Assabet River NWR Final CCP - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003
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
Summary of Comments 9