a few 

days. Other research projects could be multiple-year studies that require daily visits to the study 

site. The timing of each individual research project will be limited to the minimum required to 

complete the project. If a research project occurs during a refuge hunting season, special 

precautions or limitations may be required to ensure the safety of researchers or staff. 


The methods of a research project will depend on the individual project that is being conducted. 

The methods of each research project will be evaluated before it will be allowed to occur on the 


- 231 -


refuge. No research project will be allowed to occur if it does not have a study plan approved by 

the refuge manager, or if the refuge manager determines the project may adversely affect 

wildlife, wildlife habitat, on-going or planned refuge management activities, previously approved 

research programs, approved priority public uses, or public health and safety. 


Research by non-Service personnel is conducted by colleges, universities, Federal, State, and local 

agencies, non-governmental organizations, and qualified members of the general public. The 

purposes of research conducted on the refuge are to further the understanding of the natural 

resources and to improve the management of such resources on the refuge or within the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. Priority will be given to research which is applicable to wildlife, habitat, 

or public use management on and near the refuge. 

Most research projects on the refuges comprising the Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex 

examine management of avian resources, various public uses, and rare, threatened or endangered 

species. Currently, research by non-Refuge staff is concentrated on 5 of the Refuges in Eastern 

Massachusetts NWR Complex: Great Meadows, Assabet River, Oxbow, Monomoy, and 

Massasoit. Much of the research is focused on management of migratory birds, or resident 

herptiles and mammals, but other more specific research projects have also been implemented. In 

addition, much of the research conducted at the Refuges is part of larger, landscape based 

projects. At Great Meadows NWR, Special Use Permits (SUP) have been issued for research 

which has included: investigating deer populations and movements, particularly in the winter 

months; investigating Blanding's turtle populations, movements, and habitat occupancy during the 

non-nesting season; mapping the spread of West Nile Virus; and evaluating mercury 

contamination in the Sudbury and Concord Rivers. At Assabet River and Oxbow NWRs, research 

activities have included establishing presence, documenting habitat use, and monitoring impacts 

to productivity of Blanding's Turtles, Spotted Turtles, Box Turtles, and Wood Turtles. At 

Monomoy NWR, research has covered the breadth of biological resources including: neurological 

studies involving horseshoe crabs; movement patterns and use of the Refuge by grey and harbor 

seals; and tern phenology, behavior, and productivity on Monomoy (a control site for oil spill 

studies occurring in Buzzards Bay). At Massasoit NWR, research has focused on the natural 

history of the federally listed Northern red-bellied cooter. Although no SUPs have been issued to 

date for biological research on Nomans Land Island, Mashpee, and Nantucket NWRs, it is likely 

that research will occur on these sites in the future. 

The Service will encourage and support research and management studies on refuge lands that 

improve and strengthen natural resource management decisions. The refuge manager will 

encourage and seek research relative to approved refuge objectives that clearly improves land 

management and promotes adaptive management. Information that enables better management 

of the Nation’s biological resources and is generally considered important to agencies of the 

Department of Interior, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Refuge System, and 

State Fish and Game Agencies, and that addresses important management issues or demonstrate 

techniques for management of species and/or habitats, will be the priority. 

The refuge may also consider research for other purposes which may not be directly related to 

refuge-specific objectives, but would contribute to the broader enhancement, protection, use, 

preservation and management of populations of fish, wildlife and plants, and their natural 



diversity within the region or flyway. These proposals must comply with the Service’s 

compatibility policy. 

The refuge may develop a list of research needs that will be provided to prospective researchers 

or organizations upon request. Refuge support of research directly related to refuge objectives 

may take the form of funding, in-kind services such as housing or use of other facilities, direct staff 

assistance with the project in the form of data collection, provision of historical records, 

conducting of management treatments, or other assistance as appropriate. 

Availability of Resources: The bulk of the cost for research is incurred in staff time to review 

research proposals, coordinate with researchers, write SUPs, and review the research results. In 

some cases, a research project may only require one day of staff time to write an SUP. In other 

cases, a research project may require weeks of staff time. Currently, a senior refuge biologist 

spends an average of seven weeks a year working full time on research projects conducted by 

outside researchers. At an hourly wage of approximately $30 (for a GS-12), this adds up to about 

$8,500 annually for resources spent on outside research. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Disturbance to wildlife and vegetation by researchers could 

occur through observation, a variety of wildlife capture techniques, banding, and accessing the 

study area by foot or vehicle. It is possible that direct or indirect mortality could result as a byproduct 

of research activities. Mist-netting or other wildlife capture techniques, for example, can 

cause mortality directly through the capture method or in-trap predation, and indirectly through 

capture injury or stress caused to the organism. 

Overall, however, allowing well designed and properly reviewed research to be conducted by non- 

Service personnel is likely to have very little impact on refuge wildlife populations. If the research 

project is conducted with professionalism and integrity, potential adverse impacts are likely to be 

outweighed by the knowledge gained about an entire species, habitat or public use. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination has been made available for 

public review by posting on the refuge bulletin board for a period of thirty days, including 

information about the release of the compatibility determination in a planning update that was 

sent to all of the individuals on the comprehensive conservation plan mailing list, and posted on 

the refuge website. The comment period was from June 21, 2004 to July 20, 2004. 

Determination (check one below): 

___ Use is Not Compatible 

_X_ Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: All researchers will be required to submit a 

detailed research proposal following Service Policy (FWS Refuge Manual Chapter 4 Section 6, as 

may be amended). The refuge must be given at least 45 days to review proposals before initiation 

of research. If collection of wildlife is involved, the refuge must be given 60 days to review the 

proposal. Proposals will be prioritized and approved based on need, benefit, compatibility, and 

funding required. 


- 233 -


An SUP will be issued for all research conducted by non-Service personnel. The SUP will list the 

conditions that the refuge manager determines to be necessary to ensure compatibility. The SUP 

will also identify a schedule for progress reports and the submittal of a final report or scientific 

paper. 

Regional refuge biologists, other Service Divisions, State agencies or non-governmental 

organizations and biologists may be asked to provide additional review and comment on any 

research proposal. 

All researchers will be required to obtain appropriate State and Federal permits. 

All research related Special Use Permits will contain a statement regarding the Service’s policy 

regarding disposition of biotic specimen. The current Service policy language in this regard 

(USFWS, 1999) is, “You may use specimens collected under this permit, any components of any 

specimens (including natural organisms, enzymes, genetic material or seeds), and research 

results derived from collected specimens for scientific or educational purposes only, and not for 

commercial purposes unless you have entered into a Cooperative Research and Development 

Agreement (CRADA) with us. We prohibit the sale of collected research specimens or other 

transfers to third parties. Breach of any of the terms of this permit will be grounds for revocation 

of this permit and denial of future permits. Furthermore, if you sell or otherwise transfer 

collected specimens, any components thereof, or any products or any research results developed 

from such specimens or their components without a CRADA, you will pay us a royalty rate of 20 

percent of gross revenue from such sales. In addition to such royalty, we may seek other 

damages and injunctive relief against you.” 

Any research project may be terminated at any time for non-compliance with the SUP conditions, 

or modified, redesigned, relocated or terminated, upon a determination by the refuge manager 

that the project is causing unanticipated adverse impacts to wildlife, wildlife habitat, approved 

priority public uses, or other refuge management activities. 

Justification: The Service encourages approved research to further understanding of refuge 

natural resources. Research by non- Service personnel adds greatly to the information base for 

refuge managers to make proper decisions. Research conducted by non-Service personnel will not 

materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or 

the purposes for which the refuge was established. 


U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Refuge Manual. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Director’s Order No. 109: Use of Specimens Collected on 

Fish and Wildlife Lands. March 30, 1999. 






Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: December 27, 2014 



- 235 -



Use: Snowshoeing and cross country skiing 


Establishing Authority: Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1974 under an Act 

Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife, or Other Purposes (16 U.S.C. 

667b). 







Description of Use: These uses are not priority public uses, but would facilitate wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and interpretive programs, which are priority public uses, 

during winter months. The trail systems are not plowed, because of the cost and because of the 

habitat disturbance plowing would entail. The use simply involves foot-travel over the surface of 

the snow with the use of snowshoes and cross country skis on the refuge trail system. Maps 

showing these trails are included in the refuge brochure. 

Availability of Resources: The cost of trail and facilities maintenance are not directly related to 

showshoeing or cross country skiing. Costs for activities that are facilitated by these methods of 

locomotion are discussed under their respective compatibility determinations. 

Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Purpose: Snowshoeing and cross country skiing as conducted on 

Oxbow NWR have no adverse impact on the management of migratory birds or other wildlife 

species. These activities will only be done in conjunction with wildlife-dependent recreation. These 

will likely create similar disturbances as people walking on the trails. 








The following stipulations are required to ensure compatibility: Snowshoers and cross 

country skiers will utilize only established trails and other areas open to the public and not 

venture into closed areas. The current “refuge open ½ hour before sunrise to ½ hour after sunset” 

regulation restricts entry after daylight hours, and should be maintained along with “Public Use 

Restricted to Trails Only”. 








management. 

Snowshoeing and cross country skiing are to be used only as a means to facilitate the priority 

public uses identified above. 









- 237 -



Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography 




U.S.C. 667b). 







Description of Use: Oxbow NWR has 2.5 miles of trails, one canoe launch and a parking area. 

Access to the refuge for this activity is achieved through walking, snowshoeing or cross-country 

skiing. Wildlife observation and photography include walking on open and established trails to 

observe and/or photograph the natural environment. 

In addition, future management of Oxbow NWR includes opening five to six miles of trails on the 

portion of the Refuge North of Route 2. Two additional canoe launches and landing areas are also 

proposed along with parking areas off Jackson Road and north of Shirley Road. A viewing 

platform and other public use programs are proposed as well. 

Availability of Resources: Wildlife observation and photography occur through the use of 

existing staff, resources, and facilities. Existing resources for wildlife observation include trails. 

The amount and character of these opportunities will be a direct reflection of the refuge’s staff and 

funding levels. The following components of a wildlife observation and photography program will 

need to be developed to fully implement the program outlined in the Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan. Additional components may be developed at a later date. Specific costs will be determined 

as implementation of the program occurs. Some of these projects are either underway or have 

been completed. Projects completed in part or in whole by volunteers require less fiscal 

resources. 

• Construct, Improve and Maintain Visitor Trails, Wildlife Viewing Platforms, Photography 

Blinds 

• Design and Construct Accessible Interpretive Trail 

• Develop and maintain parking areas and canoe launches 

The CCP proposes hiring additional law enforcement staff that would be assisting with monitoring 

these programs. 

Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Purpose: We predict that the impacts of wildlife observation and 

photography uses will be minimal. Possible impacts include disturbing wildlife, removing or 



trampling of plants, littering, vandalism and entrance into closed areas. There will be some 

removal of vegetation to place the observation platforms and photo blinds and to establish new 

trails. In the event of persistent disturbance to habitat or wildlife the activity will be restricted or 

discontinued. Little energy will be expended by wildlife leaving areas of disturbance. 












to Trails Only”. 

Special use permits are required for organizations conducting wildlife observation and 

photography activities on the refuge. A fee may be charged for the special use permit. The areas 

used by such tours will be closely monitored to evaluate the impacts on the resource. If adverse 

impacts appear, the activity will be moved to secondary locations or curtailed entirely. Specific 

conditions may apply depending upon the requested activity and will be addressed through the 

special use permit. 

Commercial photography is subject to a special use permit and commercial photographers will be 

charged a fee. The fee is dependent on size, scope and impact of the proposed activity. 

Periodic evaluations will be done on trails to assess visitor impacts on the habitat. If evidence of 

unacceptable adverse impacts appears, these uses will be curtailed, relocated or discontinued. 

Refuge regulations will be posted and enforced. Closed areas will be established, posted and 

enforced. The known presence of any threatened or endangered species likely to be disturbed by 

trail activity will preclude use of that site as a trail. 

All photographers must follow refuge regulations. Photographers in closed areas must follow the 

conditions outlined in the special use permit which normally include notification of refuge 

personnel each time any activities occur in closed areas. Use of a closed area should be restricted 

to inside blinds to reduce disturbance to wildlife. No baits or scents may be used. At the end of 

each session, the blind must be removed. All litter will be removed daily. 


identifies six legitimate and appropriate uses of wildlife refuges: wildlife observation and wildlife 

photography, environmental education, interpretation, hunting, and fishing. These priority public 

uses are dependent upon healthy wildlife populations. Where these uses are determined to be 

compatible, they are to receive enhanced consideration over other uses in planning and 

management. 


- 239 -


The majority of visitors to the refuge are there to view the wildlife and upland, wetland, and 

grassland habitat areas. Some visit to develop an understanding of natural or cultural history. 

This visitation is in accordance with a wildlife-oriented activity and is an acceptable secondary use. 

There will be some visitor impacts from this activity, such as trampling vegetation (Kuss and Hall, 

1991) and disturbance to wildlife near trails (Klein, 1993 and Burger, 1981), but the knowledge, 

appreciation and understanding of management gained by visitors will provide support for the 

Service. The long-term benefits gained through wildlife observation and photography activities 

outweigh the impacts listed above. 




Burger, J. 1981. The Effect of Human Activity on Birds at a Coastal Bay. Biol. Conserv. 21:231- 

241. 

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird Behavioral Response to Human Disturbances. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21:31- 

39. 

Kuss, F.R. and C.N. Hall. 1991. Ground Flora Trampling Studies: Five Years After Closure. 

Environ. Manage. 15(5):715-727. 










- 241 -




81-AC-3 

NASHUA RIVER BASIN 

1998 WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT 

North Nashua River at the Route 31 Bridge, Fitchburg, MA 

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS 

BOB DURAND, SECRETARY 

MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

LAUREN A. LISS, COMMISSIONER 

BUREAU OF RESOURCE PROTECTION 

GLENN HAAS, ACTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER 

DIVISION OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT 

DAVID TERRY, ACTING DIRECTOR 

Nashua River Basin 1998 Water Quality Assessment Report 1 

81wqar.doc DWM CN 46.0

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY 

LIMITED COPIES OF THIS REPORT ARE AVAILABLE AT NO COST BY WRITTEN REQUEST TO: 

MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

DIVISION OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT 

627 MAIN STREET 

WORCESTER, MA 01608 

This report is also available from the Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Watershed 

Management’s home page on the World Wide Web at: 

http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/wm/wmpubs.htm 

Furthermore, at the time of first printing, eight copies of each report published by this office are submitted 

to the State Library at the State House in Boston; these copies are subsequently distributed as follows: 

• On shelf; retained at the State Library (two copies); 

• Microfilmed retained at the State Library; 

• Delivered to the Boston Public Library at Copley Square; 

• Delivered to the Worcester Public Library; 

• Delivered to the Springfield Public Library; 

• Delivered to the University Library at UMass, Amherst; 

• Delivered to the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. 

Moreover, this wide circulation is augmented by inter-library loans from the above-listed libraries. For 

example a resident in Winchendon can apply at their local library for loan of any DEP/DWM report from 

the Worcester Public Library. 

A complete list of reports published since 1963 is updated annually and printed in July. This report, 

entitled, “Publications of the Massachusetts Division of Watershed Management – Watershed Planning 

Program, 1963-(current year)”, is also available by writing to the DWM in Worcester. 

DISCLAIMER 

References to trade names, commercial products, manufacturers, or distributors in this report constituted 

neither endorsement nor recommendations by the Division of Watershed Management for use. 





NASHUA RIVER BASIN 

1998 WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT 

Prepared by: 

Mollie J. Weinstein, Laurie E. Kennedy and Jane Colonna-Romano 

Department of Environmental Protection 

Division of Watershed Management 

Report Number: 

81-AC-3 

DWM Control Number: 

46.0 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 

Division of Watershed Management 

Worcester, Massachusetts 

January 2001 



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Coordination of local, state and federal agencies and private organizations is fundamental to the success 

of the Massachusetts Watershed Initiative. We would like to thank Jo Anne Carr, Executive Office of 

Environmental Affairs and the Nashua River Watershed Team. Data and information used in this report 

was provided in part by the following agencies and organizations: 

State 

• Department of Environmental Protection (DEP): 

− Bureau of Strategic Policy and Technology’s Wall Experiment Station 

− Bureau of Resource Protection 

− Bureau of Waste Prevention 

− Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup 

• Massachusetts Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) 

• Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MA DPH) 

• Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental Law Enforcement (DFWELE) 

− Division of Fisheries and Wildlife 

− Riverways Program 

• Department of Environmental Management (DEM) 

Federal 

• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

− New England Regional Laboratory 

• United States Geological Survey (USGS) 

− Water Resources Division 

Regional 

• Nashua River Watershed Association (NRWA) 

• Nashua River Watershed Stream Teams 

− Catacunemaug Brook Stream Team 

− Phillips Brook Stream Team 

− North Nashua River Fitchburg Stream Team 

− Nashua River Clinton Stream Team 

− Unkety Brook Stream Team 

− Nissitissit River (Squan-A-Tissit Chapter of Trout Unlimited) 

− Nashua River Pepperell Stream Team 

A Monoosnuc Brook Greenway Project and a shoreline survey along Willard Brook was also 

conducted. 

Appreciation is also extended to several DEP employees for their contributions: Tom Dallaire, Juliet 

Mathers, Rick McVoy, Ph.D., Elaine Hartman, Warren Kimball, Arthur Screpetis, Paul Hogan, Matt 

Klansek, Katie O’Brien, and Craig Paradis. 

It is impossible to thank everyone who contributed to the assessment report process: field, laboratory, 

data management, writing, editing, and graphics, as well as meetings, phone calls, and many e-mails. All 

of these contributions are very much appreciated. 

Cover photo credit: Warren Kimball, Regional Watershed Manager, DEP Central Regional Office 



NASHUA RIVER BASIN – RIVER SEGMENT ASSESSMENTS 

The following segments in the Nashua River Basin are included in this report: 

Wachusett Reservoir Subbasin (Figure 8)....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 

Malden Brook (Segment MA81-27) ................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 

Unnamed Tributary - “Boylston Brook” (Segment MA81-34)...........Error! Bookmark not defined. 

Malagasco Brook (Segment MA81-29)............................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 

Muddy Brook (Segment MA81-28) ..................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 

Gates Brook (Segment MA81-24)...................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 

Scarletts Brook (Segment MA81-25) ...............................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 

Quinapoxet River (Segment MA81-32)............................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 

Trout Brook (Segment MA81-26).....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 

Chaffins Brook (Segment MA81-33) ................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 

Unnamed Tributary “Lower Chaffins Brook” (Segment MA81-35)...Error! Bookmark not defined. 

Stillwater River (Segment MA81-31)................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 

East Wachusett Brook (Segment MA81-30)....................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 

“South Branch” Nashua River Subbasin (Figure 9) ......................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 

Nashua River “South Branch" (Segment MA81-08) ........................Error! Bookmark not defined. 

Nashua River “South Branch" (Segment MA81-09) ........................Error! Bookmark not defined. 

North Nashua River Subbasin (Figure 10)....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 

Whitman River (Segment MA81-11) ................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 

North Nashua River (Segment MA81-01)........................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 

Flag Brook (Segment MA81-10) ......................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 

Phillips Brook (Segment MA81-12)..................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 



Monoosnuc Brook (Segment MA81-13)...........................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 


Fall Brook (Segment MA81-14) .......................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 

Mainstem Nashua River Subbasin (Figure 11).............................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 

Nashua River (Segment MA81-05)................................................................................................ 85 

Still River (Segment MA81-15) ...................................................................................................... 90 

Catacoonamug Brook (Segment MA81-16)................................................................................... 91 

Nonacoicus Brook (Segment MA81-17) ........................................................................................ 92 

Mulpus Brook (Segment MA81-22)................................................................................................ 93 

Squannacook River (Segment MA81-18) ........................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 

Squannacook River (Segment MA81-19) ........................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 

Nashua River (Segment MA81-06)..................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 

James Brook (Segment MA81-20)...................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 

Nashua River (Segment MA81-07)..................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 

Nissitissit River (Segment MA81-21) ...............................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 

Sucker Brook (Segment MA81-23) ..................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 



INTRODUCTION 

The Massachusetts Watershed Initiative is a collaborative effort between state and federal environmental 

agencies, municipal agencies, citizens, non-profit 

groups, businesses and industries in the watershed. 

The mission is to improve water quality conditions 

and to provide a framework under which the 

restoration and/or protection of the basin’s natural 

resources can be achieved. Implementation of this 

initiative is underway in a process known as the 

“Watershed Approach”. The “Five-year Cycle” of the 

“Watershed Approach”, as illustrated in Figure 5, 

provides the management structure to carry out the 

mission. Information researched and developed in the 

first three years of the “Five-year Cycle” was utilized 

by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental 

Protection (MA DEP) to report on water quality 

conditions in the Massachusetts portion of the Nashua 

River Basin. This report fulfills part of MA DEP’s 

mandate under the Clean Water Act (CWA). 

THE CLEAN WATER ACT: IMPLEMENTATION THROUGH 

THE FIVE-YEAR CYCLE OF THE WATERSHED APPROACH 

INFORMATION 1 

GATHERING MONITORING 

5 

EVALUATION 

4 

CONTROL 

STRATEGIES 

3 

2 

ASSESSMENT 

Figure 5. Clean Water Act Implementation Cycle 

The objective of the CWA is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the 

Nation’s waters (Environmental Law Reporter 1988). To meet this goal, the CWA requires states to 

develop information on the quality of the Nation's water resources and report this information to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Congress, and the public. EPA and the states are 

responsible for implementation of the CWA mandates. Under Section 305(b) of the CWA, MA DEP must 

submit a statewide report every two years to the EPA, which summarizes the status of water quality in the 

Commonwealth. The most recent 305(b) Report is the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Summary of 

Water Quality 2000 (MA DEP 2000a). The statewide 305(b) Report is based on the compilation of current 

assessment information for the Commonwealth’s 27 watersheds. Assessments made for 305(b) reporting 

utilize data from a variety of sources. The 305(b) Report provides an evaluation of water quality, progress 

made towards maintaining and restoring water quality, and the extent to which problems remain at the 

statewide level. 

The Nashua River Basin 1998 Water Quality Assessment Report has been developed by MA DEP’s 

Division of Watershed Management (DWM) to provide data and detailed assessment information for 

selected segments (a specifically defined reach of river or an individual lake) in the Nashua River Basin. 

This assessment information is maintained by MA DEP in the Water Body System (WBS) database, 

which is updated every two years and used to generate the state’s 305(b) Report. The assessments 

contained in this report will be submitted to EPA in the 2002 305(b) Report. Described in the following 

section (Assessment Methodology) are the standardized assessment methodologies for the interpretation 

of instream biological, habitat, physical/chemical, toxicity, and other data. 

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 

WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATION 

The Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards designate the most sensitive uses for which the 

surface waters of the Commonwealth shall be enhanced, maintained and protected; prescribe minimum 

water quality criteria required to sustain the designated uses; and include provisions for the prohibition of 

discharges (MA DEP 1996). These regulations undergo public review every three years. These surface 

waters are segmented and each segment is assigned to one of the six classes described below: 



Inland Water Classes 

1. Class A – These waters are designated as a source of public water supply. To the extent 

compatible with this use they shall be an excellent habitat for fish, other aquatic life and wildlife, 

and suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation. These waters shall have excellent 

aesthetic value. These waters are designated for protection as Outstanding Resource Waters 

(ORW’s) under 314 CMR 4.04(3). 

2. Class B – These waters are designated as a habitat for fish, other aquatic life, and wildlife, and for 

primary and secondary contact recreation. Where designated they shall be suitable as a source of 

water supply with appropriate treatment. They shall be suitable for irrigation and other agricultural 

uses and for compatible industrial cooling and process uses. These waters shall have 

consistently good aesthetic value. 

3. Class C – These waters are designated as a habitat for fish, other aquatic life and wildlife, and for 

secondary contact recreation. These waters shall be suitable for the irrigation of crops used for 

consumption after cooking and for compatible industrial cooling and process uses. These waters 

shall have good aesthetic value. 

Coastal and Marine Classes 

4. Class SA – These waters are designated as an excellent habitat for fish, other aquatic life and 

wildlife and for primary and secondary recreation. In approved areas they shall be suitable for 

shellfish harvesting without depuration (Open Shellfishing Areas). These waters shall have 

excellent aesthetic value. 

5. Class SB – These waters are designated as a habitat for fish, other aquatic life and wildlife and for 

primary and secondary contact recreation. In approved areas they shall be suitable for shellfish 

harvesting with depuration (Restricted Shellfishing Areas). These waters shall have consistently 

good aesthetic value. 

6. Class SC – These waters are designated as a habitat for fish, other aquatic life, and wildlife and 

for secondary contact recreation. They shall also be suitable for certain industrial cooling and 

process uses. These waters shall have good aesthetic value. 

The CWA Section 305(b) water quality reporting process is an essential aspect of the Nation's water 

pollution control effort. It is the principal means by which EPA, Congress, and the public evaluate existing 

water quality, assess progress made in maintaining and restoring water quality, and determine the extent 

of remaining problems. In so doing, the States report on waterbodies within the context of meeting their 

designated uses (described above in each class). Each class is identified by the most sensitive, and 

therefore governing, water uses to be achieved and protected. These uses include: Aquatic Life, Fish 

Consumption, Drinking Water, Primary and Secondary Contact Recreation, Shellfishing and Aesthetics. 

Three subclasses of Aquatic Life are also designated in the standards: Cold Water Fishery (capable of 

sustaining a year-round population of cold water aquatic life such as trout), Warm Water Fishery (waters 

which are not capable of sustaining a year-round population of cold water aquatic life), and Marine 

Fishery (suitable for sustaining marine flora and fauna). 

A summary of the state water quality standards (Table 3) prescribes minimum water quality criteria to 

sustain the designated uses. Furthermore these standards describe the hydrological conditions at which 

water quality criteria must be met (MA DEP 1996). In rivers and streams, the lowest flow conditions at 

and above which criteria must be met is the lowest mean flow for seven consecutive days to be expected 

once in ten years (7Q10). In artificially regulated waters, the lowest flow conditions at which criteria must 

be met is the flow equal or exceeded 99% of the time on a yearly basis or another equivalent flow which 

has been agreed upon. In coastal and marine waters and for lakes and ponds the most severe 

hydrological condition is determined by MA DEP on a case by case basis. 



The availability of appropriate and reliable scientific data and technical information is fundamental to the 

305(b) reporting process. It is EPA policy (EPA Order 5360.1 CHG 1) that any organization performing 

work for or on behalf of EPA establish a Quality System to support the development, review, approval, 

implementation, and assessment of data collection operations. To this end, MA DEP describes its Quality 

System in an EPA-approved Quality Management Plan to ensure that environmental data collected or 

compiled by the Agency are of known and documented quality and are suitable for their intended use. 

For external sources of information, MA DEP requires the following: 1) an appropriate Quality Assurance 

Project Plan including a QA/QC plan, 2) use of a state certified lab (certified in the applicable analysis), 3) 

data management QA/QC be described, and 4) the information be documented in a citable report. 

EPA provides guidelines to the states for making their use support determinations (EPA 1997). The 

determination of whether or not a waterbody can be assessed to determine if it supports each of its 

designated uses is a function of the type(s), quality and quantity of available current information. Although 

data/information older than five years are usually considered “historical” and used for descriptive 

purposes, they can be utilized in the use support determination providing they are known to reflect the 

current conditions. While the water quality standards (Table 3) prescribe minimum water quality criteria to 

sustain the designated uses, numerical criteria are not available for every indicator of pollution. Best 

available guidance in the literature may be applied in lieu of actual numerical criteria (e.g., freshwater 

sediment data may be compared to Guidelines for the Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment 

Quality in Ontario 1993 by D. Persaud, R. Jaagumagi and A. Hayton). 

Each designated use within a given segment is individually assessed as 1) support, 2) partial support, 

or 3) non- support. The term threatened is used when the use is fully supported but may not support 

the use within two years because of adverse pollution trends or anticipated sources of pollution. When 

too little current data/information exists or no reliable data are available the use is not assessed. In this 

report, however, if there is some indication that water quality impairment may exist based on any given 

variable, it is identified with an “Alert Status”. It is important to note, however, that not all waters are 

assessed. Many small and/or unnamed lakes, rivers and estuaries are currently unassessed; the status 

of their designated uses has never been reported to EPA in the state’s 305(b) Report nor is information 

on these waters maintained in the WBS database. 



Table 3. Summary of Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards (MA DEP 1996). Note: Italics are 

direct quotations. 

Dissolved 

Oxygen 

Class A, BCWF*, SA : ≥ 6.0 mg/L and > 75% saturation unless background conditions are lower 

Class BWWF**, SB: ≥ 5.0 mg/L and > 60% saturation unless background conditions are lower 

Class C: Not < 5.0 mg/L for more than 16 of any 24 –hour period and not < 3.0 mg/L anytime unless background 

conditions are lower; levels cannot be lowered below 50% saturation due to a discharge 

Class SC: Not < 5.0 mg/L for more than 16 of any 24 –hour period and not < 4.0 mg/L anytime unless background 

conditions are lower; and 50% saturation; levels cannot be lowered below 50% saturation due to a discharge 

Temperature Class A: < 68°F (20°C) and ∆ 1.5°F (0.8°C) for Cold Water and < 83°F (28.3°C) and ∆ 1.5°F (0.8°C) for Warm 

Water 

Class BCWF: < 68°F (20°C) and ∆3°F (1.7°C) due to a discharge 

Class BWWF: < 83°F (28.3°C) and ∆3°F (1.7°C) in lakes, ∆5°F (2.8°C) in rivers 

Class C, SC: 2000 organisms/100 ml. 

Class SA: approved Open Shellfish Areas: a geometric mean (MPN method) of < 14 organisms/100 ml and < 10% 

of the samples > 43 organisms/100 ml (MPN method). 

Waters not designated for shellfishing: < a geometric mean of 200 organisms in any representative set of samples, 

and < 10% of the samples > 400 organisms /100 ml. (This criterion can be applied on a seasonal basis at the 

discretion of the DEP.) 

Class SB: approved Restricted Shellfish Areas: < a fecal coliform median or geometric mean (MPN method) of 88 

organisms/100 ml and < 10% of the samples > 260 organisms /100 ml (MPN method). 

Waters not designated for shellfishing: < a geometric mean of 200 organisms in any representative set of samples, 

and < 10% of the samples > 400 organisms /100 ml. (This criterion can be applied on a seasonal basis at the 

discretion of the MA DEP.) 

Class SC: < a geometric mean of 1000 organisms/100 ml and < 10% of the samples > 2000 organisms/100ml. 

Solids All Classes: These waters shall be free from floating, suspended, and settleable solids in concentrations or 

combinations that would impair any use assigned to each class, that would cause aesthetically objectionable 

conditions, or that would impair the benthic biota or degrade the chemical composition of the bottom. 

Color and All Classes: These waters shall be free from color and turbidity in concentrations or combinations that are 

Turbidity aesthetically objectionable or would impair any use. 

Oil & Grease Class A, SA: Waters shall be free from oil and grease, petrochemicals and other volatile or synthetic organic 

pollutants. 

Class SA: Waters shall be free from oil and grease and petrochemicals. 

Class B, C,SB, SC: Waters shall be free from oil and grease, petrochemicals that produce a visible film on the 

surface of the water, impart an oily taste to the water or an oily or other undesirable taste to the edible portions of 

aquatic life, coat the banks or bottom of the water course or are deleterious or become toxic to aquatic life. 

Taste and 

Odor 

Class A, SA: None other than of natural origin. 

Class B, C,SB, SC: None in such concentrations or combinations that are aesthetically objectionable, that would 

impair any use assigned to each class, or that would cause tainting or undesirable flavors in the edible portions of 

aquatic life. 

Aesthetics All Classes: All surface waters shall be free from pollutants in concentrations or combinations that settle to form 

objectionable deposits; float as debris, scum or other matter to form nuisances; produce objectionable odor, color, 

taste or turbidity; or produce undesirable or nuisance species of aquatic life. 

Toxic 

Pollutants ~ 

All Classes: All surface waters shall be free from pollutants in concentrations or combinations that are toxic to 

humans, aquatic life or wildlife… The division shall use the recommended limit published by EPA pursuant to 33 

USC 1251, 304(a) as the allowable receiving water concentrations for the affected waters unless a site-specific limit 

is established. 

Nutrients Shall not exceed the site-specific limits necessary to control accelerated or cultural eutrophication. 

*Class BCWF = Class B Cold Water Fishery, ** Class BWWF = Class B Warm Water Fishery, ∆ criterion (referring to a change from 

ambient) is applied to the effects of a permitted discharge. ~ USEPA. 19 November 1999. Federal Register Document. [Online]. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/1998/December/Day-10/w30272.htm. 



DESIGNATED USES 

The Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards designate the most sensitive uses for which the 

surface waters of the Commonwealth shall be enhanced, maintained and protected. Each of these uses is 

briefly described below (MA DEP 1996): 

• AQUATIC LIFE - suitable habitat for sustaining a native, naturally diverse, community of aquatic flora and fauna. 

Three subclasses of aquatic life are also designated in the standards for freshwater bodies; Cold Water Fishery - 

capable of sustaining a year-round population of cold water aquatic life such as trout, Warm Water Fishery - waters 

which are not capable of sustaining a year-round population of cold water aquatic life, and Marine Fishery - suitable 

for sustaining marine flora and fauna. 

• FISH CONSUMPTION - pollutants shall not result in unacceptable concentrations in edible portions of marketable 

fish or shellfish or for the recreational use of fish, shellfish, other aquatic life or wildlife for human consumption. 

• DRINKING WATER - used to denote those waters used as a source of public drinking water. They may be subject 

to more stringent regulation in accordance with the Massachusetts Drinking Water Regulations (310 CMR 22.00). 

These waters are designated for protection as Outstanding Resource Waters under 314 CMR 4.04(3). 

• PRIMARY CONTACT RECREATION - suitable for any recreation or other water use in which there is prolonged 

and intimate contact with the water with a significant risk of ingestion of water. These include, but are not limited to, 

wading, swimming, diving, surfing and water skiing. 

• SECONDARY CONTACT RECREATION - suitable for any recreation or other water use in which contact with the 

water is either incidental or accidental. These include, but are not limited to, fishing, boating and limited contact 

incident to shoreline activities. 

• AESTHETICS - all surface waters shall be free from pollutants in concentrations or combinations that settle to form 

objectionable deposits; float as debris, scum or other matter to form nuisances; produce objectionable odor, color, 

taste or turbidity; or produce undesirable or nuisance species of aquatic life. 

• AGRICULTURAL AND INDUSTRIAL - suitable for irrigation or other agricultural process water and for compatible 

industrial cooling and process water. 

Other restrictions which denote specific subcategories of use assigned to the segment that may affect the 

application of criteria or specific antidegradation provision of 314 CMR 4.00, which are specified along 

segments of the Connecticut River, include: 

• CSO – These waters are identified as impacted by the discharge of combined sewer overflows in the 

classification tables in 314 CMR 4.06(3). Overflow events may be allowed by the permitting authority 

without a variance or partial use designation where the provisions 314 CMR 4.06(1)(d)10 are met. 

The waterbody may be subject to short-term impairment of swimming or other recreational uses, but 

support these uses through most of their annual period of use; and the aquatic life community may 

suffer some adverse impact yet is still generally viable). 

[Note: The State Water Quality Standards (SWQS) have "CSO" listed where CSO impacts occur. 

However, this is only a notation and does not have regulatory significance unless all of the provisions of 

314 CMR 4.06 (1) (d) 10. have been met (Facilities Plan Approval, Use Attainability Analysis, etc.) and 

MA DEP makes a formal administrative determination after a public hearing and MEPA filing that a 

B(CSO) designation is supported and appropriate (Brander 2000).] 

The guidance used to assess the Aquatic Life, Fish Consumption, Drinking Water, Primary and Secondary 

Contact Recreation and Aesthetics uses follows. 



AQUATIC LIFE USE 

This use is suitable for sustaining a native, naturally diverse, community of aquatic flora and fauna. The results of 

biological (and habitat), toxicological, and chemical data are integrated to assess this use. The nature, frequency, 

and precision of the MA DEP's data collection techniques dictate that a weight of evidence be used to make the 

assessment, with biosurvey results used as the final arbiter of borderline cases. The following chart provides an 

overview of the guidance used to assess the status (support, partial support, non-support) of the Aquatic Life Use: 

Variable 

(# indicates reference) 

Support—Data available clearly 

indicates support. Minor 

excursions from chemical criteria 

(Table 3) may be tolerated if the 

biosurvey results demonstrate 

support. 

Partial Support -- Uncertainty about 

support in the chemical or toxicity 

testing data, or there is some minor 

modification of the biological 

community. Excursions not frequent or 

prolonged. 

Non-Support -- There are 

frequent or severe violations of 

chemical criteria, presence of 

acute toxicity, or a moderate or 

severe modification of the 

biological community. 

BIOLOGY 

Rapid Bioassessment 

Protocol (RBP) II or III (4) 

Non-Impaired Slightly Impaired Moderately or Severely Impaired 

Fish Community (4) Best Professional Judgement 

(BPJ) 

BPJ BPJ 

Habitat and Flow (4) BPJ BPJ Dewatered Streambed due to 

artificial regulation or channel 

alteration 

Macrophytes (4) BPJ Non-native plant species present, but Non-native plant species 

not dominant, BPJ 

dominant, BPJ 

Plankton/ 

Periphyton (4) 

TOXICITY TESTS 

No algal blooms Occasional algal blooms Persistent algal blooms 

Water Column (4) >75% survival either 48 hr or 7- >50 - 50 - 25% of 

measurements. 

measurements. 

Temperature (3, 6) 1 Criteria (Table 3), 1 

Criteria exceed in 11-25% of 

Criteria exceeded >25% of 

measurements. 

measurements. 

Turbidity (4) ∆ 5 NTU due to a discharge BPJ BPJ 

Suspended Solids (4) 25 mg/L max., ∆10 mg/L due to a 

discharge 

BPJ BPJ 

Nutrients (3) 

Table 3, (Site-Specific Criteria; BPJ BPJ 

Total Phosphorus(4) Maintain Balanced 

Biocommunity, no pH/DO 

violations) 

Toxic Pollutants (3, 6) Criteria (Table 3) 

Ammonia-N (3, 4) 

0.254 mg/L NH3-N 

Chlorine (3, 6) 

2 

BPJ Criterion is exceed in > 10% of 

samples. 

CHEMISTRY – SEDIMENT 

0.011 mg/L TRC 

Toxic Pollutants (5) < L-EL 3 , Low Effect Level One pollutant between L-EL and S-EL One pollutant ≥ S-EL (severe) 

Nutrients (5) < L-EL between L-EL and S-EL ≥ S-EL 

Metal Normalization to Al 

or Fe (4) 

CHEMISTRY- EFFLUENT 

Enrichment Ratio < 1 Enrichment Ratio >1 but 10 

Compliance with permit In-compliance with all limits NOTE: If the facility is not in compliance with their permit limits, the 

limits (4) 

CHEMISTRY-TISSUE 

information is used to threaten one river mile downstream from the 

discharge. 

PCB – whole fish (1)

FISH CONSUMPTION USE 

Pollutants shall not result in unacceptable concentrations in edible portions of marketable fish or shellfish or 

for the recreational use of fish, shellfish, other aquatic life or wildlife for human consumption. The 

assessment of this use is made using the most recent list of Fish Consumption Advisories issued by the 

Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services, Department of Public Health (DPH), 

Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment (MA DPH 1999). The DPH list identifies waterbodies where 

elevated levels of a specified contaminant in edible portions of freshwater species poses a health risk for 

human consumption; hence the Fish Consumption Use is assessed as non-support in these waters. In 

1994, DPH also issued a statewide “Interim Freshwater Fish Consumption Advisory” for mercury (MA 

DPH 1994). The interim advisory states that “pregnant women should be advised of the possible health 

risk from eating fish from Massachusetts freshwater bodies in order to prevent exposure of developing 

fetuses to mercury”. This precautionary measure was aimed at pregnant women only; the general public 

was not considered to be at risk from fish consumption. MA DPH’s interim advisory does not include fish 

stocked by the state Division of Fisheries and Wildlife or farm-raised fish sold commercially. Because of 

the statewide interim advisory, however, no fresh waters can be assessed as supporting the Fish 

Consumption Use. The following is an overview of the guidance used to assess the status (support, 

partial support, non-support) of the Fish Consumption Use. 

Variable 

(# indicates 

reference) 

DPH Fish Consumption 

Advisory List (8) 

Support —No restrictions 

or bans in effect 

Not applicable, precluded by 

statewide advisory (Hg) 

Partial Support – A "restricted 

consumption" fish advisory is in 

effect for the general population 

or a sub-population that could be 

at potentially greater risk (e.g., 

pregnant women, and children 

Non-Support – A "no 

consumption" advisory or 

ban in effect for the general 

population or a subpopulation 

for one or more 

fish species; or there is a 

commercial fishing ban in 

effect 

Not applicable Waterbody on DPH Fish 

Consumption Advisory List * 

DRINKING WATER USE 

The Drinking Water Use denotes those waters used as a source of public drinking water. These waters 

may be subject to more stringent regulation in accordance with the Massachusetts Drinking Water 

Regulations (310 CMR 22.00). They are designated for protection as Outstanding Resource Waters in 

314 CMR 4.04(3). This use is assessed by MA DEP’s Drinking Water Program (DWP). Below is EPA’s 

guidance used to assess the status (support, partial support, non-support) of the drinking water use. 

Variable 

(# indicates 

reference) 

Drinking Water Program 

(DWP) Evaluation 

Support-- No closures or advisories 

(no contaminants with confirmed 

exceedences of MCLs, conventional 

treatment is adequate to maintain 

the supply). 

Partial Support – Is one or 

more advisories or more 

than conventional treatment 

is required 

Non-Support – One or 

more contaminationbased 

closures of the 

water supply 

Reported by DWP Reported by DWP Reported by DWP 



PRIMARY CONTACT RECREATIONAL USE 

This use is suitable for any recreational or other water use in which there is prolonged and intimate contact 

with the water with a significant risk of ingestion of water (1 April to 15 October). These include, but are not 

limited to, wading, swimming, diving, surfing and water skiing. The chart below provides an overview of the 

guidance used to assess the status (support, partial support, non-support) of the Primary Contact Use. 

Variable 

(# indicates 

reference) 

Fecal Coliform 

Bacteria (3, 9) * 

Support-- Criteria are met, no 

aesthetic conditions that preclude 

the use 

Criteria met OR 

Dry Weather Guidance 

25% 

Turbidity (3, 6) exceeded in 1.2 meters ( > 4’) Infrequent excursions from the Frequent and/or prolonged 

(10) ** 

guidance 

excursions from the guidance 

Oil & Grease (3) Criteria met Criteria exceeded 11-25% of the time Criteria exceeded >25% of 

the time 

Aesthetics (3) No nuisance organisms that render Lakes – cover of macrophytes 50- Lakes – cover of macrophytes 

Biocommunity the water aesthetically objectionable 75% of lake area at their maximum >75% of lake area at their 

(4)** 

or unusable; 

Lakes – cover of macrophytes < 50% 

of lake area at maximum extent of 

growth. 

extent of growth. 

maximum extent of growth. 

Note: Excursions from criteria due to natural conditions are not considered impairment of use. The Primary Contact 

Recreational Use status cannot be rated higher than either the Secondary Contact Recreational or the Aesthetics 

Use status. 

* Fecal Coliform bacteria interpretations require additional information in order to apply this use assessment 

guidance. Bacteria data results (fecal coliform) are interpreted according to whether they represent dry weather or 

wet weather (storm water runoff) conditions. Accordingly, it is important to interpret the amount of precipitation 

received in the study region immediately prior to sampling and streamflow conditions. 

** Lakes exhibiting impairment of the primary contact recreation use (swimmable) because of macrophyte cover and/or 

transparency (Secchi disk depth) are assessed as either partial or non-support. If no fecal coliform bacteria data are 

available and the lake (entirely or in part) met the transparency (Secchi disk depth) and aesthetics guidance this use is 

not assessed. 



SECONDARY CONTACT RECREATIONAL USE 

This use is suitable for any recreation or other water use in which contact with the water is either incidental 

or accidental. These include, but are not limited to, fishing, boating and limited contact incident to shoreline 

activities. Following is an overview of the guidance used to assess the status (support, partial support, 

non-support) of the Secondary Contact Use. 

Variable 

(# indicates 

reference) 

Fecal Coliform 

Bacteria (4) * 

Support-- Criteria are met, no 

aesthetic conditions that 

preclude the use 

Dry Weather Guidance 

25% of the 

time 

Aesthetics (3) No nuisance organisms that render Macrophyte cover is between 50 – Macrophyte cover exceeds 

Biocommunity the water aesthetically objectionable 75% 

75% of the lake area. 

(4) ** 

or unusable; Lakes – cover of 

macrophytes < 50% of lake area at 

their maximum extent of growth. 

Note: Excursions from criteria due to natural conditions are not considered impairment of use. The Secondary 

Contact Recreational Use status cannot be rated higher than the Aesthetics Use status. 

* Fecal Coliform bacteria interpretations require additional information in order to apply this use assessment 

guidance. Bacteria data results (fecal coliform) are interpreted according to whether they represent dry weather or 

wet weather (storm water runoff) conditions. Accordingly it is important to interpret the amount of precipitation 

received in the subject region immediately prior to sampling and streamflow conditions. 

** In lakes if no fecal coliform data are available, macrophyte cover is the only criterion used to assess the Secondary 

Contact Recreational Use. 

For the Primary and Secondary Contact Recreational uses the following steps are taken to interpret the 

fecal coliform bacteria results: 

1. Identify the range of fecal coliform bacteria results, 

2. Calculate the geometric mean (monthly, seasonally, or on dataset), (Note: the geometric mean is 

only calculated on datasets with >5 samples collected within a 30-day period.) 

3. Calculate the % of sample results exceeding 400 cfu/100 mLs, 

4. Determine if the samples were collected during wet or dry weather conditions (review precipitation 

and streamflow data), 

Dry weather can be defined as: No/trace antecedent (to the sampling event) precipitation that 

causes more than a slight increase in streamflow. 

Wet weather can be defined as: Precipitation antecedent to the sampling event that results in a 

marked increase in streamflow. 

5. Apply the following to interpret dry weather data: 

25% of the samples exceed criteria (step 2 and 3, above) assessed as Non-Support. 



AESTHETICS USE 

All surface waters shall be free from pollutants in concentrations or combinations that settle to form 

objectionable deposits; float as debris, scum or other matter to form nuisances; produce objectionable odor, 

color, taste or turbidity; or produce undesirable or nuisance species of aquatic life. The aesthetic use is 

closely tied to the public health aspects of the recreational uses (swimming and boating). Below is an 

overview of the guidance used to assess the status (support, partial support, non-support) of the 

Aesthetics Use. 

Variable 

(# indicates reference) 

Support – 1. No objectionable 

bottom deposits, floating 

debris, scum, or nuisances; 2. 

objectionable odor, color, taste 

or turbidity, or nuisance 

aquatic life 

Partial Support - Objectionable 

conditions neither frequent nor 

prolonged 

Non-Support – 

Objectionable conditions 

frequent and/or prolonged 

Aesthetics (3)* 

Criteria met BPJ (spatial and temporal extent of BPJ (extent of spatial and 

Visual observation (4) 

degradation) 

temporal degradation) 

* For lakes, the aesthetic use category is generally assessed at the same level of impairment as the more severely impaired recreational 

use category (Primary or Secondary Contact). 

References 

1. Coles, J.C. 1998.Organochlorine Compounds in Fish Tissue from the Connecticut, Housatonic and Thames River Basins 

Study Unit, 1992-94. National Water-Quality Assessment Program. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Marlborough, MA. 

2. Environment Canada. 04 November 1999. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. [Online]. Environment Canada. 

http://www.ec.gc.ca/ceqg-rcqe/tistbl_e.doc [28 September 1998]. 

3. MA DEP. 1996. (Revision of 1995 report). Massachusetts surface water quality standards. Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection, Division of Water Pollution Control, Technical Services Branch. Westborough, MA (Revision of 

314 CMR 4.00, effective June 23, 1996). 

4. MA DEP. 1999. Open File. Department of Watershed Management 305(b) Assessment Guidance. Massachusetts 

Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Watershed Management. Worcester, MA 

5. Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi, and A. Hayton. 1993. Guidelines for the protection and management of aquatic sediment 

quality in Ontario. Water Resources Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Canada. 

6. USEPA. 1997. Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports) and 

Electronic Updates: Supplement. Assessment and Watershed Protection Division (4503F), Office of Wetlands, Oceans and 

Watersheds, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 

7. USEPA. 19 November 1999. Federal Register Document. [Online]. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/1998/December/Day-10/w30272.htm. 

8. MA DPH. 1999. Freshwater Fish Consumption Advisory List. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Bureau of 

Environmental Health Assessment. Boston, MA. 

9. Kimball, W.A., 1996. Memorandum to 305(b) Committee. Re: Small data sets/ wet weather data. Massachusetts Department 

of Environmental Protection, Office of Watershed Management. Grafton, MA. 

10. MA DPH. 1969. Article 7 Regulation 10.2B of the State Sanitary Code. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Department of 

Public Health. Boston, MA. 

11. Churchill, N. 1999. Personal Communication. Shellfish Project Classification Area Information as of 1 January 1999. 

Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental Law Enforcement, Division of Marine Fisheries. Pocasset, MA. 



NASHUA RIVER BASIN DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION 

DESCRIPTION 

The Nashua River is a tributary of the Merrimack River, one of several New England rivers draining to the 

Atlantic Ocean. The Nashua River's 530 square-mile total drainage area lies primarily within Worcester and 

Middlesex counties in Massachusetts, and a small area of Hillsborough County, New Hampshire. The 

Nashua River Basin is located in north central Massachusetts and southern New Hampshire. Although the 

Nashua River flows northeast to the Merrimack 

River, its major tributaries flow in a southeast 

direction. The area drained by the major 

PARKER 

HUDSON 

DEERFIELD 

MILLERS 

IPSWICH 

tributaries lies to the west of the Nashua River. 

In Massachusetts the Nashua River Basin is 

bordered to the west by the Millers and Chicopee 

river basins, to the south by the Blackstone River 

Basin and to the east by the Merrimack and 

Concord river basins (Figure 6). The 

communities of Ashburnham, Ashby, Ayer, 

Bolton, Boylston, Clinton, Dunstable, Fitchburg, 

Gardner, Groton, Harvard, Holden, Lancaster, 

Leominster, Lunenburg, Paxton, Pepperell, 

Princeton, Rutland, Shirley, Sterling, Townsend, 

West Boylston, and Westminster lie wholly or in part within the basin boundaries in Massachusetts. The 

Nashua River Basin has a land-use pattern typical of rural areas in Massachusetts and New Hampshire; 

concentrated settlements and strip development with much of the basin underdeveloped and containing 

large areas of privately owned open spaces (Kimball 1998). Paper production has been the prominent 

industry in Fitchburg and Leominster in the Nashua River Basin since the early 19 th century. Although 

these cities continue to be the population and economic centers, the industrial community now includes 

plastics, fabricated metal products, machinery, and chemical manufacturing. 

HOUSATONIC 

WESTFIELD 

FARMINGTON 

CONNECTICUT 

CHICOPEE 

QUINEBAUG 

Figure 6. Location 

of 

BLACKSTONE 

SuAsCo 

MERRIMACK 

NORTH 

COASTAL 

BOSTON 

HARBOR 

For the purpose of this report, the Nashua River begins at the outlet of Lancaster Millpond in Clinton and 

flows in a northerly direction to its confluence with the North Nashua River in Lancaster. This portion of the 

river is commonly referred to as the “South Branch” Nashua River. The North Nashua River, from its 

headwaters in Fitchburg at the confluence of the Whitman River and Flag Brook, flows in a southeasterly 

direction for a distance of approximately 19 miles. The North Nashua River has an elevation drop of 360 

feet. Downstream of the confluence with the North Nashua River, the mainstem falls another 110 feet along 

its remaining 37-mile northeasterly course to its confluence with the Merrimack River in Nashua, New 

Hampshire. Two major tributaries, the Squannacook and Nissitissit rivers join the mainstem Nashua River in 

Massachusetts. In Massachusetts there are 105 named streams in the Nashua River Basin that have been 

assigned SARIS (Stream and River Information System) code numbers (Halliwell et al. 1982). These 

streams and rivers flow an estimated 321 miles. 

The topography of the Nashua River Basin is characterized by rolling hills with numerous lakes, ponds and 

reservoirs that provide temporary storage for high runoff during storm events. The valleys of the Nashua 

River Basin contain glacial sediments overlying bedrock the depths of which range from 0 to 200 feet. The 

valleys along the mainstem of the Nashua River contain mostly glaciofluvial sands and gravels. The 

sediment underlying the tributary valleys is composed of coarser sand and gravels, with the exception of the 

North Nashua River which is underlain by finer grained glaciolacustrine sediments (MA DEM 1989). 

The “South Branch” Nashua River was dammed in 1906 to form Wachusett Reservoir. Massachusetts 

Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) owns and operates this reservoir, which is required by 

Massachusetts General Laws (1896) to release 12 million gallons per week (an average of 1.8 MGD) to the 

“South Branch” Nashua River (CDM 1975). [Note: MDC/MWRA is allowed to withdraw 126 MGD from 

the reservoir for public water supply purposes. The majority of this water is transferred out of the Nashua 

River Basin.] Water released from Wachusett Reservoir to the river is only one-fifth of the river’s natural 


81wqar.doc DWM CN 46.0 

FRENCH 

SHAWSHEEN 

CHARLES 

TEN 

MILE 

NARRAGANSETT 

BAY 

BOSTON HARBOR 

TAUNTON 

SOUTH 

COASTAL 

BUZZARDS BAY 

CAPE COD

flow (de Lima 1991). In a hydrological sense, the Wachusett Reservoir effectively isolates 115 squaremiles 

of the watershed. 

The average discharge of the North Nashua River near Fitchburg is 122 cfs and in Leominster is 

approximately 200 cfs (Socolow et al. 2000). The discharge of the North Nashua River under extreme 

low flow conditions (7-day, 10-year) is estimated to be 8.8 and 32.8 cfs at Fitchburg and Leominster, 

respectively (USGS 1998). 

The average discharge of the mainstem Nashua River downstream of Pepperell Pond is 584 cfs. 

Although Pepperell Paper Company is required to maintain a minimum flow of 60 cfs in the Nashua River 

downstream of the dam (unless the natural flow into Pepperell Pond is lower), streamflow fluctuation due 

to hydropower generation make estimates of low flow difficult. The estimated 7-day, 10-year low flow in 

the Nashua River at the USGS gage in Pepperell is 46 cfs (USGS 1998). 

A total of 158 lakes, ponds or impoundments (the term "lakes" will hereafter be used to include all) have 

been identified and assigned Pond and Lake Information System (PALIS) code numbers in the Nashua 

River Basin (Ackerman 1989 and MA DEP 2000d). The total surface area of the Nashua River Basin lakes 

is 10,629.8 acres. 

The Massachusetts Water Resource Authority’s (MWRA) Wachusett Reservoir receives more than 50% of 

its annual inflow from the Quabbin Reservoir; inflows from Wachusett tributaries account for another 30% 

of its annual inflow. Wachusett Reservoir's elongated shape and large size result in long detention times, 

and significant dilution and settling of tributary inflows. Almost 90% of the total annual inflow to Wachusett 

Reservoir enters the reservoir at or above Thomas Basin, a narrow basin of the reservoir bounded on its 

lower end by the Route 12 bridge. The constriction at the Route 12 bridge narrows the reservoir from 

approximately 1,000 feet to 50 feet, and makes Thomas Basin an effective detention and sedimentation 

basin which helps to maintain the high quality of water in the main body of the reservoir (MDC 2000). 

Additionally, the Nashua River Basin includes the Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge and the former “Fort 

Devens Reservation” ordered closed by Congress in 1991. The Nashua River and many of its tributaries 

run directly through the former base, with wetlands located along its banks. The Oxbow National Wildlife 

Refuge was established in 1974 and encompasses 711 acres of riparian woodland and adjacent wetlands 

on the floodplain of the Nashua River bordering the “Fort Devens Reservation” (USFWS 1993). The 

reservation is a 9,400-acre former U.S. Army base that lies between the towns of Ayer and Shirley in 

Middlesex County, and Lancaster and Harvard in Worcester County. The Fort Devens installation is 

comprised of three primary areas, the Main Post, North Post, and South Post (EPA 2000). There are 

approximately 4,830 acres in the South Post of Devens that provide a large area of unfragmented natural 

habitat that is adjacent to the Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge. The four communities (Ayer, Harvard, 

Lancaster and Shirley) linked by the Nashua River and Devens share the common interests of protecting 

and enhancing the Nashua River and its watershed and mitigating the impacts generated by Devens 

redevelopment or ReUse Plan (NRWA 1999). 

CLASSIFICATION 

Consistent with the National Goal Uses of “fishable and swimmable waters”, the classification of waters in 

the Nashua River Basin according to the SWQS, include the following (MA DEP 1996): 

Class A Public Water Supplies in the Nashua River Basin: 

• Ashby Reservoir, source to outlet in Ashby and those tributaries thereto 

• Lovell Reservoir, source to outlet in Fitchburg and those tributaries thereto 

• Scott Reservoir, source to outlet in Fitchburg and those tributaries thereto 

• Wachusett Lake, source to outlet in Westminster and those tributaries thereto 

• Overlook Reservoir, source to outlet in Fitchburg and those tributaries thereto 

• Falulah Reservoir, source to outlet in Fitchburg and those tributaries thereto 

• Muschopauge Pond, source to outlet in Rutland and those tributaries thereto 

• Notown Reservoir, source to outlet in Leominster and those tributaries thereto 



• Simonds Pond, source to outlet in Leominster and those tributaries thereto 

• Goodfellow Pond, source to outlet in Leominster and those tributaries thereto 

• Haynes Reservoir, source to outlet in Leominster and those tributaries thereto 

• Morse Reservoir, source to outlet in Leominster and those tributaries thereto 

• Distributing Reservoir, source to outlet in Leominster and those tributaries thereto 

• Fall Brook Reservoir, source to outlet in Leominster and those tributaries thereto 

• Meetinghouse Pond, source to outlet in Westminster and those tributaries thereto 

• Asnebumskit Pond, source to outlet in Paxton and those tributaries thereto 

• Fitchburg Reservoir, source to outlet in Ashby and those tributaries thereto 

• Kendall Reservoir, source to outlet in Holden and those tributaries thereto 

• Pine Hill Reservoir, source to outlet in Holden and those tributaries thereto 

• Quinapoxet Reservoir, source to outlet in Holden and those tributaries thereto 

• Wachusett Reservoir, source to outlet in Clinton and those tributaries thereto 

• Shattuck Reservoir, source to outlet in Fitchburg and those tributaries thereto 

All Class A waters are designated as ORWs (Rojko et al. 1995). In the Nashua River Basin sections of 

two Class B waters (Squannacook and Nissitissit Rivers) are also designated as ORWs. The designation 

of ORW is applied to those waters with exceptional socio-economic, recreational, ecological and/or 

aesthetic values. ORWs have more stringent requirements than other waters because the existing use is 

so exceptional or the perceived risk of harm is such that no lowering of water quality is permissible. 

Generally, new or increased discharges of pollutants are prohibited for wastewater and storm water. 

Also, there are more stringent criteria for the discharge of dredge or fill material to wetlands in ORWs. 

ORWs also include certified vernal pools, and may include surface waters found in National Parks, State 

Forests and Parks, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) and those protected by special 

legislation (MA DEM 21 November 2000). Wetlands that border ORWs are designated as ORWs to the 

boundary of the defined area. 

The Central Nashua River Valley Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), designated in January 

1996 by the Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs, is approximately 12,900 acres in size and 

is located in Bolton (700 acres), Harvard (1,850 acres), Lancaster (10,100 acres) and Leominster (250 

acres). The heart of this ACEC is the 20-mile riparian corridor of the North Nashua and Nashua Rivers 

situated south of Route 2 in Leominster, Lancaster, Bolton and Harvard. Associated with this corridor are 

extensive surface waters, wetlands, floodplains and aquifers, as well as interrelated riparian and upland 

wildlife and rare species habitat, forest, farmlands, and publicly and privately owned open space. 

Approximately 61% (7,900 acres) of the ACEC is open space (Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge, Bolton 

Flats Wildlife Management Area, and over 1,000 acres of other state, municipal and privately owned 

conservation and recreation lands. Another 4,830 acres of the South Post of Fort Devens are not open to 

the public) (MA DEM 21 November 2000). 

Class B Cold Water Fisheries in the Nashua River Basin: 

• Squannacook River, from its source to Hollingsworth and Vose (paper company Groton/Shirley) 

• Nissitissit River, from the Massachusetts/ New Hampshire state line to its confluence with the 

Nashua River in Pepperell 

Class B Warm Water Fisheries in the Nashua River Basin: 

• Nashua River, from its source to the New Hampshire State Line 

• North Nashua River, from its source to the Leominster POTW (CSO) 

• North Nashua River, from the Leominster POTW to the confluence with the Nashua River 

• Phillips Brook, from Fitchburg to the confluence with the North Nashua River (CSO) 

• South Nashua River, from the outlet at Wachusett Reservoir to the confluence with the North 

Nashua River 

• Squannacook River, from Hollingsworth and Vose (paper company Groton/Shirley)to its 

confluence with the Nashua River 



Unlisted waters not otherwise designated in the SWQS are designated Class B, High Quality Water. 

According to the SWQS, where fisheries designations are necessary, they shall be made on a case-bycase 

basis. 

SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PERCEIVED PROBLEMS 

The Nashua River has a long history of water quality degradation. In the 1960’s and early 1970’s, paper 

manufacturing facilities in Fitchburg and Pepperell, inadequately treated municipal wastewater in 

Fitchburg, Leominster, Clinton and Ayer, and combined sewer overflows (CSO) in Fitchburg and 

Leominster caused severe pollution impacts in the North Branch and mainstem Nashua Rivers (Johnson 

et al. 1990). While the water quality in the mainstem and North Branch Nashua River has improved 

considerably with implementation of advanced wastewater treatment, impacts on stream biota and 

elevated bacteria levels remain problematic. 

The Clean Water Act section 303(d) requires states to identify those waterbodies that are not meeting 

Surface Water Quality Standards (SWQS). Table 4 identifies waterbodies in the Nashua River Basin in 

Massachusetts that are on the 1998 Section 303(d) list of waters (MA DEP 1999a). It should be noted 

that in 1994, MA DPH issued a statewide Interim Freshwater Fish Consumption Advisory for mercury (MA 

DPH 1994). This precautionary measure was aimed at pregnant women only; the general public was not 

considered to be at risk from fish consumption. Because the advisory encompasses all freshwaters in 

Massachusetts, the Fish Consumption Use can not be assessed as support. Therefore, all freshwaters in 

Massachusetts are technically (by default) listed as 303(d) waters with mercury as the associated 

stressor/pollutant. Furthermore the 1998 303(d) list contains an attachment (#3) of the MA DPH fish 

consumption advisories (MA DEP 1999a). 

Table 4. 1998 303(d) list of impaired waters, Nashua River Basin. 

1998 303(d) Listed Waterbody Cause of Impairment 

Fitchburg West WWTP to Fitchburg Paper Other habitat alterations and Pathogens 

Company Dam #1, Fitchburg 

(fecal coliform bacteria) 

North Nashua River 

Fitchburg Paper Company Dam #1 to Fitchburg 

East WWTP, Fitchburg 

Fecal coliform bacteria 

Fitchburg East WWTP, Fitchburg, to 

Leominster WWTP, Leominster 

Fecal coliform bacteria 

Nashua River 

Outlet Lancaster Mill Pond to Clinton WWTP, 

Clinton 

Confluence with the Squannacook River, 

Unknown toxicity 

Nashua River * Shirley/Groton/Ayer to Pepperell Dam, 

Pepperell 

Organic Enrichment/ Low DO 

Bare Hill Pond Harvard Noxious aquatic plants 

Fort Pond Lancaster Nutrients 

Grove Pond Ayer Metals 

Harbor Pond Townsend Noxious aquatic plants 

Mirror Lake Harvard Metals 

Pierce Pond Leominster Noxious aquatic plants 

Plow Shop Pond Ayer Metals 

Flannagan Pond * Ayer Noxious aquatic plants 

Barrett Pond * Leominster Noxious aquatic plants 

*needs confirmation (additional data collection is necessary to confirm the presence of impairment) 

The MA DPH Fish Consumption List includes five waterbodies in the Nashua River Basin; Wachusett 

Reservoir, Pepperell Pond, Grove Pond, Plow Shop Pond, and Mirror Lake because of elevated levels of 

mercury in fish tissue. The advisories recommend the following (MA DPH 1999): 

Wachusett Reservoir, Boylston/West Boylston/Clinton/Sterling (Advisory issued by MA DPH June 1989): 

• Children under 12, pregnant women and nursing mothers should not consume fish except for lake 

trout (less than 24 inches long) and salmon. 

• All other people should not eat smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, or lake trout (greater than 24 

inches long); May eat unlimited amounts of salmon and lake trout (less than 24 inches long); and 

should limit consumption of all other Wachusett Reservoir fish to one five-ounce meal per week. 



Pepperell Pond, Pepperell/Groton (Advisory issued by MA DPH June 1994): 

• Children under 12, pregnant women and nursing mothers should refrain from consuming any fish 

from Pepperell Pond in order to prevent exposure of developing fetuses and young children to 

mercury. 

• The general public should refrain from consumption of largemouth bass caught from Pepperell 

Pond. 

• The general public should limit consumption of all other Pepperell Pond fish to two meals per 

month. 

Mirror Lake, Ft. Devens, Harvard (Advisory issued MA DPH May 1996): 

• Children under 12, pregnant women and nursing mothers should refrain from consuming any 

largemouth bass from Mirror Lake in order to prevent exposure of developing fetuses and young 

children to mercury. 

• The general public should limit consumption of largemouth bass caught from Mirror Lake to two 

meals per month. 

Plow Shop Pond, Ft. Devens, Ayer (Advisory issued by US Army): 

• The general public should not consume any fish from this waterbody. 

Grove Pond, Ft. Devens, Ayer (Advisory issued by town of Ayer): 

• The general public should not consume any fish from this waterbody. 

Another major issue in the Nashua River Basin is the redevelopment of the Fort Devens base. The following 

information provides a description of the base’s historical use and on going restoration, redevelopment 

and remediation activities (EPA 17 November 2000). 

The Army established Fort Devens in 1917 as a temporary training camp for soldiers during World 

War I. In 1931, the camp became a permanent installation and operated for over 60 years serving a 

variety of military purposes. In 1991, the Fort Devens base was targeted for realignment and 

closure and by 1996, the base was closed and the transformation of the site for public and private 

use began. 

The Fort Devens installation primarily comprises three primary areas, the Main Post, North Post, 

and South Post. The Main Post provided all base housing, community services, administrative 

buildings, training facilities, ammunition storage and an 8.8-acre vehicle maintenance yard. The 

Main Post also is the site of an 84-acre municipal landfill that existed before the base was 

established, and was used by the Army. The North Post was primarily a military airfield, but was 

also used to train troops. In addition, it contains a wastewater treatment plant. The South Post 

contained areas for troop training, firing range activities, and an air drop zone. 

The numerous operations at the Fort Devens base have resulted in the possible contamination of 

over 80 areas of the installation. Three of these areas were of particular concern to the Superfund 

program: the maintenance yard and municipal landfill located on the Main Post, and the airfield 

located on the North Post. The maintenance yard consisted of an unpaved parking area where 

military vehicles leaked fuel and oil onto the ground. Additionally, underground storage tanks 

located at the maintenance yard had released waste oil, resulting in contamination of the 

surrounding soil with polyaromatic hydrocarbons, which are carcinogenic. The municipal landfill had 

deteriorated to a point where there was a significant threat of arsenic contamination to the 

groundwater under the site. Groundwater also is contaminated at the North Post, where a plume of 

polychloroethylene was detected under the airfield. Polychloroethylene is a solvent that was used 

extensively by the Army to clean parachutes at the airfield. Many other contaminated areas of the 

Fort Devens site are being addressed under authorities other than Superfund. 

At its peak, over 15,000 military personnel and their families lived on the Fort Devens base. The 

current land use around the site is primarily rural and residential, with an estimated 3,500 

households located within two miles of the Fort Devens boundary. In addition, the Nashua River 

and many of its tributaries run directly through the site, with wetlands located along its banks. The 

Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge is located just below the southern boundary of the Main Post. 

The closure of Fort Devens and the remedies chosen to clean up the site were key factors in its 

redevelopment. As an Army base, Fort Devens had extensive infrastructure in place and was being 



used for a variety of operations. At the time of the base’s closure, studies indicated that 

approximately 5.6 million square feet of land and over 2 million square feet of existing buildings and 

facilities had potential reuse because of their location and access to major highways and rail 

service. Several public and private sector employers have taken advantage of this redevelopment 

potential and have located, or are planning to locate, at the site. The redevelopment of Fort Devens 

is expected to revitalize the local economy impacted by the base’s closure. 

As part of the redevelopment of the Fort Devens site, the Department of Defense (DoD) transferred 

large portions of the site to other Federal departments and the State to provide public services and 

attract private businesses. DoD retained control of 5,000 acres of land, including all of the South 

Post and portions of the Main and North Posts, for construction of a new Army Reserve enclave 

and training area. DoD transferred the remainder of the site to the Department of Labor (DOL), the 

Department of Justice (DOJ), and a State-designated developer for public and private 

development. DoD transferred approximately 22 acres of land to DOL, which is building a Jobs 

Corp Center; 222 acres to the DOJ, where a Federal Bureau of Prisons Hospital is being built; and 

approximately 836 acres along the Nashua River to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for an 

extension to the Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge. The remainder of the Main and North Posts was 

transferred to the Massachusetts Government Land Bank to promote and oversee private 

redevelopment. 

SOURCES OF INFORMATION 

Multiple local, state and federal agencies provided information used in the water quality assessment of 

the Nashua River Basin. Within the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) information was 

obtained from three programmatic bureaus: Bureau of Resource Protection (BRP, see below), Bureau of 

Waste Prevention (industrial wastewater discharge information) and the Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup 

(hazardous waste site cleanup information). Specifically, water quality, habitat assessment, and biological 

data, toxics in fish flesh data, and lake synoptic survey data were provided by DEP BRP Division of 

Watershed Management (DWM) Watershed Planning Program. The DEP Central Regional Office Nashua 

River Watershed Team and the DWM Watershed Permitting Program provided water withdrawal and 

wastewater discharge permit information (Water Management Act, and National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System). [Note: The BRP DWM Drinking Water Program evaluates the status of the Drinking 

Water Use and this information is therefore not provided in this assessment report.] Projects funded 

through various DEP grant and loan programs also provide valuable information that may be used in the 

water quality assessment report (MA DEP 2000c). A summary of these projects for the Nashua River Basin 

is provided in Appendix E. 

Other state agencies contributing information to this report include: the Metropolitan District Commission 

(MDC), the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MA DPH), the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, 

and Environmental Law Enforcement (DFWELE) Division of Fisheries and Wildlife and its Riverways 

Program, and the Department of Environmental Management (DEM). 

The MDC’s Division of Watershed Management (MDC DWM) is responsible for securing and maintaining an 

adequate supply of high quality drinking water to meet the demands of the 46 communities served by the 

Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA). Water quality sampling and watershed monitoring are 

an integral part of their mission. The Environmental Quality Section staff at Wachusett Reservoir conduct 

the sampling activities. Their routine water quality sampling data, conducted at 20 stations on 15 tributaries, 

includes weekly sampling for fecal coliform bacteria, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO) and pH 

measurements and monthly nutrient sampling. Samples were almost always collected between 7:30 and 

11:00 in the morning, generally on Tuesday or Wednesday (Pistrang 2000). Additional sampling during 

storm events and special studies are also summarized in their annual water quality reports for Wachusett 

Reservoir and Watershed (Getman et al. 1996, Pistrang et al. 1997 and 1998). Their water quality 

monitoring data from 1995 to 1999 is summarized in this assessment report. The MDC also conducts 

benthic macroinvertebrate sampling in the Wachusett Watershed and has used a modified RBP III 

evaluation for their analysis (Pistrang 2000). Most organisms were identified to genus or species if keys 

were available with the exception of the chironomids. For purposes of determining total number of taxa, 

chironomids were separated into general groupings based on overall physical appearance. Benthic 

macroinvertebrates were sampled at a total of 14 stations in the Wachusett Reservoir Watershed by MDC 

in 1996. 



Federal agencies contributing to the information used in this report include the EPA and United States 

Geological Survey (USGS). The EPA provided compliance monitoring evaluations at five NPDES facilities 

during August 1998 (Fitchburg East and West, Leominster, Clinton, and Ayer WWTPs) (Kundarauskas 

1998). In-situ meters were also deployed by EPA to obtain diurnal dissolved oxygen data at four locations 

between 16 and 24 July and 10 – 13 August 1998 (inlet and outlet of Pepperell Pond, Groton School and 

the Ice House Dam) (MA DEP 1998). EPA also collected sediment quality data. This monitoring included 

sediment oxygen demand (SOD) measurements at eight locations during November 1998. Sediments for 

toxicity testing were collected at five of the locations using the test organisms Chironomus tentans and 

Hyallela azteca as well as physicochemical analysis in March 1999 (McDonald 1999): 

• grain size 

• Total Organic Carbon (TOC) 

• Simultaneously extracted metals/acid volatile sulfides (SEM/AVS) 

• Cyanide (Cn) 

• total metals: silver (Ag), arsenic (As), barium (Ba), beryllium (Be), cadmium (Cd), cobalt (Co), 

chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb), antimony (Sb), selenium (Se), thallium (Tl), 

vanadium (V), zinc (Zn), and mercury (Hg) 

Sediment sampling station locations in the Nashua River included: 

• NR1 upstream of the “Tank Bridge” and railroad tracks, 

• NR2 downstream of the “Tank Bridge” across from the boat landing in the Oxbow National Wildlife 

Refuge, 

• NR3 approximately 30m upstream of the Ice House Dam, 

• NR4 adjacent to the abandoned Devens air strip, and 

• NR5 just upstream of the Pepperell Dam. 

Hydrological data was obtained from USGS at five stations: North Nashua River in Fitchburg, North Nashua 

River in Leominster, the Stillwater River in Sterling, the Squannacook River in West Groton and the 

mainstem Nashua River in East Pepperell (Socolow et al. 1998 and Socolow et al. 1999). 

A directed study of fish in lakes in northeastern Massachusetts (MA) was performed by the DEP Office of 

Research and Standards (ORS) during 1999 in order to examine possible spatial patterns in the 

occurrence of higher fish mercury concentrations and to compare the fish contamination situation in this 

localized geographical region to state-wide and regional data (MA DEP 2000b). Northeastern 

Massachusetts has an important history of industrialization dating back into the nineteenth century with 

the extensive burgeoning of mills along the Merrimack River. Most of this industry is now gone and the 

infrastructure for the mills is now slowly being converted to non-manufacturing uses. Many of the older, 

larger towns are relatively densely populated areas, yet surrounding lands are relatively undeveloped. 

This region was recently identified through the use of an air deposition model as having the highest 

predicted annual levels of recent wet and dry atmospheric deposition of mercury in the state. The area 

has the state’s largest concentration of point sources of atmospheric mercury emissions: three municipal 

solid waste incinerators and a medical waste incinerator. Zones downwind from major point sources may 

be subject to increased deposition of a variety of contaminants (e.g., smelters, tailings piles and power 

stations). While historic records do not exist of atmospheric mercury deposition in this area, past 

widespread burning of coal for domestic heat and industrial boilers in the late nineteenth and first half of 

the twentieth centuries probably contributed to a relatively high background mercury signature in the 

environment of this part of the state. The objectives of the study were to: 

1) sample fish from as many lakes in northeastern MA where fishing takes place as possible in 

order to determine if fish consumption advisories are needed for those lakes; 

2) determine whether the frequency of advisories is greater in this area than across the state as 

a whole; 

3) determine if there are any spatial patterns in fish mercury concentrations within the study 

area related to the locations of the major point sources of mercury emissions; 

4) determine how well measured mercury concentrations match those predicted by a fish tissue 

mercury prediction model developed by MA DEP; 

5) compare mercury concentrations in fish from the region with those from other parts of 




The lakes sampled in this study were chosen on the basis of the following: size of lake (4 hectares 

minimum size); availability of fish species; fishing pressure; access; and proximity to other lakes. Three 

lakes in the Nashua River Basin were selected for inclusion in this study: Fort Pond (Lancaster), Hickory 

Hills Lake (also known as Dickinson Reservoir, Lunenburg), and Bare Hill Pond (Harvard) (MA DEP 

2000b). 

Historical Fish Toxics Monitoring in the Nashua River 

In the summer of 1985 white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) were collected by DEP at nine sites 

(five on the North Branch Nashua River, including Snows Millpond, two on the “South Branch”, and two 

on the mainstem Nashua River) as part of the Massachusetts Fish Toxics Monitoring Program. White 

suckers ingest large volumes of sediment while feeding, thus increasing the probability of absorbing 

contaminants through the gut. Ten suckers were collected, processed as a composite sample and 

subsequently analyzed for heavy metals from each site (Johnson et al. 1990). The data were 

submitted to MA DPH. No specific fish consumption advisories were issued. 

In addition to state and federal agencies, regional, local, and citizen monitoring groups provide 

data/information for the watershed management process which may be used to indicate areas of both high 

and degraded water quality, as well as causes and sources of contamination. The Nashua River 

Watershed Association (NRWA), founded in 1969, is a nonprofit organization dedicated to educating and 

advocating for the protection of the watershed’s natural resources. Since 1993, the NRWA has also 

organized and conducted a volunteer water quality monitoring program (NRWA 1999). The NRWA, with 

support of the DFWELE Riverways Program, have also organized Stream Teams in various 

subwatersheds since 1995 to establish stewardship of streams by local citizens, schools, businesses and 

civic groups. These include: Catacunemaug Brook Stream Team, Phillips Brook Stream Team, North 

Nashua River Fitchburg Stream Team, Nashua River Clinton Stream Team, Unkety Brook Stream Team, 

Nissitissit River (Squan-A-Tissit Chapter of Trout Unlimited), and the Nashua River Pepperell Stream 

Team. A Monoosnuc Brook Greenway Project and a shoreline survey along Willard Brook was also 

conducted. The NRWA, with input from the watershed communities and many groups, agencies, and 

individuals, created a 2020 Vision Plan for the Nashua River watershed: Dedicated to a healthy 

ecosystem with clean water and open spaces for human and wildlife communities, where people work 

together to sustain mutual economic and environmental well being intended as a guide for growth, 

conservation, and resource protection (NRWA 1 December 2000b). 

Site specific evaluations of other water quality issues in the Nashua River Basin related to either 

wastewater discharges and/or water withdrawals were conducted either through field investigations 

(where resources could be allocated) or through the review of discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) and 

annual water withdrawal reports submitted by the permittees. Water withdrawal and wastewater 

discharge permit information was provided by the DEP Central Regional Office Nashua River Watershed 

Team and the DWM Watershed Permitting Program (Water Management Act - WMA and National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System –NPDES). 

The Nashua River Basin has facilities that discharge to the mainstem of the river and to several of its 

tributaries (Appendix F, Table F1). The following types of NPDES discharges occur in the watershed 

(Hogan 2000): 

• Municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs): these facilities treat wastewater from 

domestic and industrial sources within the WWTP service area. They range in size from the 

Town of Pepperell WWTP that has a capacity of 0.705 MGD and treats only municipal, 

sanitary wastewater to the Fitchburg East facility with a treatment capacity of 12.4 MGD. A 

significant number of combined sewer overflows (CSOs) in the City of Fitchburg and 

combined manholes in the City of Leominster also discharge into the North Branch and 

mainstem Nashua rivers. Elevated bacteria levels, common after rain and snow melt events, 

cause short-term violations of the MA Water Quality Standards, and result in short-terms 

limitations of the primary and secondary contact recreational uses. 

• Industrial WWTPs and non-process discharges: the majority of industrial process 

wastewaters are treated at the municipal WWTPs under conditions of their industrial pretreatment 

program (IPP). The IPP is controlled by the municipality and is a condition of the 

municipal WWTP NPDES permit. Significant industrial WWTPs include two paper 

processing plants in the watershed, the Hollingsworth and Vose Company and the Pepperell 



Paper Company. Several industries also have general permits issued to the facilities by 

USEPA for the discharge of non-contact cooling water and storm water. While these 

discharges are authorized and controlled under general permits, the associated impacts from 

these facilities are minimum and do not get significant environmental review from DEP. 

• Other: Power plants include Pinetree Power (Fitchburg), Pepperell Paper Company Power 

Plant, Fitchburg Paper Mill Dam #4 (FERC #11058) (FERC 12 December 2000). 

All six municipal wastewater treatment plants in the Nashua River Basin submit toxicity testing reports to 

EPA and DEP as required by their NPDES permits. Data from these toxicity reports are maintained by 

DWM in a database entitled “Toxicity Testing Data - TOXTD”. Information from the reports includes: 

survival of test organisms exposed to ambient river water (used as dilution water), physicochemical 

analysis (e.g., hardness, alkalinity, pH, total suspended solids) of the dilution water, and the whole 

effluent toxicity test results. Data from January 1996 to April 2000 were reviewed and summarized 

(ranges) for use in the assessment of current water quality conditions in the Nashua River Basin. These 

include: 

• Ayer WWTP MA0100013 

• Fitchburg East WWTP MA0100986 

• Leominster WWTF MA0100617 

• MWRA Clinton MA0100404 

• Pepperell WWTF MA0100064 

• West Fitchburg WWTP MA0101281 

Two institutional NPDES discharges also conduct toxicity testing of their effluents (MCI Shirley 

MA0033824 completed tie-in to the Devens WWTP in January 1999). These include: 

• Groton School WWTP MA0033324 

• River Terrace Healthcare MA0025763 

Four industrial NPDES discharges also conduct toxicity testing of their effluents. These include: 

• Hollingsworth and Vose MA0004561 

• Indeck Pepperell Power MA0032034 

• Pepperell Paper Company MA0005185 

• Simonds Industries Inc. MA0022896 

Two non-contact cooling water (NCCW) NPDES discharges and one water treatment plant (WTP) also 

conduct toxicity testing of their effluents. These include: 

• B.F. Goodrich MAG250864 NCCW 

• Holden Trap Rock Company MA0020320 NCCW 

• Rutland WTP MAG640033 

Note: The following minor NPDES facilities have also conducted toxicity testing but do not discharge into 

streams assessed in this report. These facilities include: 

• Kelly Company, Clinton MA0027448 (Counterpane Brook) no longer discharges 

• NOVACOR Chemicals, Leominster MA0000442 (Wass Brook) no longer discharges 

• Suprenant Cable Corp., Clinton MA0001783 (Counterpane Brook) no longer discharges 

• P.J. Keating Co., Fitchburg MA0003689 (tributary to Lake Shirley) (Appendix F, Table F1) 

One additional institutional NPDES facility (MA0028444 St. Benedict Center, Harvard – a retreat center 

and bakery) discharges into an unnamed tributary of the Nashua River (Appendix F, Table F1) not 

assessed in this report. Cushing Academy, Ashburnham (MA0101958) a former discharge in the Nashua 

River Basin, was connected to the Ashburnham sewer system in 1996. Their wastewater is treated at the 

Gardner WWTP in the Millers River Basin (Moylan 2000). 

A list of registered and permitted water Water Management Act (WMA) withdrawals (both public water 

suppliers and other industrial users) is provided in Appendix F, Table F2 (LeVangie 2000). In cases 

where water withdrawal information was available, it was included in the segment assessment. In order 



to determine where stream segments might be affected by water withdrawal activities, a review of the 

WMA files is necessary. 

TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS (TMDL) 

As part of the Federal Clean Water Act, states are required to develop Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 

Reports for lakes, rivers and coastal waters not meeting the states water quality standards as indicated 

by the states 303d list of impaired waters. A TMDL is the greatest amount of a pollutant that a waterbody 

can accept and still meet standards. Further information on the 303d list and the TMDL program are 

available on the DEP website at: http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/wm/wmpubs.htm. 

RIVERS 

EPA has contracted Tetra Tech, Inc. and Numeric Environmental Services (NES) to develop a set of 

computer models and GIS tools which will be used by the agencies for detailed water quality analysis and 

development of a TMDL on the mainstem of the Nashua River (Hartman 2000). Although the models and 

TMDL will target the 8.8 mile reach of the Nashua River between the confluence with the Squannacook 

River and the Pepperell Dam (MA81-06) (which is on the 1998 303d list for organic enrichment/low 

dissolved oxygen), the tools will be available for further evaluation of other constituents (e.g., suspended 

solids) and for other sections of the mainstem and tributaries. TetraTech has completed the first step of 

model development: a calibrated hydrologic model, GIS soils and land use mapping, and an NPSM model 

for total nitrogen and total phosphorus within the BASINS environment (EPA 2000). NES is continuing 

development of the NPSM model to include nutrient cycling, to add in the mainstem reaches portion of 

the model, and to integrate the subwatershed component as part of a larger model outside of BASINS 

(NES 2000). NES is also developing a wasteload allocation QUAL2 model for low flow, steady state 

conditions. The models will assist the agencies in determining NPS and point source contributions 

through development of scenarios for baseline, present and future watershed conditions. The models will 

also help to determine NPS remediation actions if necessary, and provide information for WWTF NPDES 

permitting. 

LAKES 

Of the nine lakes in the Nashua River Basin on the 1998 303d list, only Bare Hill Pond has a final EPA 

approved TMDL for Total Phosphorus which includes options for aquatic plant management (see 

publication on the website above) (Mattson 2000 and MA DEP 1999b). Total Phosphorus TMDLs for Fort 

Pond, Harbor Pond, Pierce Pond, Flannagan Pond and Barrett Pond are scheduled to be developed on 

the Five-year watershed cycle in years 2004 and 2009. Plow Shop Pond and Grove Pond, which are 

listed for metals on the 303d list, are part of a cleanup memorandum of understanding between the Army, 

DEP and the EPA dated 17 September 171998. In a Decision of the Army dated 18 April 1997, the Army 

determined that “No Further Action” for cleanup of Mirror Lake is required. The lake will however, 

probably remain on the 303d list for mercury contamination in fish and a therefore TMDLs will have to be 

developed for all three of these lakes as well. 



OBJECTIVES 

This report summarizes information generated in the Nashua River Basin through Year 1 (information 

gathering in 1997) and Year 2 (environmental monitoring in 1998) activities established in the “Five-Year 

Cycle” of the Watershed Initiative. Data collected by DWM in 1998, in accordance with the draft Nashua 

River Monitoring Plan (Kimball 1998), are provided in Appendices A, B, C and D (QA/QC, data tables, a 

technical memorandum; Biological Assessment of Streams in the Nashua River Watershed from 1998 Data, 

and a technical memorandum: Nashua River 1998 Chlorophyll a, Phytoplankton and Periphyton 

Sampling). Together with other sources of information (identified in each segment assessment), the status 

of water quality conditions of lakes and streams in the Nashua River Basin was assessed in accordance 

with EPA’s and DEP’s use assessment methods. Not all waters in the Nashua River Basin are included in 

the DEP/EPA Water Body System (WBS) database or this report. 

The objectives of this water quality assessment report are to: 

1. Evaluate whether or not surface waters in the Nashua River Basin, defined as segments in the 

WBS database, currently support their designated uses (i.e., meet water quality standards), 

2. identify water withdrawals (habitat quality/water quantity) and/or major point (wastewater 

discharges) and nonpoint (land-use practices, storm water discharges, etc.) sources of pollution 

that may impair water quality conditions, 

3. identify the presence or absence of any non-native macrophytes in lakes, 

4. identify waters (or segments) of concern that require additional data to fully assess water quality 

conditions, 

5. recommend additional monitoring needs and/or remediation actions in order to better determine 

the level of impairment or to improve/restore water quality, and 

6. provide information to the Nashua River Watershed Team for use in its annual and 5-year 

watershed action plans. 



SEGMENT REPORT FORMAT 

The segment order in this assessment report follows the Massachusetts Stream Classification Program 

(Halliwell et al. 1982) hierarchy. Stream segments are organized hydrologically (from most upstream to 

downstream). Tributary summaries follow the segment into which they discharge. Lakes segment 

summaries are presented after the stream segments. Each stream segment summary is formatted as 

follows: 

SEGMENT IDENTIFICATION 

Name, water body identification number (WBID), location, length/size, classification. 

Sources of information: coding system (waterbody identification number e.g., MA34-01) used by DEP to 

reference the stream segment in databases such as 305(b) and 303(d), the Massachusetts SWQS (MA 

DEP 1996), and other descriptive information. 

SEGMENT DESCRIPTION 

Major land-use estimates (the top three uses for the subwatershed) and other descriptive information. 

Sources of information: descriptive information from USGS topographical maps, base geographic data 

from MassGIS, land use statistics from a GIS analysis using the MassGIS land use coverage developed 

at a scale of 1:25,000 and based on aerial photographs taken in 1985,1990,1992, and 1997 as shown 

below (EOEA 1999a): 

GARDNER 

HUBBARDSTON 

RUTLAND 

N 

ASHBURNHAM 

WESTMINSTER 

PAXTON 

PRINCETON 

HOLDEN 

ASHBY 

FITCHBURG 

WORCESTER 

LEOMINSTER 

WEST 

BOYLSTON 

SEGMENT LOCATOR MAP 

Subbasin map, major river location, segment origin and termination points, and segment drainage area (gray 

shaded). 

Sources of information: MassGIS (EOEA 1999b) data layers (stream/lake segments, and quadrangle 

maps). 

WATER WITHDRAWALS AND WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT INFORMATION 

Water withdrawal, NPDES wastewater discharge. 

Sources of information: WMA Database Printout (LeVangie 2000); open permit files located in Worcester 

DEP Office (MA DEP 2000e and f, Kimball 2000 and Hogan 2000). 

USE ASSESSMENT 

Aquatic Life, Fish Consumption, Drinking Water (where applicable), Primary Contact, Secondary Contact, and 

Aesthetics. 

Sources of information include: DWM 1998 Survey data (Appendix B and Appendix C); USGS 

streamflow data (Socolow et al. 1998 and Socolow et al. 1999); EPA sediment quality information 

(McDonald 1999); MDC water quality data (Getman et al. 1996, Pistrang et al. 1997 and 1998, and 

Pistrang 2000); DEP DWM Toxicity Testing Database “TOXTD”; NRWA and Stream Team reports. The 

MA DPH Freshwater Fish Consumption Advisory List (MA DPH 1999) was used to assess the Fish 

Consumption Use. The DEP Drinking Water Program maintains current drinking water supply data. 

Where other sources of information were used to assess designated uses, citations are included. 

SUMMARY 

Use summary table (uses, status, causes and sources of impairment). 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Additional monitoring and implementation needs. 

STERLING 

8 0 8 Miles 

TOWNSEND 

LUNENBURG 

BOYLSTON 

LANCASTER 

CLINTON 

SHIRLEY 

BERLIN 

PEPPERELL 

GROTON 

AYER 

HARVARD 

BOLTON 

DUNSTABLE 

Year of Orthophotography 

Used in Land Use Compilation 



1985 

1990 

1992 

1997

Nashua River Basin 

Nashua River Subbasin 

ASHBURNHAM 

WESTMINSTER 

PRINCETON 

HOLDEN 

ASHBY 

FITCHBURG 

LEOMINSTER 

STERLING 

WEST 

BOYLSTON 

TOWNSEND 

LUNENBURG 

BOYLSTON 

Figure 11. Mainstem Nashua River Subbasin. 

LANCASTER 

CLINTON 

PEPPERELL 

SHIRLEY AYER 

BOLTON 

N 

HARVARD 

GROTON 

DUNSTABLE 



NASHUA RIVER (SEGMENT MA81-05) 

Location: Confluence with North Nashua River, Lancaster to confluence with Squannacook River, 

Shirley/Groton/Ayer. 

Segment Length: 13.5 miles. 

Classification: Class B, Warm Water 

Fishery. 

Land-use estimates for the 

subwatershed (map inset, gray 

shaded area): 

Forest 63% 

Residential 13% 

Agriculture 7% 

NRWA conducted water quality 

monitoring in 1996 at five stations and 

one station in 1997 on this segment of 

the Nashua River. Fecal coliform 

bacteria, pH or DO samples were 

collected on multiple occasions during 

1996 (NRWA 1997 and 11 January 

2000). 

WITHDRAWALS AND DISCHARGES 


Nashua River 

Segment MA81-05 

ASHBURNHAM 

PRINCETON 

NPDES: 

MA0033824 MCI Shirley. The facility 

was discharging to the mainstem 

Nashua River during the 1998 survey. 

MCI Shirley began its connection to 

the Devens WWTP in August 1998 

and completed its connection in January 1999 (Kimball 2000). 

ASHBY 

WEST 

BOYLSTON 

TOWNSEND 

Confluence with Squannacook River, 

Shirley/Groton/Ayer 

WESTMINSTER 

FITCHBURG 

LEOMINSTER 

STERLING 

Confluence with North Nashua River, 

Lancaster 

HOLDEN 

LUNENBURG 

BOYLSTON 

LANCASTER 

CLINTON 

PEPPERELL 

SHIRLEY AYER 

MA0100013 Ayer is permitted (permit issued July 2000) to discharge treated effluent via outfall #001 to 

the Nashua River. The facility’s permitted average monthly flow is 1.79 MGD. The permit limit for whole 

effluent toxicity is LC50 ≥ 100%. In August 1998 EPA conducted a compliance inspection of this facility. 

They noted that the total phosphorus concentration in the Ayer effluent was 25.8 mg/L (Kundarauskas 

1998). The recently issued permit includes an average monthly TP limit of 1.0 mg/L. Ammonia nitrogen 

concentrations ranged between BDL and 11.6 mg/L while TRC ranged from BDL to 0.32 mg/L (TOXTD 

database). 


AQUATIC LIFE 

Biology 

The 1998 DWM RBP III survey was conducted downstream from McPhearson Road railroad bridge, 

Ayer/Shirley (station NM23B, Appendix C). This sampling station was located at the downstream end 

of this segment. The benthic macroinvertebrate data were found to be 48% comparable to the 

regional reference station (SL00) which is located on the Stillwater River (sampled upstream from 

Crowley Rod, West Boylston). This degree of comparability indicates moderate impairment. 

The DWM phytoplankton sample analysis revealed the presence of some Ulothix sp. as well as a lot of 

bacteria (Appendix D). Sewage fungus was found at Ice House Dam Pond along with Euglena sp. and 

Scenedesmus sp. These genera are commonly found in areas of organic enrichment. Some fibers 

that looked like paper waste were also present in the sample. 



BOLTON 

HARVARD 

N 

GROTON 

DUNSTABLE

Habitat and flow 

Flow was measured by DWM at two stations (NM21, and NM25) between May and October 1998 

(Appendix B, Table B3). Flow ranged from 36.3 to 92.5 cfs at the upstream station (NM21) and from 

74.5 to an estimated high of 349 cfs at NM25. 

Toxicity 

Ambient 

Ayer WWTP collects Nashua River water (where railroad tracks cross the Nashua River at 

McPhearson Road) for use as dilution water in their whole effluent toxicity tests. Between March 1996 

and March 2000, survival of C. dubia exposed (48-hour) to the river water was not less than 80%. 

Effluent 

Ayer WWTP also conducted 16 effluent toxicity tests on C. dubia between March 1996 and March 

2000. The LC50’s were all > 100% effluent. 

Sediment 

EPA conducted a Nashua River acute sediment toxicity study in the spring of 1999 (McDonald 1999). 

Four stations were sampled in the segment of the Nashua River (NR1-upstream of railroad bridge, 

Harvard/Lancaster; NR2-downstream boat landing in the Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge; NR3upstream 

of Ice House Dam; NR4-adjecent to Devens abandoned airstrip) on 16 March 1999, soon 

after ice-out. Eight ten-organism replicate toxicity tests (10-day exposure) were run on both Hyallela 

azteca and, Chironomus tentans (Table 6). Artificial sediment was utilized as the control. 

Table 6. EPA sediment toxicity data, Nashua River (segment MA81-05). 

Station Name 

Survival H. azteca 

(average) 

Survival C. tentans 

(average) 

Control 83% 94% 

NR1 75% 78% 

NR2 66% 88% 

NR3 89% 81% 

NR4 98% 71% 

Chemistry – water 

Dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, turbidity, suspended solids, ammonia-nitrogen, phosphates, were 

measured by DWM once per month at four stations (NM21, NM21A, ICEHSEDM, and NM25/A) and on 

six occasions between May and October 1998 (Appendix B, Table B1). Ayer WWTP collects dilution 

water for their whole effluent toxicity where railroad tracks cross the Nashua River at McPhearson Road 

and conducted on 12 occasions. Results from both the DWM survey (Appendix B, Table B5 and B6) and 

the TOXTD database are summarized below. EPA deployed a YSI 6000 meter between 10 and 13 

August 1998 in the Nashua River upstream of the Ice House Dam (MA DEP 1998). 

DO 

DWM DO readings were > 6.3 mg/L and 67% saturation at all four stations, although these data do 

not represent worse case (pre-dawn) conditions (Appendix B, Table B5). The minimum diurnal DO 

was 6.1 mg/L (MA DEP 1998). 

Temperature 

The maximum temperature measured by DWM was 23.5ºC (Appendix B, Table B5). NRWA 

temperature measurements were within the same range as the DWM survey data (NRWA 1997). 

pH 

Instream pH measurements by DWM ranged from 6.3 to 7.2 SU. Out of the 24 measurements, three 

were below 6.5 SU representing wet weather conditions. Measurements of pH reported in the Ayer 

WWTP toxicity testing reports were within the same range as DWM survey data as were the NRWA 

data (NRWA 1997). 



Turbidity 

Laboratory turbidity measurements collected by DWM ranged from 1.6 to 3.1NTU. Hydrolab 

measurements when taken were higher, ranging from 4 to 12 NTU. 

Suspended Solids 

DWM suspended solid concentrations did not exceed 8.8 mg/L. Measurements of suspended solids 

reported in the Ayer WWTP toxicity testing reports were all BDL with one exception (14 mg/L). 

Ammonia-Nitrogen 

DWM suspended ammonia-nitrogen concentrations did not exceed 0.11 mg/ L with the highest 

concentrations at the most upstream station. Ammonia (as N) from the Ayer WWTP toxicity testing 

reports ranged between BDL and 0.55 mg/L. 

Phosphorus 

DWM total phosphorus concentrations did not exceed 0.25 mg/L. The highest concentrations were at 

the most upstream station. 

Total Residual Chlorine 

The Ayer WWTP toxicity testing reports indicated that TRC was BDL. 

Hardness 

DWM hardness measurements ranged from 17 to 62 mg/L. Measurements of hardness reported in 

the Ayer WWTP toxicity testing reports were in the same range. 

Chemistry – sediment 

Sediment quality data were also reported in the EPA sediment toxicity study - spring of 1999 

(McDonald 1999). Sediment samples were analyzed for grain size, TOC, simultaneously extracted 

metals-SEM, acid volatile solids-AVS, cyanide and total metals. When the bulk sediment 

concentrations were compared to guidance in Persaud et al. (1993), no exceedances of the S-EL 

occurred at stations NR1, NR2 and NR4 although the concentrations of Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Zn, and Hg 

exceeded the L-ELs. At station NR3, however, the concentration of Ni exceeded the L-EL and Cd, Cr, 

Cu, Pb, Zn, and Hg exceeded their S-ELs. Cyanide was not detected in any of the samples. 

The bioavailability of certain divalent metals is a function of the binding capacity of the sediment. The 

analysis of SEM-AVS was conducted to evaluate bioavailability and therefore potential toxicity of the 

sediments. It should be noted that even though station NR3 had the highest divalent metal 

concentration, it also showed strongly negative values for SEM-AVS, indicating a large binding 

capacity and low potential for toxicity. 

Based on a moderately impacted benthic community, degraded sediment quality, sediment toxicity, and 

slightly elevated nutrients (phosphorus), the Aquatic Life Use in this segment of the Nashua River is 

assessed as non-support. 

PRIMARY CONTACT AND SECONDARY CONTACT 

Fecal coliform bacteria samples were collected by DWM at the same stations and dates as described 

above with the exception of the ICEHSEDM site (Chemistry-water section). Upstream of the MCI 

Shirley discharge (stations NM21 and NM21A) fecal coliform bacteria counts were

weather conditions) result in both recreational uses being assessed as non-support in the lower 2.9 mile 

reach. 

AESTHETICS 

Observations of the river upstream of the Ice House Dam Impoundment indicated high aesthetic 

quality. This reach of the mainstem Nashua River includes the Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge. 

However, the aesthetics quality of the “Ice House Dam impoundment” was described as having 

objectionable turbidity (Kimball 2000). DWM’s habitat assessment also noted a sewage odor and 

instream turbidity near the McPhearson Road railroad bridge. 

Upstream of the Ice House Dam Impoundment the Aesthetics Use is assessed as support. Based on the 

objectionable instream turbidity in the impoundment and turbidity and sewage odors downstream of the 

impoundment, the Aesthetics Use is assessed as non-support for the lower 2.9 mile reach. 

Designated Uses Status 

Aquatic Life 


Consumption 

Primary 

Contact 

Secondary 

Contact 

Aesthetics 

Nashua River (MA81-05) Use Summary Table 

NON-SUPPORT 

NOT ASSESSED 

SUPPORT 10.6 miles 

NON-SUPPORT 2.9 miles 





Causes Sources 

Known Suspected Known Suspected 

metals, unknown 

toxicity, nutrients 

pathogens, 

turbidity, odor 



municipal 

point sources, 

contaminated 

sediments 

municipal 

point source, 

urban runoff 

municipal 

point source 

municipal 

point source 

RECOMMENDATIONS - NASHUA RIVER (MA81-05) 

• Identify WMA withdrawals in this segment of the Nashua River’s subwatershed. Evaluate 

compliance with registration and/or permit limits. Determine potential impacts of withdrawals on 

streamflow/habitat 

• Since MCI Shirley connected to the Devens WWTP, fecal coliform bacteria sampling should be 

conducted in this segment of the Nashua River to reevaluate the status of the Primary Contact 

Recreational Use. 

• The Town of Ayer is under enforcement orders to update its wastewater management plan (Kimball 

2000). An industrial pretreatment program will be needed because of a number of food processing 

industries that discharge to the town’s WWTF. The town is considering an upgrade of the plant with a 

groundwater discharge as well as the possibility of regionalization with Devens. The Devens Group 

has contracted for a new 3.0 MGD WWTF that discharges to the groundwater. The facility will be 

expandable by an additional 4.0 MGD which will discharge to the Nashua River and will service parts 

of Shirley (including the MCI facility) and possibly Ayer. 

• Continue to monitor nutrient concentrations in this segment of the Nashua River and evaluate NPDES 

facility’s compliance with their effluent TP limit (1.0 mg/L). Evaluate the results of the water quality 

models and reports being developed for the Nashua River Basin TMDL. Utilize these tools to 

evaluate present and/or future conditions under different scenarios, the need for additional monitoring 

(e.g., nutrient, suspended solids) and subsequent control strategies (point source and/or non-point 

source) (Hartman 2000). 



• Because of the evidence of benthic community impairment in the Nashua River, additional monitoring 

should be conducted to evaluate causes and sources of impairment. This investigation should 

include biological monitoring (benthic macroinvertebrate and fish), sediment quality characterization 

(physico/chemical and toxicity testing), instream toxicity testing, fecal coliform bacteria monitoring 

(wet/dry) and water quality monitoring to include site specific contaminants of concern. 

• Work with the NRWA to implement their Future Actions (NRWA 1997). 



STILL RIVER (SEGMENT MA81-15) 

Location: Headwaters, Lancaster to confluence with Nashua River, Harvard, Leominster 


Classification: Class B. 

No land-use estimates were available for 

the Still River subwatershed. 


monitoring in 1996 at one station on this 

segment of the Still River. Fecal coliform 



1996 (NRWA 1997). 



Still River 


ASHBURNHAM 

WESTMINSTER 

Not enough quality assured sampling has been conducted and limited current final data/information was 

available, therefore all uses for Still Brook (Segment MA81-15) are currently not assessed. 

PRINCETON 

ASHBY 

FITCHBURG 

LEOMINSTER 

Confluence with Nashua River, Harvard/Lancaster 

HOLDEN 

Headwaters, STERLING Lancaster 

WEST 

BOYLSTON 

TOWNSEND 

LUNENBURG 

BOYLSTON 

Still River (Segment MA81-15) Use Summary Table 

Aquatic Life 


Consumption 

Primary 

Contact 

Secondary 

Contact 

LANCASTER 

CLINTON 

Aesthetics 

PEPPERELL 

SHIRLEY AYER 

RECOMMENDATIONS - STILL BROOK (SEGMENT MA81-15) 

• Identify WMA withdrawals in the Still Brook subwatershed. Evaluate compliance with registration 

and/or permit limits. Determine potential impacts of withdrawals on streamflow/habitat 



BOLTON 

HARVARD 

N 

GROTON 

DUNSTABLE

CATACOONAMUG BROOK (SEGMENT MA81-16) 

Location: Outlet Lake Shirley, Lunenburg to confluence with Nashua River, Shirley/Ayer. 



Land-use estimates for the subwatershed 

(map inset, gray shaded area): 

Forest 54% 



A shoreline survey of Catacoonamug 

Brook from Route 2a to Flat Hills Rd was 

conducted by the Catacunemaug Brook 

Stream Team in June 1999. Their 

shoreline survey indicated that the overall 

condition of the brook was good. 

According to the stream team, the brook 

is a wonderful resource for the town of 

Lunenburg and provides excellent 

riparian, wildlife and aquatic habitat. 

Threats to the brook include, storm drain 

discharges, road runoff, agricultural 

practices, and construction activities 

(Catacunemaug Brook Stream Team 

1999). 


Catacoonamug Brook 


ASHBURNHAM 

WESTMINSTER 


monitoring in 1996 and 1997 at five stations on Catacoonamug Brook. Fecal coliform bacteria, pH or DO 

samples were collected on multiple occasions during both years (NRWA 1997 and 11 January 2000). 

PRINCETON 

ASHBY 

Outlet Lake Shirley, Lunenburg 

FITCHBURG 

LEOMINSTER 

WEST 

BOYLSTON 

TOWNSEND 

LUNENBURG 

Confluence with Nashua River, Shirley/Ayer. 

HOLDEN 

STERLING 

BOYLSTON 

LANCASTER 

CLINTON 

PEPPERELL 

SHIRLEY AYER 

WITHDRAWALS AND DISCHARGES 

WMA: 

The Shirley Water District is permitted (9P221127001) to withdraw 0.3 MGD of groundwater from 

Catacoonamug and Patterson wells (Appendix F, Table F2). Their actual withdrawals averaged 0.3 MGD 

in 1998 (Kimball 2000). 



available, therefore all uses for Catacoonamug Brook (Segment MA81-16) are currently not assessed. 

Catacoonamug Brook (Segment MA81-16) Use Summary Table 

Aquatic Life 


Consumption 

Primary 

Contact 

Secondary 

Contact 

Aesthetics 

RECOMMENDATIONS - CATACOONAMUG BROOK (SEGMENT MA81-16) 

• Identify other WMA withdrawals in the Catacoonamug Brook subwatershed. Continue to evaluate 

compliance with registration and/or permit limits. Determine potential impacts of withdrawals on 

streamflow/habitat. 

• Work with the Catacunemaug Brook Stream Team to implement their short/long-term project plans. 



BOLTON 

HARVARD 

N 

GROTON 

DUNSTABLE

NONACOICUS BROOK (SEGMENT MA81-17) 

Location: Outlet Plow Shop Pond, Ayer to confluence with Nashua River, Ayer/Shirley. 





shaded area): 

Forest 50% 

Open Land 16% 



monitoring in 1997 and 1998 at one 

station each year on this segment of 

the Nonacoicus Brook. Fecal coliform 



both years (NRWA 11 January 2000). 



Nonacoicus Brook 


ASHBURNHAM 

WESTMINSTER 

PRINCETON 

ASHBY 

Outlet Plow Shop Pond, Ayer 

FITCHBURG 

WEST 

BOYLSTON 

TOWNSEND 

LUNENBURG 

Confluence with Nashua River, Ayer/Shirley. 

HOLDEN 

LEOMINSTER 

STERLING 

BOYLSTON 

LANCASTER 

CLINTON 

PEPPERELL 

SHIRLEY AYER 


available, therefore all uses for Nonacoicus Brook (Segment MA81-17) are currently not assessed. 

Nonacoicus Brook (Segment MA81-17) Use Summary Table 

Aquatic Life 


Consumption 

Primary 

Contact 

Secondary 

Contact 

Aesthetics 

RECOMMENDATIONS - NONACOICUS BROOK (SEGMENT MA81-17) 

• Identify WMA withdrawals in the Nonacoicus Brook subwatershed. Evaluate compliance with 

registration and/or permit limits. Determine potential impacts of withdrawals on streamflow/habitat. 



BOLTON 

HARVARD 

N 

GROTON 

DUNSTABLE

MULPUS BROOK (SEGMENT MA81-22) 

Location: Headwaters, Lunenburg to confluence with Nashua River, Shirley/Ayer 





shaded area): 

Forest 68% 





Mulpus Brook 


Headwaters, ASHBURNHAM Lunenburg 

WESTMINSTER 

No sampling has been conducted and 

no current data/information was available, therefore all uses for Mulpus Brook (Segment MA81-22) are 

currently not assessed. 

PRINCETON 

ASHBY 

FITCHBURG 

LEOMINSTER 

WEST 

BOYLSTON 

TOWNSEND 

LUNENBURG 

Confluence with Nashua River, Shirley/Ayer 

HOLDEN 

STERLING 

BOYLSTON 

LANCASTER 

CLINTON 

Mulpus Brook (Segment MA81-22) Use Summary Table 

Aquatic Life 


Consumption 

Primary 

Contact 

Secondary 

Contact 

Aesthetics 

PEPPERELL 

SHIRLEY AYER 

RECOMMENDATIONS - MULPUS BROOK (SEGMENT MA81-22) 

• Identify WMA withdrawals in the Mulpus Brook subwatershed. Evaluate compliance with registration 

and/or permit limits. Determine potential impacts of withdrawals on streamflow/habitat. 



BOLTON 

HARVARD 

GROTON 

N 

DUNSTABLE

Oxbow NWR Final CCP - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?