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

Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003
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.
Summary of Comments 4