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

Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003
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:
Summary of Comments 11