Water Quality of Selected Wetland 

Streams in Central and Eastern 

Massachusetts,! 988-89

U.S. Geological Survey

Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4157

Prepared in cooperation with the

MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION, OFFICE OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
Water Quality of Selected Wetland 

Streams in Central and Eastern 

Massachusetts,! 988-89

By DAVID S. ARMSTRONG and ROBERT M. LENT

U.S. Geological Survey

Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4157

Prepared in cooperation with the

MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION, OFFICE OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

Marlborough, Massachusetts 

1995
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Gordon P. Eaton, Director

For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from:

Chief, Massachusetts-Rhode Island District U.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Geological Survey Earth Science Information Center

Water Resources Division Open-File Reports Section

28 Lord Road, Suite 280 Box 25286, MS 517

Marlborough, MA 01752 Denver Federal Center

	Denver, CO 80225
CONTENTS

Abstract.............................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Introduction......................................................................................................................................................................^ 1

Purpose and Scope.................................................................................................................................................. 3

Description of Study Area...................................................................................................................................... 3

Previous Studies...................................................................................................................................................... 9

Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................................................. 9

Methods......................................................................................................................^ 9

Study Design........................................................................................................................................................... 9

Measurement of Basin, Stream, and Wetland Characteristics................................................................................ 10

Measurement of Stream-Water Quality.................................................................................................................. 14

Analysis of Data ..................................................................................................................................................... 16

Water Quality of Selected Wetland Streams ...................................................................................................................... 17

Basin, Stream, and Wetland Characteristics........................................................................................................... 18

Water Quality.......................................................................................................................................................... 23

Limitations of the Data.........................................................................................................!................................. 37

Need for Further Study........................................................................................................................................... 39

Summary............................................................................................................................................................................ 40

References Cited................................................................................................................................................................ 41

FIGURES

1. Map showing location of selected areas in Massachusetts where wetland streams were studied............................ 4

2-5. Maps showing location of hydrologic data-collection sites and contributing drainage-basin divides in:

2. Central Massachusetts.................................................................................................................................. 5

3. East-central Massachusetts........................................................................................................................... 6

4. Northeastern Massachusetts......................................................................................................................... 7

5. Southeastern Massachusetts......................................................................................................................... 8

6. Schematic diagrams of wetland reaches that were not selected for this investigation............................................. 11

7. Map showing wetland reaches dominated by palustrine forested wetlands and palustrine scrub-shrub

and emergent wetlands, central and eastern Massachusetts................................................................................ 15

8. Trilinear diagram showing composition of water from selected wetland streams, central and eastern

Massachusetts, 1988-89...................................................................................................................................... 24

9-11. Graphs showing:

9. Percentage of saturation of dissolved oxygen for selected sampling sites, central and eastern

Massachusetts, 1988-89............................................................................................................................. 25

10. Effects of wetland reaches on stream-water quality for selected properties and constituents, central

and eastern Massachusetts, 1988-89.......................................................................................................... 29

11. Effects of wetland characteristics on the water quality of selected wetland streams, central and

eastern Massachusetts, 1988-89................................................................................................................. 36

Contents III
TABLES

1. Information for selected wetland-stream sampling sites in central and eastern Massachusetts................

2. Comparison of quality-assurance data for MDEP and USGS samples collected from Robinson Brook, 

eastern Massachusetts, June 20, 1988..................................................................................................

3. Group criteria for basin, stream, and wetland characteristics ...................................................................

4. Basin and stream characteristics and wetland classification for selected wetland streams, central and 

eastern Massachusetts, 1988-89...........................................................................................................

5. Summary of water-quality data from selected wetland streams, central and eastern Massachusetts, 

1988-89 ..................................................

6. Relative changes in water quality throughout primary wetland-stream reaches, central and eastern

Massachusetts, 1988-89......................................................................................................................

7. Relative changes in water quality throughout subordinate wetland-stream reaches, central and eastern 

Massachusetts, 1973-81......................................................................................................................

12

16

17

19

26

30

34

CONVERSION FACTORS AND WATER-QUALITY INFORMATION

Conversion Factors

Multiply

centimeter (cm)

cubic meter (m3 )

cubic meter per second (m3/s)

gram (g)

gram (g)

kilometer (km)

meter (m)

square kilometer (km )

By

0.3937

264.2

35.3145

0.03527

0.002205

0.6214

3.281

0.3861

To obtain

inch

gallon

cubic foot per second

ounce, avoirdupois

pound, avoirdupois

mile

foot

square mile

For temperature conversions between degrees Celsius (°C) and degrees Fahrenheit (°F), the following formulas may be used:

°C = 5/9 x (°F - 32), 

°F = (1.8x°C) + 32.

Water-Quality Information

Chemical concentration in water is expressed in milligrams per liter (mg/L) or micrograms per liter (ug/L). Milligrams and micrograms per 

liter are units expressing the weight of the solute per unit volume (liter) of water. One thousand micrograms per liter is equivalent to 1 

milligram per liter. Milligrams per liter is approximately equivalent to parts per million. Micrograms per liter is approximately equivalent to 

parts per billion.

IV Conversion Factors and Water-Quality Information
Water Quality of Selected Wetland Streams in 

Central and Eastern Massachusetts, 1988-89

By David S. Armstrong and Robert M. Lent

Abstract

Water quality, and basin, stream, and wetland 

characteristics are described for selected wetland 

streams of central and eastern Massachusetts. 

Water-quality data from 22 wetland reaches on 15 

streams were analyzed using boxplots for selected 

water-quality and basin, stream, and wetland characteristics. Nonparametric statistical techniques 

were used to check for significant differences 

between upstream and downstream concentrations 

and loads. Stream nutrient and dissolved-oxygen 

conditions varied in the selected wetland-stream 

reaches. For the 22 wetland stream reaches, properties and constituents that increased in more than 65 

percent of the stream reaches included discharge, 

specific conductance, temperature, turbidity, 

sodium, dissolved and total ammonia plus organic 

nitrogen, and iron. Easily measured characteristics 

of wetland streams were not reliable indicators of 

water quality for the existing data set. The lack of 

consistent changes in water quality between the 

upstream and downstream sampling sites suggests 

that the existing data for the selected wetland 

reaches cannot be used to reliably determine the 

effect of wetlands on stream-water quality.

A carefully designed data-collection program 

is needed for the successful evaluation of dissolved 

oxygen and nutrients in wetland reaches. Components of a data-collection program would include 

careful site selection, proper timing and intensity of 

sampling throughout the year, and additional 

water-quality data needed for dissolved-oxygen 

and nutrient modeling.

INTRODUCTION

Numerous studies have investigated the water 

quality of streams and isolated wetlands, but relatively 

few studies have investigated the water quality of wetland streams in detail (Mulholland and Kuenzler, 1979; 

Mulholland, 1981;Peverly, 1982, 1985; Elder, 1985; 

Hampson, 1989; Meyer and Edwards, 1990; Suurballe, 

1992). The effect of wetlands on hydrology and water 

quality is thought to be dependent on the location of 

wetlands in the landscape (Brinson, 1988; Hemond and 

Benoit, 1988; O'Brien, 1988; Winter, 1988; Johnston 

and others, 1990). Whigham and others (1988) hypothesized that the effect of riparian wetlands on streamwater quality is directly related to the percentage of total 

river flow that contacts the wetland environment and 

that, as stream order increases, the percentage of total 

flow that contacts wetlands decreases. They also determined that riparian wetlands have little effect on 

stream-water quality during nonflooding periods and 

that most nutrient processing occurs directly within the 

stream ecosystem.

Wetlands modify or alter many characteristics of 

streams, including river slope, channel width, depth, 

flow velocity, discharge, sediment type, temperature, 

and nutrient and light regimes. Upland streams tend to 

have mineral substrates, relatively confined channels, 

moderate gradients, clear water, moderate to high 

velocities, and turbulent flow. In contrast, most wetland 

streams have organic and (or) fine-grained mineral substrates, poorly defined channels, low gradients, humiccolored water, low velocities, and less turbulent flow. In 

addition, reduced oxygen conditions are much more 

common in wetland soils than in upland soils. These 

reduced conditions can have a marked effect on several 

biochemical transformations unique to anaerobic conditions (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1986). Mulholland and 

Kuenzler (1979) and Mulholland (1981) indicated that

Introduction 1
wetland streams may be less efficient than upland 

streams in processing allochthonous (introduced) 

organic materials. Mulholland (1981) contrasted a forested wetland stream in the coastal plain of North Carolina to two upland streams in New England and 

determined that the wetland stream retained a much 

larger proportion of its particulate organic-carbon 

material and had a higher loading rate of dissolved 

organic carbon (DOC) than the two upland streams. The 

retention of organic material was attributed to physical 

and hydrologic characteristics that are typical of 

wetland streams. These characteristics include low 

gradients and dense vegetation that produce low water 

velocities with very little erosive force, poorly defined 

channels, complex flowpaths, numerous debris dams, 

and large flood plains. The presence of abundant 

organic material, reduced oxygen conditions, and low 

velocities, which increase the contact time that water 

has with organic material in a stream, likely accounts 

for most differences in water quality between upland 

and wetland streams.

Few studies have specifically investigated low dissolved-oxygen (DO) concentrations in wetland streams. 

Hampson (1989) investigated humic-colored streams 

flowing through forested wetlands in Florida and determined that changes in water temperatures and the discharge of natural oxygen-demanding substances were 

the primary factors affecting DO concentration. Hampson (1989) also determined that photosynthesis generally was not a major contributor of DO except during 

periods of low flow. Beck and others (1974) studied the 

organic and inorganic geochemistry of wetland rivers 

on the coastal plain of the southeastern United States 

and determined that the percentage of oxygen saturation 

decreases with increasing concentration of organic 

matter in river water. This was particularly noticeable 

after large volumes of organic-rich water were flushed 

from swamps into receiving rivers following intense 

rains. Beck and others (1974) also determined that low 

pH values and relatively high concentrations of aluminum and iron result from high concentrations of organic 

matter. Edwards (1968) and Thyssen and others (1987) 

reported that macrophyte growth can slow water velocities and increase water depth, resulting in decreased 

reaeration and net oxygen consumption. Ferrous 

(reduced) iron, derived from weathering of minerals or 

photoreduction of ferric iron also may affect the oxygen 

balance of some wetland streams (Hynes, 1974). 

Photochemical oxidation of iron may be responsible for

the observed oxygen deficiency in some humic-colored 

surface water (Miles and Brezonik, 1981). Photoreduction of iron and oxidation of iron by microorganisms 

have been demonstrated in wetland streams in the New 

Jersey Pine Barrens (Madson and others, 1986).

Wetlands can have a wide variety of effects on 

nutrients, transforming some from inorganic to organic 

forms and acting as a sink or a source for others depending on the element in question, the seasonal loading 

level, the season of the year, and whether or not the 

system is aggrading nutrients (Richardson, 1989). In a 

study of a river-wetland system in northern Florida, 

Elder (1985, 1988) determined that a river-wetland 

system acted more as a transformer than as a source or 

sink for nutrients. The river-wetland system assimilated 

dissolved inorganic nutrients, such as orthophosphate, 

ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate, that were bioavailable, 

and released and transported particulate organic forms 

out of the system. Stream nutrient concentrations typically show seasonal changes in response to biotic activity. Concentrations decrease markedly during periods of 

plant growth and increase during periods of vegetation 

dormancy (Likens and others, 1977). Because nutrients 

are held in vegetation, the concentration of nutrients in 

the water column is not necessarily indicative of the 

presence or availability of nutrients in the stream system. Rapid biotic uptake of nutrients such as phosphorus may mean that high concentrations of dissolved 

phosphorus are rarely detected in streams. Peverly 

(1982) investigated the accumulation and release of 

nutrients in a wetland stream in western New York and 

determined that net annual differences in nitrogen and 

phosphorus movements may depend on the quantity and 

timing of water movement and that wetlands may retain 

little or none of the nutrients carried into them by flowing water. In a subsequent study, Peverly (1985) determined that submersed aquatic plants accumulated 

nutrients during the growing season, but that senescence and decomposition of these plants contributed 

substantially to nutrient loads in wetland streams in late 

summer and autumn when discharge and nutrient loads 

were small. Elder (1988) determined that wetlands can 

have diverse effects on constituent transport and that 

these effects depend on numerous hydrological, chemical, and biological processes. He concluded that the 

processes that affect water quality in one wetland are 

not necessarily predictive of processes in another, even 

if the two wetlands have similar characteristics.

2 Water Quality of Selected Wetland Streams in Central and Eastern Massachusetts, 1988-89
Wetlands also may have a cumulative effect on 

stream-water quality and quantity. Johnston and others 

(1990) investigated the effect of wetlands on water 

quality. Wetlands were determined to be most effective 

in removing ammonia, total phosphorus, and suspended 

solids during high flows and nitrate during low flows. 

Proximity of wetlands to the stream channel and wetland extent were related to seasonal export of organic 

nitrogen, orthophosphate, and organic matter. Johnston 

and others (1990) concluded that the degree to which 

wetlands alter water quality depends on wetland position in the landscape and that all wetlands in a drainage 

basin are not similar with regard to their effects on water 

quality.

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental 

Protection (MDEP) has monitored water quality for the 

past 30 years at more than 3,000 surface-water sites in 

Massachusetts (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 1992). Analysis of these waterquality data indicate that State water-quality standards 

are not met in some streams in central and eastern 

Massachusetts that flow through wetlands (wetland 

streams) because of undersaturated DO and (or) high 

nutrient concentrations. These conditions may occur 

naturally and are most common during periods of low 

flow and high temperatures in late summer. The need 

for an improved understanding of water-quality conditions in wetlands prompted the MDEP to participate 

with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in a cooperative investigation of the water quality of wetland 

streams in central and eastern Massachusetts.

Purpose and Scope

The purposes of this report are to (1) describe the 

basin, stream, and wetland characteristics of selected 

reaches of wetland streams in central and eastern Massachusetts (fig. 1); (2) describe the concentrations of 

dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and other water-quality 

constituents in the selected streams; (3) describe limitations of the data for determining relations among basin, 

stream, and wetland characteristics and water quality of 

wetland streams; and (4) identify additional data and 

information needed to understand processes that affect 

the water quality of wetland streams.

The physical, hydrologic, biologic, and waterquality data used in this investigation are those reported 

in Socolow (1994). These data were collected by the 

MDEP from 1962 through 1988 and by the USGS from

1988 through 1989 at 96 upstream and downstream 

sampling sites on 72 stream reaches in central and eastern Massachusetts. These data were screened for this 

investigation to restrict the data set to natural systems 

stream reaches where water quality was not obviously 

affected by point-source discharges, such as those from 

sewage-treatment plants. Reaches that received discharges from major tributaries that were not sampled 

were not used in this study. Data from 22 wetland 

reaches on 15 streams in central and eastern 

Massachusetts were selected for analysis (figs. 2-5).

Description of Study Areas

The 22 wetland reaches that were selected for 

analysis in this investigation represent most major river 

basins in central and eastern Massachusetts. Drainagebasin divides for these streams, and hydrologic and 

water-quality data-collection sites are shown in figures 

2-5 (Socolow, 1994).

The study areas are characterized by plains and low 

hills, and topographic relief generally decreases from 

west to east. The underlying bedrock in central and eastern Massachusetts is predominantly metamorphic and 

crystalline rock. Bedrock in the study areas is overlain 

by a veneer of glacial deposits that consist of stratified 

drift (sand and gravel), lake bottom and marine deposits 

(clay, silt, and fine sand), or glacial till (an unstratified 

mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and boulders). Glacial 

till mantles most uplands and also underlies stratified 

drift in many stream valleys, whereas stratified drift and 

(or) glacial-lake deposits occur in most valleys in central and eastern Massachusetts.

Climate in the study areas is classified as temperate. Precipitation and runoff for central and eastern 

Massachusetts average about 61 and 114 cm, respectively (Gadoury and Wandle, 1986). Precipitation generally is distributed evenly throughout the year, 

although year-to-year variations may be large (Trombley, 1991). Runoff is highest in March and April, especially when runoff from snowmelt is supplemented by 

storm runoff. Low flows occur in July, August, and September because of increased evapotranspiration and 

depletion of soil moisture (Gadoury and Wandle, 1986). 

There is a transition in vegetation in the study area from 

northern hardwoods in central Massachusetts to oakhickory in eastern Massachusetts (Jorgensen, 1977). 

Land use in the study area is variable and includes 

urban, suburban, agricultural, and forested areas.

Introduction 3
I

o 8 

3 

a

I

3

O

3

s

Qa

Qo

<o

OB0000 o

73°

72

42° 30' 

MASSACHUSETTS

Sevenmile 

River

Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graphs, Scale 1:100,000,1983 Universal Transverse Mercator projection 

Zones 18 and 19

EXPLANATION

CENTRAL MASSACHUSETTS 

EAST-CENTRAL MASSACHUSETTS 

NORTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS 

SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS

0 10 20 30 KILOMETERS

i___i i___i ______ 0 10 20 30 MILES

41° 30' 

Figure 1. Location of selected areas in Massachusetts where wetland streams were studied (modified from Socolow, 1994).
WINCHENOON ASHBURNHAM

EXPLANATION

 DRAINAGE-BASIN DIVIDE

DATA-COLLECTION SITE 

AND NUMBER

WESTMINSTER A"\

v V-yw^ \ \

PHILL1PSTON\ "V

Instantaneous discharge measurement.

See table 4 '-^ _

42° 30' 

QA3 Y Water-quality data, single or multiple 

samples See tables 1,4,6, and 7

O SITE IN A PRIMARY REACH-- 

See table 1

| | SITE IN A SUBORDINATE REACH-- 

See table 1

West Branch 

Ware River

5 MILES

Quaboag

River ^ j /' QA2 «"*- £^L£

\ \ BROOKRELD

42° 10' 

J- CHARLTON

STURBRIDGE

Figure 2. Location of hydrologic data-collection sites and contributing drainage-basin divides in central 

Massachusetts (modified from Socolow, 1994).

Introduction 5
TYNGSBOROUGH

AS1

71

Concord 

River

EXPLANATION 

 - DRAINAGE-BASIN DIVIDE

DATA-COLLECTION SITE 

AND NUMBER

AS2 ^ instantaneous discharge measurement. 

See table 4

Water-quality data, single or multiple 

samples. See tables 1 ,4,6, and 7

SITE IN A PRIMARY REACH-- 

See table 1

SITE IN A SUBORDINATE REACHSee table 1

SHREWSBURY Y^ ."/

>'V

Assabet-^^''\

River GRAFTON^--^- 

UPTON

.^ :_ i 

') MARLBOROUGH :' L42°20'--sJ ______J4

NORTHBOROUGH ^ ,-' \

^^f \ / I FRAMINGHAM

'Vi,

10 KILOMETERS

5 MILES

Figure 3. Location of hydrologic data-collection sites and contributing drainage-basin divides in east-central 

Massachusetts (modified from Socolow, 1994).

6 Water Quality of Selected Wetland Streams in Central and Eastern Massachusetts, 1988-89
ROWLEY

42 30'

EXPLANATION 

 DRAINAGE-BASIN DIVIDE

DATA-COLLECTION SITE 

AND NUMBER

IP1 ^ Water-quality data, single or multiple 

samples. See tables 1,4,6, and 7

(

(

3 5 10 KILOMETERS p, S1TE , N A SUBORDlNATE REACH..

| | | | | | | | | ' Seetablel

1 1 1 1 

) 5 MILES

Figure 4. Location of hydrologic data-collection sites and contributing drainage-basin divides in northeastern 

Massachusetts (modified from Socolow, 1994).

Introduction 7
Chicken ASLAND - Brook \ NO'I ^-JJ^-^: *} r, x /^ _!. **">. --v Dapping

71° 30' X>rr" FZS PP1 ;/««»* 71° 20^ 

HOPKINTON ^

42° 10' '}

EXPLANATION 

DRAINAGE-BASIN DIVIDE

DATA-COLLECTION SITE 

AND NUMBER

Instantaneous discharge measurement 

See table 4

Water-quality data, single or multiple 

samples. See tables 1,4,6, and 7

SITE IN A PRIMARY REACH-- 

See table 1

SITE IN A SUBORDINATE REACH-- 

See table 1

71 C

HOLBROOK '.

 _

Beaver 

Brook

\W-^ \^-J i 

42<> 05,__ .1 BELLINGHAM ('

BROCKTON BROCKTON 

42°05- V- BE2J ^ s'N

^RB2

) VY--~" Robinson

 "\ V. Brook v& FOXBOROUGH ^TRBS 

PLAINVILLE / M/NSF.ELD

>ri>^....

^ MANSFIELD

-WEYMOUTHi

\^ ABINGTON

-WHITMAN

EAST 

BRIDGEWATER

L \ WEST,

\ BRIDGEWATER

( EASTON \ ( I. \ , :7m

\

Bungay 

River

5 MILES

NORTH ''v 1 

10 KILOMETERS ATTLEBOROUGH-": \.

I CBG^ ^

J y YC VBG3\ ' 

ilP: '

BG4b3ff^\

ATTLEBOROUGH

^- BRIDGEWATER

Figure 5. Location of hydrologic data-collection sites and contributing drainage-basin divides in southeastern Massachusetts (modified from Socolow, 

1994).
Previous Studies

Hydrology and water quality of New England 

streams, including wetland streams, are affected by 

regional geology, interactions between surface and 

ground water, and instream processes. The recharge or 

discharge of aquifers through organic deposits of wetlands or river-bottom sediments could have important 

implications for water quality. O'Brien (1977, 1980) 

demonstrated that a peat-filled wetland in Massachusetts surrounded by till recharged underlying deposits 

with 26,000 m3 of water for a 6-week period in August 

and September. The oxidation of organic matter in 

streambeds or aquifers beneath wetlands can deplete 

DO, which in turn can result in reduction by bacteria of 

nitrate, manganese, and ferric iron minerals, and sulfate, 

with a concurrent increase in the concentration of 

reduced chemical constituents, such as ammonium, ferrous iron, manganese, hydrogen sulfide, and methane. 

High concentrations of reduced chemical constituents 

have been reported in ground water associated with several wetlands in Massachusetts (Sammel, 1967; Motts 

and O'Brien, 1981; and Frimpter, 1988).

In an investigation of the effects of a wetland on 

the hydrology and water quality of a wetland-stream 

system in central Massachusetts, Suurballe (1992) 

determined that DOC and dissolved iron were directly 

proportional to the residence time of water in a wetland 

stream and inversely proportional to the concentration 

of DO. Suurballe (1992) concluded that the biochemical 

transformation of some water-quality constituents, such 

as nutrients, was facilitated by interaction within the 

wetland reach and the amount of available DO. Suurballe (1992) also determined that wetland size had a significant effect on stream loads of organic carbon and 

that stream reaches that have large ratios of wetland 

area to total intervening drainage area had negative net 

oxygen-productivity rates. Parker and Suurballe (1988) 

investigated oxygen-productivity rates and reaeration in 

a wetland-stream system in central Massachusetts. Productivity, respiration, drainage accrual, and diffusion 

constant were determined to be different in three 

reaches of the stream that had different wetland types, 

water-surface slopes, and color. Parker and Suurballe 

(1988) reported that productivity in each of these 

reaches appeared to be closely related to several

wetland characteristics including drainage accrual, the 

humic content that affects light penetration in the 

stream, and the presence of riparian trees or shrubs that 

limit the amount of sunlight reaching the water surface.

Acknowledgments

The authors express appreciation to landowners, 

who granted access to streams to collect water-quality 

samples, and to Arthur Screpetis, Massachusetts 

Department of Environmental Protection, Office of 

Watershed Management, who encouraged the study of 

wetlands and streams.

METHODS

This section describes the study design and the 

evaluation of available data from Socolow (1994), 

along with the methods used for the measurement of 

basin, stream, and wetland characteristics, for the 

measurement of stream-water quality, and for data 

analysis.

Study Design

Physical, hydrologic, biologic, and water-quality 

data used in this investigation are published in Socolow 

(1994). These data were derived from two sources: (1) 

data collected and published by the MDEP, Division of 

Water Pollution Control, from 1962 through 1988 as 

part of their assessment of the surface water of the Commonwealth (Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection, 1992) and (2) data collected 

by the USGS during 1988 and 1989 as part of this investigation. The MDEP data published in Socolow (1994) 

were evaluated by the USGS for the availability of various constituents and for the continuity of water-quality 

data and for the presence and character of wetlands in 

the stream reach between sampling sites. Water-quality 

data were collected by the USGS in 1988 and 1989 from 

wetland streams, many at the same sites previously 

sampled by the MDEP to supplement MDEP data. The 

wetland streams sampled in 1988 and 1989 were sampled for a wider range of chemical constituents than 

those represented in the MDEP data base.

Methods 9
Data from Socolow (1994) for 96 upstream and 

downstream sampling sites on 72 stream reaches were 

evaluated for this investigation to determine whether or 

not water quality in each reach was affected by processes other than wetland factors. Wetland reaches from 

Socolow (1994) were screened to assure with reasonable confidence that the water-quality changes that were 

observed did occur in the wetland reaches under investigation. Schematic diagrams representing reaches that 

were not selected are illustrated in figure 6. Most of the 

reaches not selected fell into one of four categories:

1 . Most of the riparian area along a stream reach was 

not classified as wetland on U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetland 

Inventory (NWI) maps (fig. 6A).

2. The reach received inflows from tributaries that 

were not sampled, particularly when the 

contributing drainage area of the tributary was 

large or contained more wetland area than that 

contiguous to the study reach (fig.

3. The reach received point- source contributions 

from sewage-treatment plants or was just 

downstream of these discharges (fig. 6Q.

4. Large lakes or impoundments existed between 

sampling sites (fig. 6D).

The remaining reaches represent a wide variety of wetland areas and types, canopy types, wetland reach 

slopes, reach lengths, contributing drainage areas, and 

stream discharges.

Reaches were further divided into primary and 

subordinate reaches based on data available for each 

sampling site. Primary reaches were those for which all 

needed data were available. These were predominantly 

reaches that were sampled by the USGS. Primary 

reaches were those that met the following minimum 

criteria:

1 . Discharge was measured concurrently with 

sampling.

2. DO was measured for several days at hourly

intervals concurrent with data for temperature, 

salinity, and barometric pressure. Temperature, 

salinity, and barometric pressure readings are 

required to calculate the percentage of 

saturation of DO.

3. Data were collected for major cations and anions, 

specific conductance, pH, alkalinity, organic 

nitrogen, ammonia as nitrogen, and nitrite plus 

nitrate as nitrogen.

Subordinate reaches were those for which some of 

these data were missing or sparse, but where enough 

data existed for some inferences to be made, and 

included reaches that were sampled by the USGS and 

MDEP.

As a result of the screening process just described, 

data from 22 wetland reaches on 15 streams in central 

and eastern Massachusetts were selected for analysis. 

For purposes of analysis, these reaches were divided 

into 15 primary and 15 subordinate reaches (table 1), as 

previously described.

Measurement of Basin, Stream, and 

Wetland Characteristics

Physical and biologic characteristics of the selected 

wetland stream reaches and surrounding wetland areas 

were measured onsite or were digitized from FWS NWI 

maps. Measured or calculated characteristics included 

reach length, contributing drainage areas to wetland 

reaches, wetland reach slope, channel width, stream 

velocity and stream discharge, times of travel, wetland 

classification, area of wetlands, and shading by canopy.

Reach lengths and contributing drainage areas to 

wetland reaches were digitized from 1:24,000- or 

1:25,000-scale USGS topographic maps. Reach lengths 

were defined by upstream and downstream sampling 

sites. Contributing drainage areas were defined as the 

area that drains to the reaches defined by the upstream 

and downstream sampling sites. Sampling sites were 

selected at or near locations where bridges crossed wetland streams. In most cases, the location of sampling 

sites did not coincide with the beginning or end of a 

wetland complex. Wetland reach slopes were calculated 

from USGS topographic maps (7.5 minute) and from 

digitized data of reach lengths. In streams sampled by 

the USGS, channel widths were measured at sampling 

sites and also at representative cross sections during initial reconnaissance of the stream reaches. Stream velocities for the reaches were calculated during 

measurement of discharge at upstream and downstream 

sampling sites. Times of travel for the reaches were 

estimated using reach lengths divided by average 

stream velocities.

10 Water Quality of Selected Wetland Streams in Central and Eastern Massachusetts, 1988-89
DIVIDE FOR 

CONTRIBUTING 

DRAINAGE AREA

TRIBUTARY

SEWAGE TREATMENT 

PLANTS

TRIBUTARY

DIVIDE FOR 

CONTRIBUTING 

DRAINAGE AREA

OUTFLOW

OUTFLOW

B. INFLOW

SAMPLING .1 

SITE

TRIBUTARY

TRIBUTARY

DIVIDE FOR 

CONTRIBUTING 

DRAINAGE AREA

IMPOUNDMENT

OUTFLOW NOT TO SCALE

DIVIDE FOR 

CONTRIBUTING 

DRAINAGE AREA

OUTFLOW

Figure 6. Wetland reaches that were not selected for this investigation. (A) A stream reach where most of the riparian 

area along a stream is not classified as wetland. (B) A stream reach that received tributary inflow that was not sampled. 

(C) A stream reach that received point source contributions from sewage-treatment plants or just downstream of these 

discharges. (D) A stream reach where large lakes or impoundments existed between sampling sites.

Methods 11
Table 1 . Information for selected wetland-stream sampling sites in central and eastern Massachusetts

[Reach designation: 1, primary; 2, subordinate. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; MDEP, Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection. , no data]

Stream name

(river basin name)

and site No.

USGS

site No.

MDEP Location Reach designation

site No.

Central Massachusetts (fig. 2)

Quaboag River

(Ware)

QA1A

QA2

QA3

Ware River

(Chicopee)

Wl

W2

West Branch

Ware River

(Ware)

WBW1

WBW2

01175745

01175765

--

01172880

01172940

01172396

01172398

Quaboag Pond outlet, East Brookfield

QA04 Fiskdale Road, Brookfield

QA05 Route 67, West Brookfield

Covered Bridge Road, Barre

WA01 Route 122, Barre

Twin Hill Road, Hubbardston

Brigham Road, Hubbardston

1

1,2

2

1

1

1

1

East-Central Massachusetts (fig. 3)

Assabet River

(Concord)

AS1

AS2

Beaver Brook

(Merrimack)

BBM1

BBM2

BBM3

Stony Brook

(Merrimack)

SB2

SB3

SB4

Sudbury River

(Concord)

SU4

SU5

--

01096602

01096534

01096535

01096537

01096539

01096540

01096541

--

AS01 Augmentation Pond dam intake, Westborough

AS02 Maynard Street, Westborough

Swanson Road, Boxborough

Harvard Sportsman's Club, Boxborough

Harwood Avenue, Littleton

ST04 Route 225, Westford

ST05 Town Farm Road, Westford

ST06 Broadway Street, Westford

SU09 Route 1 17, Lincoln

SU10 Nashawtuc Road, Concord

2

2

1

1

1

1,2

1,2

1

2

2

12 Water Quality of Selected Wetland Streams in Central and Eastern Massachusetts, 1988-89
Table 1 . Information for selected wetland-stream sampling sites in central and eastern MassachusettsContinued

Stream name,

(river basin name)

and site No.

USGS

site No.

MDEP

site No.

Location Reach designation

Northeastern Massachusetts (fig. 4)

Ipswich River

(Ipswich)

IP1

IP2

IP9

IP10

IP11

--

--

--

--

~

101

102

109

110

111

Wildwood Street, Wilmington

Woburn Street, Wilmington

Rowley Bridge Road, Topsfield

Salem Road, Topsfield

Route 97, Topsfield

2

2

2

2

2

Southeastern Massachusetts (fig. 5)

Beaver Brook

(Taunton)

BE1

BE2

BE3

Bungay River

(Ten Mile)

BG2

BG3

BG4

Charles River

(Charles)

CHS

CH6

Chicken Brook

(Charles)

CB2

CB3

Dopping Brook

(Charles)

DPI

DP2

Mine Brook

(Charles)

MB1

MB2

Town River

(Taunton)

TR3

TR5

01106445

01106450

01106460

01109365

01109369

01109375

--

-

01103250

01103251

01103384

01103386

01103229

01103235

01107085

01107100

BE01

BE02

BE03

BG03

BG04

BG05

CH11

CH12

CB02

CB03

DB01

DB02

--

MNOO

TW03

TWOS

Groveland Street, Brockton

Crescent Street, Brockton

Belmont Street, East Bridgewater

Below fish hatchery, North Attleborough

Holden Street, Attleborough

North Main Street, Attleborough

Route 109, Medfield

Dover Street, Medfield

Routes 16 and 126, Holliston

Levering Street, Medway

Brook Street, Holliston

Whitney Street, Holliston

Grove Street, Franklin

Route 140, Franklin

South Street, West Bridgewater

Route 18, Bridgewater

1,2

1,2

1,2

1,2

1,2

1,2

2

2

1,2

1,2

1,2

1,2

1

1

1,2

1,2

Methods 13
Wetlands were classified by type according to the 

system currently used by the FWS to classify wetlands 

in the United States (Cowardin and others, 1979). In this 

system, wetlands are classified on the basis of vegetation, soils, and hydrology. The area of wetlands in the 

contributing drainage area and the length of different 

types of riparian wetlands along the reaches were 

digitized from FWS NWI maps.

Stream canopies were designated as shaded, open, 

or partially shaded depending on the FWS wetland classification as indicated on NWI maps, on stream width, 

and on available onsite data. Streams of narrow width 

(less than about 10m) were considered to be shaded by 

their canopies if the riparian vegetation on NWI maps 

was forested upland or classified as palustrine forested 

(fig. 7A) or palustrine-forested and scrub-shrub 

wetlands. Streams were considered to be exposed to 

sunlight and to have open canopies if riparian wetlands 

on NWI maps were classified as palustrine emergent or 

scrub-shrub/emergent (fig. 7B). In addition, streams 

were considered partially shaded if wetlands were a mix 

of palustrine scrub-shrub and emergent wetlands, and 

shaded if the stream had an east-west orientation and 

upland or forested wetlands on the southern side.

Measurement of Stream-Water Quality

Data-collection methods used by the USGS and 

MDEP are detailed in Socolow (1994). Data collected 

by the USGS follow standard techniques that are published in a series of Techniques of Water-Resources 

Investigations manuals. Water samples for most constituents that were collected by the USGS were collected 

using a fluvial sediment-sampling technique called 

depth integration (Guy and Norman, 1970). Use of this 

technique requires depth-integrating samplers to be lowered and raised at a uniform rate throughout the depth of 

a stream cross section. The water-sediment mixture 

accumulates from all points in the sampled depth so that 

at every point an incremental volume of the mixture is 

collected that is proportional to the flow velocity at that 

point. This technique ensures that samples collected for 

analysis of chemical constituents contain representative 

subsamples of both the dissolved and suspended 

material that pass through the stream cross section at the 

time of sampling.

Streamflow values are either from measurements 

made at the time of sample collection or from a stagedischarge rating (Rantz and others, 1982). Specific

conductance and pH were measured using methods 

described by Wood (1976). Samples collected by the 

USGS for water temperature and DO were measured at 

a single point in the stream. DO measurements were 

made using a DO meter and techniques described in 

Fishman and Friedman (1985). Continuous hourly temperature and DO data were recorded by multiconstituent 

monitors (Socolow, 1994). Water-quality analyses for 

turbidity and alkalinity (fixed endpoint to 4.0 standard 

pH units) were done at the USGS laboratory in Marlborough, Massachusetts. Samples requiring suspendedsediment determinations were analyzed at the USGS 

laboratory in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; analysis 

methods for major solutes are described by Skougstad 

and others (1979).

Samples collected for laboratory analyses were 

preserved onsite and immediately shipped to the appropriate USGS laboratories. Sample preservation and analytical methods used by the USGS are described in 

Fishman and Friedman (1985), Wershaw and others 

(1987), and Britton and Greeson (1989).

The MDEP data were collected using standard 

techniques developed or adopted by the MDEP. Sample 

preservation and analytical methods used by the MDEP 

are described in Socolow (1994). Samples collected by 

the MDEP were either grab samples from a single 

sampling point or a composite of samples collected at 

multiple points in a stream cross section.

In any water-quality investigation, the issues of 

quality assurance and quality control need to be 

addressed. Methods for collection of water-quality 

samples differed between the MDEP and USGS. When 

data bases are combined, as in this investigation, the 

compatibility of data is a concern. On June 21,1988, the 

MDEP and USGS sampled water at Robinson Brook, 

sites RB1, 2, and 3 (fig. 5). The resulting sample values 

were compared and used to assess the net effect of differences in sample-collection techniques, sample handling procedures, and laboratory analyses on waterquality data results. The sample values and respective 

collecting agencies are listed in table 2. Results of analyses demonstrated that data generally were compatible, 

but that there were differences for certain constituents, 

particularly ammonia, phosphorus, and iron. Most 

MDEP analyses for ammonia as nitrogen and kjeldahl 

nitrogen were less than those collected by the USGS. In 

all cases, concentrations for dissolved iron were higher 

for MDEP analyses than for USGS analyses.

14 Water Quality of Selected Wetland Streams in Central and Eastern Massachusetts, 1988-89
70°58'30"

72 OO'SO"

A.

42°27'

42°05'

WBW1

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey 

National Wetlands Inventory 

1:24,000 Barre, Massachusetts, 1969 

Polyconic projection

400 800 METERS

I

I I I 

1,000 2,000 3,000 FEET

BE2

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey 

National Wetlands Inventory 

1:24,000 Whitman, Massachusetts, 1977 

Polyconic projection

EXPLANATION

PALUSTRINE SYSTEM 

Forested 

Scrub-Shrub 

Emergent 

| | UPLAND SYSTEM

 SURFACE DRAINAGE-BASIN 

BOUNDARY

BE1 A STREAMFLOW-GAGING SITE AND NUMBER

WBW2 T STREAM WATER-QUALITY SITE AND NUMBER

WBW2 Number indicates site number used in tables

Figure 7. Wetland reach dominated by (A) palustrine forested wetlands (West Branch Ware River, sites WBW1-2, table 1) and 

(B) palustrine scrub-shrub and emergent wetlands (Beaver Brook, Taunton Basin, sites BE1-2, table 1), central and eastern 

Massachusetts.

Methods 15
Table 2. Comparison of quality-assurance data for MDEP and USGS samples collected from Robinson Brook, 

eastern Massachusetts, June 21, 1988

[Location of sites are shown in figure 5. MDEP, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection; USGS, U.S. 

Geological Survey. jiS/cm, microsiemen per centimeter at 25°C; NTU, nephelometric-turbidity unit; mg/L, milligram per 

liter]

Property or constituent

Properties

Specific conductance (jiS/cm) 

Field........................................................................

Laboratory...............................................................

pH (standard units).. ................................................

Turbidity (NTU). .....................................................

Oxygen, dissolved (percentage of saturation).........

Constituents (mg/L)

Hardness (as CaCO3 ) ..............................................

Alkalinity (as CaCO3).............................................

Chloride, dissolved.................................................

Nitrate, total (as N) .................................................

Nitrogen, ammonia, dissolved (as N) .....................

Nitrogen, total, kjeldahl (as N) ...............................

Iron, dissolved.........................................................

SiteRBl

MDEP

....... 397

....... 6.6

....... 1.7

....... 58

84 

56

49

....... 36

....... 70

....... 4.5

....... .91

....... 1.6

....... .33

USGS

431 

411 

6.6 

1.8

55 

87 

57

53 

30 

70 

4.6 

1.8 

2.1 

.08

Site RB2

MDEP

381

6.8 

1.6 

64 

67 

56

51 

28 

70 

4.4 

.19 

1.1 

.22

USGS

395 

403 

6.8 

2.1 

69 

64 

67

55 

29 

73 

4.6 

.30 

1.2 

.05

Site RB3

MDEP USGS

484 484 

484 

7.2 7.3 

2.0 2.4 

76 76 

82 68 

76 75

48 54 

25 

105 110 

1.9 1.9 

.06 .03 

.60 .30 

.083 .16

Analysis of Data

Nonparametric statistical techniques were used to 

check for significant differences between concentrations 

and loads from upstream and downstream sampling 

sites and to compare stream and wetland characteristics 

to stream-water quality. Nonparametric methods were 

used for the analysis of water-quality data because the 

large number of analyses with concentrations less than 

the minimum reporting level and the occasional high 

concentrations result in skewed distributions for most 

data (Helsel and Hirsch, 1992). Differences in water 

quality that occur between upstream and downstream 

sampling sites can be depicted by construction of boxplots that show concentrations and loads of selected 

constituents, and stream and wetland characteristics. 

Water-quality variables displayed for the stream and 

wetland characteristics included date or season, contributing drainage area to the stream reach, area of wetlands 

in the contributing area, predominant wetland type (by 

area) in the contributing area, canopy shading as determined by predominant wetland type along the riparian

zone, discharge, reach length, and reach slope. For comparison purposes, boxplots were constructed that compared groups of the measured characteristics. Because 

of the small size of the data set, groups of data, such as 

streams having small and large discharges, or small and 

large wetland areas, were selected that would divide the 

data into two or three portions of approximately equal 

size. These groups then were compared to water-quality 

constituents and tested for significant differences. The 

group criteria are given in table 3.

Two nonparametric tests, the sign test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test (Helsel and Hirsch, 1992), were 

used to test for significant differences between upstream 

and downstream data pairs. Both of these tests determine the probability that the difference between the 

medians is due to chance. The null hypothesis (H0) is 

that constituent concentrations are equally likely to be 

higher or lower for upstream and downstream sampling 

sites. For upstream and downstream data pairs (Xit Yh 

where /=l,...n), the sign test computes the number of

16 Water Quality of Selected Wetland Streams in Central and Eastern Massachusetts, 1988-89
Table 3. Group criteria for basin, stream, and wetland characteristics

[Wetland classifications are from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife classification (Cowardin and others, 1979). Group criteria: P, 

palustrine; fo, forested; ss, scrub-shrub; em, emergent; ow, open water; R, riverine; and U, upland, km, kilometer; km2, square 

kilometer; mVs, cubic meter per second]

Characteristic

Season

Contributing drainage area

Wetland area

Wetland type

Canopy shading1

Group

Early summer 

Mid-summer 

Late summer

Small 

Medium

Large

Small

Medium/large

Grassy-open 

Mixed

Woody-shaded

Shaded

Group criteria

June 21 through July 12. 

July 13 through August 8. 

August 9 through September 12.

0 to 5 km2. 

6 to 10 km2.

Greater than 10 km2.

0 to 5 km2.

Greater than 5 km2.

66 to 100 percent of wetland area is classified as (Pss/em, Pern, Pow, R).

. 33 to 66 percent of wetland area is classified as (Pss/em, Pern, Pow, R) or 

(Pfo, Pfo/ss, Pss). 

66 to 100 percent of wetland area is classified as (Pfo, Pfo/ss, Pss).

66 to 100 percent of riparian wetlands are classified as

Partial

(Pfo, Pfo/ss, Pss, U).

33 to 66 percent of riparian wetlands are classified as (Pfo, Pfo/ss, Pss, U) or 

(Pern, Pem/ss).

Discharge

Reach length

Reach slope

^Iso dependent on

Open

Small 

Medium 

Large

Short 

Medium 

Long

Low 

Medium

orientation.

66 to 100 percent of riparian wetlands are classified as (Pern, Pem/ss).

O.OltoO.lOmVs. 

O.lltol.OmVs. 

1.1 to 10m3/s.

0 to 2 km. 

3 to 4 km. 

5 to 6 km.

0.0002 to 0.002. 

Greater than 0.002.

positive and negative differences so that a difference 

between XL and Y{ is detected without regard to the magnitude of the difference. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test 

computes the sum of the ranked differences and indicates whether or not the magnitude of the difference 

between paired data is significantly different from zero 

(Helsel and Hirsch, 1992). A p value of less than 0.05 

was selected to indicate significant difference.

WATER QUALITY OF SELECTED 

WETLAND STREAMS

This section describes basin, stream, and wetland 

characteristics, water quality, and the relation of basin, 

stream, and wetland characteristics to water quality for 

selected wetland streams in central and eastern 

Massachusetts.

Water Quality of Selected Wetland Streams 17
Basin, Stream, and Wetland Characteristics

Basin, stream, and wetland characteristics that 

were measured for each stream reach are given in 

table 4. These characteristics include the date of sampling, contributing drainage area to the reach, total area 

of wetlands in the contributing drainage area, percentage of canopy shading, stream discharge, reach length, 

reach slope, and predominant wetland classification (by 

area and reach length) in the contributing area.

Dates of sampling for this study ranged from June 

through September of 1988 and 1989. Sampling dates 

were divided into subgroups of early, middle, and late 

summer because several physical characteristics, such 

as temperature, light availability, stream discharge, 

growth of algae and macrophytes, and decomposition 

vary seasonally. These factors potentially can affect 

many water-quality constituents. Temperature has an 

inverse relation with the saturation concentration of DO 

and a direct relation to the rate of decomposition. Concentrations of DO at saturation are lower at warm temperatures than at cool temperatures. Thus, a relatively 

constant oxygen demand would have a proportionally 

greater effect during periods of warm temperature. If 

the oxygen demand were caused by biochemical 

oxygen demand (BOD) or sediment oxygen demand 

(SOD), this effect could be compounded in the summer 

because rates of decomposition also increase with temperature. For example, a temperature increase of 10°C 

can double the rate of decomposition and oxygen consumption. Light availability varies on a daily basis due 

to cloud cover and also varies seasonally. The availability of light decreases after June 21 and, as a result, production decreases in late summer. Temperatures and 

respiration, however, remain high throughout August, 

and respiration may surpass production in late summer.

Determination of the effect of wetlands on water 

quality also is strongly dependent on the timing of sampling relative to the stream discharge. For example, wetlands might be expected to have a different effect on 

sediment during periods of runoff than during base flow. 

Data for antecedent conditions prior to sampling for this 

study are unavailable. The selected streams primarily 

represent low-order streams. Stream discharges ranged 

from less than 0.01 to more than 3.0 m3/s. Median

discharges were 0.03 mVs for upstream sites and 0.08 

m3/s for downstream sites. Low streamflows in summer 

can be accompanied by small stream cross-sectional 

areas, reduced mixing, slowed velocities, and lengthened traveltimes. These conditions could result in lowered rates of reaeration and increased contact times 

between stream water and the organic material in wetland reaches. As a result of increased contact times, biochemical reactions have a greater opportunity to alter 

water quality. Low flows, high temperatures, and nutrient enrichment are conducive to rapid growth of algal 

communities (blooms). The die-off of these phytoplankton blooms in late summer can create a large 

oxygen demand. The magnitude of stream discharge 

also can have a large effect on DO dynamics. For 

instance, a deep sluggish river may exhibit little diurnal 

change in oxygen concentration, whereas a shallow 

stream may have large diurnal fluctuations in DO. The 

small change in oxygen concentration in the deep river, 

however, may indicate a larger change in oxygen 

metabolism under a square meter of the surface than a 

large change in a shallow river (Hoskin, 1959).

Wetland areas in the selected reaches ranged from 

0.07 to 1.62 km2 or as much as 17 percent of the contributing area to the stream reach. Median wetland area was 

0.62 km2 . Because selected sampling sites were at or 

near bridges crossing wetland streams, most of the 

upstream and downstream sampling sites were not 

located at the beginning or end of wetland complexes.

Streams in the study area are shaded by forested 

and scrub-shrub vegetation and also by surrounding forested upland. In the absence of onsite data, canopy 

shading was estimated from NWI maps. This method 

can only approximate canopy shading because of 

changes in vegetation and stream course, variations in 

stream width and canopy cover, the difficulty of estimating the effects of surrounding hills from a map, and 

the resolution of the NWI maps.

Reach slope can be an indicator of stream velocity. 

Reach slopes for the selected wetland streams ranged 

from 0.0002 to 0.005 m/m. Median slope was 0.001 

m/m. Low slopes and low stream velocities can result in 

long times of travel in wetland reaches. Reaeration, an 

important source of DO to streams, is reduced by low

18 Water Quality of Selected Wetland Streams in Central and Eastern Massachusetts, 1988-89
slopes (Parker and DeSimone, 1992). Lengthened time 

of travel because of low slopes in wetland streams and 

restrictions in flow generated by wetland vegetation 

may be the principal means by which wetlands affect 

water quality.

Using the FWS classification (Cowardin and others, 1979), wetlands along streams in Massachusetts are 

commonly classified as having a combination of several

different wetland types, such as palustrine forested, 

scrub-shrub, and emergent wetlands. For the selected 

wetland streams, the most common wetland type by 

area was palustrine forested wetlands, followed by 

mixed scrub-shrub and emergent wetlands, mixed forested and scrub-shrub wetlands, scrub-shrub wetlands, 

emergent wetlands, open-water wetlands, and emergent 

and open-water wetlands.

Table 4. Basin and stream characteristics and wetland classifications for selected wetland streams, central and 

eastern Massachusetts, 1988-89

[Wetland classifications are from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife classification (Cowardin and others, 1979). P, palustrine; 

fo, forested; ss, scrub shrub; em, emergent; ow, open water; R, riverine; U, upland. , not measured, km2, square 

kilometer; m3/s, cubic meter per second; km, kilometer; m/m, meter per meter]

Basin characteristics

Stream name 

(river basin 

name) 

and site No.

Date of 

sample 

collection

Contributing 

drainage area 

(km2)

Wetland 

area 

(km2)

Central Massachusetts (fig. 2)

Quaboag River

(Ware)

QA1A-2 8-02-88 30.41 2.42

Ware River

(Chicopee)

Wl-2 6-28-88

West Branch

Ware River

(Ware) 7-06-88

WBW1-2

7.28 -72

3.38 -18

East-Central Massachusetts (fig. 3)

Beaver Brook 

(Merrimack) 

BBM1-2 

BBM2-3

Stony Brook 

(Merrimack) 

SB2-3 

SB3-4

8-09-89 

8-09-89

8-01-89 

8-01-89

6.21

4.95

.75 

6.47

0.79 

.85

.08 

.07

Basin characteristics

Stream name 

(river basin 

name) 

and site No.

Date of 

sample 

collection

Contributing 

drainage area 

(km2)

Wetland 

area 

(km2)

Southeastern Massachusetts (fig. 5)

Beaver Brook 

(Taunton) 

BE1-2 

BE2-3

Bungay River 

(Ten Mile) 

BG2-3 

BG3-4

Chicken Brook

(Charles)

CB2-3

Dopping Brook 

(Charles) 

DP 1-2

Mine Brook 

(Charles) 

MB 1-2

Town River

(Taunton)

TR3-5

8-29-* 

8-29-*

6-21-89 

6-21-89

7-25-89

7-18-89

7-11-89

9-12-89

3.04

6.84

10.12

.60

5.82

.70

17.6

12.15

0.45 

.97

.36 

.10

.62

.11

1.62

1.46

Water Quality of Selected Wetland Streams 19
Table 4. Basin and stream characteristics and wetland classifications for selected wetland streams, central and 

eastern Massachusetts, 1988-89 Continued

Stream characteristics

Stream name (river 

basin name) and 

site No.

Date of 

sample 

collection

Canopy 

shading 

(percentage 

of open)

Discharge 

upstream 

(m3/s)

Discharge 

downstream 

(mVs)

Discharge 

difference 

(mVs)

Reach 

length 

(km)

Reach 

slope 

(m/m)

Central Massachusetts (fig. 2)

Quaboag River 

(Ware) 

QA1A-2

Ware River 

(Chicopee)

Wl-2

West Branch Ware 

River (Ware) 

WBW1-2

8-02-88

6-28-88

7-06-88

3.087

1.133

.079

3.087

1.189

.065

0

.056

-.014

2.6

3.6

2.0

0.0002

.0006

.0039

East-Central Massachusetts (fig. 3)

Beaver Brook 

(Merrimack) 

BBM1-2 

BBM2-3

Stony Brook 

(Merrimack) 

SB2-3 

SB3-4

8-09-89 

8-09-89

8-01-89 

8-01-89

64 

65

64

0.008 

.015

.147 

.190

0.015 

.034

.19

.255

0.007 

.019

.043 

.065

3.3 

2.9

1.0 

1.7

0.0014 

.0009

.0046 

.0009

Southeastern Massachusetts (fig. 5)

Beaver Brook 

(Taunton) 

BE 1-2 

BE2-3

Bungay River 

(Ten Mile) 

BG2-3 

BG3-4

Chicken Brook 

(Charles) 

CB2-3

Dopping Brook 

(Charles) 

DP 1-2

Mine Brook 

(Charles) 

MB 1-2

Town River 

(Taunton) 

TR3-5

8-29-88 

8-29-88

6-21-89 

6-21-89

7-25-89

7-18-89

7-11-89

9-12-89

73 

14

77

24

18

50

19

0.045 

.065

.204 

.425

.024

.027

.034

.425

0.065 

.096

.425 

.368

.059

.042

.198

.453

0.020 

.031

.221 

-.057

.035

.015

.164

.028

2.8 

5.5

3.9 

1.2

3.1

.9

5.6

5.7

0.0024 

.0031

.0005 

.0005

.0027

.0002

.0027

.0013

20 Water Quality of Selected Wetland Streams in Central and Eastern Massachusetts, 1966-69
Table 4. Basin and stream characteristics and wetland classifications for selected wetland streams, central and 

eastern Massachusetts, 1988-89 Continued

Stream name 

(river basin 

name) and 

site No.

Wetland classification (area in square kilometers)

Date of

sample pf() pfo/ss pss pss/em pem Pem/ow Pow collection

Total

Central Massachusetts (fig. 2)

Quaboag River 

(Ware) 

QA1A-2

Ware River 

(Chicopee)

Wl-2

West Branch 

Ware River 

(Ware) 

WBW1-2

8-02-88

6-28-88 0.49 0 0.185 0.02 0.009 0 0.011

7-06-88 .173 0 0 0 .004 0 0

0.715

.177

East-Central Massachusetts (fig. 3)

Beaver Brook 

(Merrimack) 

BBM1-2 

BBM2-3

Stony Brook 

(Merrimack) 

SB2-3 

SB3-4

8-09-89 0.234 0.204 0.065 0.222 0.042 0 0.018 

8-09-89 .512 0 0 .282 .048 0 .005

8-01-89 .076 0 00000 

8-01-89 .067 0 00000

0.785 

.847

.076 

.067

Southeastern Massachusetts (fig. 5)

Beaver Brook 

(Taunton) 

BE1-2 

BE2-3

Bungay River 

(Ten Mile) 

BG2-3 

BG3-4

Chicken Brook 

(Charles) 

CB2-3

Dopping Brook 

(Charles) 

DP 1-2

Mine Brook 

(Charles) 

MB 1-2

Town River 

(Taunton) 

TR3-5

8-29-88 0.087 0 0 0.316 0.022 0 0.020 

8-29-88 .847 0 .020 0 .072 0 .029

6-21-89 

6-21-89 0 0 0 .102 0 0 0

7-25-89 .446 .036 0 .056 .053 0 .029

7-18-89 .011 .049 0 .013 .034 0 0

7-11-89 .731 .059 .099 .46 .095 0 .174

9-12-89

0.445 

.968

.102

.620

.107

1.618

Water Quality of Selected Wetland Streams 21
Table 4. Basin and stream characteristics and wetland classifications for selected wetland streams, 

central and eastern Massachusetts, 1988-89 Continued

Wetland classification (reach length, in kilometers)

Stream name 

(river basin 

name) and 

site No.

Date of

sample pfQ pfo/ss pss Pss/em Pern Pem/ow Pow collectionR U Total

Central Massachusetts (fig. 2)

Quaboag 

River 

(Ware) 

QA1A-2

Ware River 

(Chicopee) 

Wl-2

West Branch 

Ware River 

(Ware) 

WBW1-2

8-02-88

6-28-88

7-06-88

2,565

3,617

1,950

East-Central Massachusetts (fig. 3)

Beaver Brook 

(Merrimack) 

BBM1-2 

BBM2-3

Stony Brook 

(Merrimack) 

SB2-3 

SB3-4

8-09-89 242 0 666 1,820 126 0 168 

8-09-89 675 0 0 1,866 00 0

8-01-89 658 0 0 0 0 0 0 

8-01-89 318 0 0 262 00 852

0 270 3,292 

0 315 2,856

0 334 992 

0 299 1,731

Southeastern Massachusetts (fig. 5)

Beaver Brook 

(Taunton) 

BE1-2 

BE2-3

Bungay River 

(Ten Mile) 

BG2-3 

BG3-4

Chicken 

Brook 

(Charles) 

CB2-3

Dopping 

Brook 

(Charles) 

DP 1-2

Mine Brook 

(Charles) 

MB 1-2

Town River 

(Taunton) 

TR3-5

8-29-88 543 0 0 1,757 0 0 259 

8-29-88 2,486 0 457 0 714 0 50

6-21-89 

6-21-89 00 0 944 00 0

7-25-89 1,116 0 0 0 190 0 567

7-18-89 488 0 0 171 00 0

7-11-89 1244 0 257 1,959 123 0 720

9-12-89

0 200 2,759 

761 996 5,464

190 89 1,223

0 1,295 3,168

0 269 928

224 1,116 5,643

_

22 Water Quality of Selected Wetland Streams in Central and Eastern Massachusetts, 1988-89
Water Quality

Water-quality data from primary wetland reaches 

are shown in a trilinear diagram (fig. 8). The trilinear 

diagram displays the composition of basic cations and 

anions in water from upstream and downstream sampling sites. Water from most of the wetland reaches 

was similar in composition. The few exceptions 

include water from the Quaboag, Ware, and West 

Branch Ware Rivers, where sulfate concentrations 

were high relative to sulfate concentrations in other 

reaches. These rivers are in central Massachusetts, and 

the high sulfate composition may be attributed to the 

presence of sulfide minerals present in sulfidic schist, 

which underlies parts of these river basins (Rittmaster 

and Shanley, 1994). Water from Dopping Brook 

exhibited higher calcium and sulfate concentrations, 

and water from Stony Brook had slightly higher sulfate and lower chloride concentrations than other 

streams in the study areas. The major cationic components of rivers generally reflect the composition of 

associated rocks and the relative resistance of minerals 

to weathering, and the anions generally reflect the 

importance of various chemical and biochemical processes that have broken down the rock minerals, as 

well as chemical, biochemical, and physical processes 

that occur in the aquatic and surrounding environment 

(Hem and others, 1990).

Although most constituents in streams are relatively stable if hydrologic conditions are in a steady 

state, the concentration of DO can fluctuate substantially on a daily basis depending on weather conditions, time of day, and season. Sources of DO to a 

stream reach include DO carried into the reach from 

upstream and contributions to the reach from tributaries, ground water, reaeration, and primary production. 

Oxygen can be removed from streams by BOD, SOD, 

chemical oxygen demand (COD), discharge to the 

stream of water that has low DO, and respiration of 

plants and animals. Algae, phytoplankton, and macrophytes affect DO concentrations in streams predominantly through primary production and respiration. 

Production generally exceeds respiration during the 

day and is less than respiration at night. Consequently, 

DO concentrations typically increase during the day

and decrease at night. However, not all aquatic vegetation similarly affects DO concentrations in streams. 

Oxygen produced by phytoplankton and submersed 

aquatic vegetation (algae) is released directly to the 

water column, whereas most oxygen produced by 

emergent macrophytes is released to the air.

DO data are difficult to compare to other waterquality data or data for stream and wetland characteristics because DO exhibits a wide range of variability 

and because instantaneous DO concentrations are 

dependent on the time of sampling. Similar DO concentrations could be measured in different streams 

even though the oxygen dynamics in the streams are 

entirely different. The percentage of saturation of DO 

differed greatly between the sampled streams in this 

study. Graphs that demonstrate the wide range of DO 

conditions that were measured are shown in figure 9. 

Each graph represents several days of hourly DO data. 

Graphs of Chicken Brook, sites CB2-3, show small 

daily DO fluctuations and a large decrease in DO saturation. Graphs of Beaver Brook (Taunton), sites 

BE2-3, show small daily fluctuations and an increase 

in DO saturation. In contrast, graphs of Mine Brook, 

sites MB2 and 3, and the West Branch Ware River, 

sites WBW1 and 2, depict large diel fluctuations, 

whereas the Quaboag River, sites QA1A and 2, has 

large diel fluctuations and is supersaturated during 

certain daytime hours.

The concentrations of dissolved organic phosphorus in water from the sampled wetland streams 

range from 0.01 to 0.13 mg/L with a median of 0.01 

mg/L (table 5). Low concentrations of phosphorus in 

the water column do not necessarily mean that there is 

little phosphorus in wetland-stream systems. Because 

phosphorus is taken up rapidly by plants, binds tightly 

to sediment, and is sorbed to iron complexes, concentrations of phosphorus commonly are low in the water 

column. Biologic cycling also is an important factor in 

the occurrence of other elements, such as potassium, 

silicon, nitrogen, iron, and manganese. Concentrations 

of these elements in stream water may decrease during 

periods of plant growth and increase during periods of 

vegetation dormancy (Likens and others, 1977).

Water Quality of Selected Wetland Streams 23
Calcium

CATIONS PERCENTAGE OF REACTING VALUES

Chloride

ANIONS

EXPLANATION

SAMPLING SITE AND NUMBER-See tables 1,4,6, and 7 

SITE NUMBER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

BBM1-2

BBM2-3

BE1-2

BE2-3

BG2-3

BG3-4

CB2-3

8

9

10

11

12

13

14 

15

DP1-2

MB1-2

QA1A-2

SB2-3

SB3-4

TR3-5

W1-2 

WBW1-2 ________ _________ _______ 

Figure 8. Composition of water from selected wetland streams, central and eastern Massachusetts, 1988-89.

24 Water Quality of Selected Wetland Streams in Central and Eastern Massachusetts, 1988-89
IOU

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

z

O

H~

GC

^~ 1 60 

co

a. 140

O

UJ

0 120

j 1

3 100

Q

GCo! so

z

z 60

UJ

C5

> 40

X

o

Q 20

UJ

g Q

co 

co

Q

i en TOO

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

i i i i

Beaver 

Brook

SITE 

BE3

01106460 :"--.,

- 'T^-^^^^^Vx^-^^^

SITE 7"

BE1 /

- 01106445 g"

01106450

-

Aug 28 Aug 29 Aug 30 Aug 31

1989

Chicken

Brook

-

SITE 

~ CB2

01103250 ^^

/^^^^~-^/ ^N^^_/^'V\_^

-

SITE

CBS

- 01103251

s ^

~~ v -. -, ^ ~~ --

~""~~~""~~"-_

July 24 July 25 July 26 July 27

1989

Mine

Brook

-

~ SITE

MB1 ,.

01103229 '\__^^ _^r^~~~~ '

SITE I* / ^ ' \

- MB2 ' ^ / ^ / \ '

01103235 v ^ j ^ 1 /\ v /

!\ ~ / \ j \

SITE ,'' '.

~ MBS -' ' 

011 03239 '-,

July 10 July 11 July 12 July 13

1989

IOU

140

120

100

Of\ ^ ou

o

!^ 60

GC

^

t 40

co

fe 20

UJ

H

UJ

o

GC

UJ

Q.

Z

z- 160

UJ

C5

x 14°

O

Q UJ 120 '* "

O 100

co

co

Q 80

60

40

20

0

Quaboag 

River

SITE __ j^\

QA1A / \ 1 \

01175745 M \ / \

A /^ ; ,/ \

- SITC; \ ^'' '\ f l X \

01175765 v / ^

-

-

Aug 1 Aug 2 Aug 3 Aug 4

1988

i

West

Branch

Ware River

~ SITE

WBW2

01172398

/ ~/ \ ' ~/CN. / ~^

/ N \ , / \ ^- /^\

/ ^ -\- X / \~' / ^ \~ "

/ "v/ \ / ~\

- SITE v^ \

WBW1

01172396

-

-

Julys July 6 July 7 July 8

1988

 _ 

Figure 9. Percentage of saturation of dissolved oxygen for selected sampling sites, central and eastern Massachusetts, 

1988-89.

Water Quality of Selected Wetland Streams 25
Table 5. Summary of water-quality data from selected wetland streams, central and eastern Massachusetts, 

1988-89

[Fifteen samples were collected for each constituent or property, except chemical and biochemical oxygen demand, for which 14 samples 

were collected. All constituents are given in milligram per liter unless otherwise noted. Type of sampling site: U, upstream; D, downstream. 

uS/cm, microsiemen per centimeter at 25°C; ug/L, microgram per liter; °C, degree Celsius; NTU, nephelometric-turbidity unit; Pt-Co units, 

platinum cobalt scale units]

Constituent or property

Specific conductance (|iS/cm)

pH (standard units)

Temperature (°C)

Color (Pt-Co units)

Turbidity (NTU)

Oxygen, dissolved

Oxygen demand, chemical

Oxygen demand, biochemical

Calcium, dissolved

Magnesium, dissolved (Pt-Co units)

Sodium, dissolved.

Potassium, dissolved

Alkalinity (as CaCO3)

Sulfate, dissolved

Chloride, dissolved

Nitrogen, nitrite, total (as N)

Nitrogen, nitrite, dissolved (as N)

Type of 

sampling 

site

U

D

U

D

U

D

U

D

U

D

U

D

U

D

U

D

U

D

U

D

U

D

U

D

U

D

U

D

U

D

U

D

U

D

Minimum

42

42

6.1

6.2

13.0

14.0

35

45

.8

1.1

.4

.4

16

18

.9

1.8

2.8

2.8

.53

.45

4.0

4.1

.5

.6

4

4

6

7

6.2

4.8

.01

.01

.01

.01

Maximum

641

301

7.5

7.3

24.5

26.0

200

170

2.0

3.1

8.8

8.9

86

83

6.0

5.1

29

18

5.2

3.1

84

32

3.7

3.7

30

34

33

20

180

68

.01

.03

.01

.03

Median

157

175

6.6

6.5

17.5

20.0

100

80

1.5

1.8

6.1

6.0

39

39

3.2

2.9

8.8

9.9

2.2

2.3

17

19

1.4

1.6

18

19

10

10

22

27

.01

.01

.01

.01

Mean

192

179

6.7

6.6

19.5

20.0

92

93

1.5

1.9

5.9

5.0

42

42

3.3

3.3

11

9.9

2.2

2.2

21

19

1.7

1.7

18

19

13

12

34

27

.01

.01

.01

.01

Standard 

deviation

146

80

.39

.33

3.6

3.7

48

43

1.3

.61

2.4

2.8

19

15

1.5

1.1

6.7

4.5

1.1

.8

19

9.1

1.0

.86

7.4

8.7

7.0

4.2

44

18

0

.01

0

.01

26 Water Quality of Selected Wetland Streams in Central and Eastern Massachusetts, 1988-89
Table 5. Summary of water-quality data from selected wetland streams, central and eastern Massachusetts, 

1988-89- Continued

Constituent or property

Nitrogen, nitrite plus nitrate, total (as N)

Nitrogen, nitrite plus nitrate, dissolved

(asN)

Nitrogen, ammonia, total (as N)

Nitrogen, ammonia, dissolved (as N)

Nitrogen, ammonia plus organic, total

(asN)

Nitrogen, ammonia plus organic,

dissolved (as N)

Nitrogen, organic, total (as N)

Nitrogen, organic, dissolved (as N)

Phosphorus, hydrolyzable plus

orthophosphate, total (as P)

Phosphorus, hydrolyzable plus

orthophosphate, dissolved (as P)

Phosphorus, organic, total (as P)

Phosphorus, organic, dissolved (as P)

Iron, dissolved (|ig/L)

Carbon, organic, total (as C)

Carbon, organic, dissolved (as C)

Chlorophyll-a (estimated) (M-g/L)

Chlorophyll-b (estimated) (H-g/L)

Sediment, suspended

Type of 

sampling 

site

U

D

U

D

U

D

U

D

U

D

U

D

U

D

U

D

U

D

U

D

U

D

U

D

U

D

U

D

U

D

U

D

U

D

U

D

Minimum

0.1

.1

.1

.1

.01

.01

.01

.01

.3

.4

.2

.2

.22

.36

.11

.19

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

70

150

.2

.2

3.7

5.5

.1

.1

.1

.1

1

1

Maximum

0.9

1.1

.85

1.0

.15

.18

.11

.17

2.1

2.1

.6

1.4

2.1

2.1

1.5

1.3

.08

.18

.03

.13

.04

.27

.03

.13

930

1,500

1.8

2.8

19

19

23

19

3.5

3.1

22

19

Median

0.3

.2

.21

.14

.05

.04

.04

.05

.8

.8

.1

.7

.71

.72

.46

.66

.03

.03

.01

.02

.02

.03

.01

.01

460

750

.3

.5

9.3

9.6

.6

.9

.1

.1

3

5

Mean

0.32

.25

.29

.24

.06

.06

.05

.06

.77

.9

.1

.7

.72

.85

.55

.64

.03

.05

.02

.03

.02

.05

.02

.02

515

748

.56

.67

10

10

4.1

3.8

.4

.4

5.4

5.8

Standard 

deviation

0.3

.3

.24

.23

.04

.04

.03

-.04

.49

.45

.3

.3

.48

.46

.35

.32

.02

.04

.01

.03

.01

.07

.01

.03

262

392

.47

.66

4.6

3.8

4.1

3.8

7.6

6.0

6.3

4.3

Water Quality of Selected Wetland Streams 27
Concentrations of nitrogen species in the sampled 

wetland streams exhibit a wide range of values; dissolved nitrite plus nitrate as nitrogen ranged from 0.10 to 

1.0 mg/L, dissolved ammonia-nitrogen ranged from 0.01 

to 0.17 mg/L, and dissolved organic nitrogen ranged 

from 0.11 to 1.5 mg/L (table 5). Nitrate concentrations 

exceeding EPA national primary drinking-water 

standards of 10 mg/L were not detected (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994). The most common 

forms of nitrogen in stream water are nitrate, nitrite, 

ammonium, and organic nitrogen. Organic nitrogen is 

nitrogen that is included within proteins, amino acids, 

and other molecules formed by plants and animals. 

Ammonification is the principal source of ammonium in 

aquatic systems in the absence of sewage-treatment 

plants. During ammonification, organic compounds containing nitrogen are broken down by bacteria into ammonia, which ionizes in water to become ammonium. 

Ammonium exerts a high oxygen demand and is toxic to 

aquatic organisms. If oxygen is available, ammonium is 

converted by bacteria to nitrite, which is in turn quickly 

oxidized into nitrate. This process is called nitrification. 

The reverse of this process, called denitrification, generally occurs in streambed and wetland sediments in the 

absence of free oxygen. During denitrification, bacteria 

use nitrate as an electron acceptor in place of oxygen, 

resulting in the reduction of nitrate to nitrous oxide or 

nitrogen gas.

In acidic wetlands and streams organic substances 

known as humic and fulvic acids give the water a characteristic tea color. In the selected wetland streams, pH 

ranged from 6.1 to 7.5, and the median pH values were 

6.6 and 6.5 for upstream and downstream sites, respectively (table 5). Color ranged from 35 to 200 Pt-Co units 

in the selected wetland streams, and the median color 

levels were 100 and 80 platinum-cobalt (Pt-Co) units for 

upstream and downstream sites, respectively. DOC compounds include soluble carbohydrates and amino acids 

leached from decomposing organic material. DOC in the 

sampled wetland streams ranged from 3.7 to 19 mg/L. 

Median DOC concentrations were 9.3 and 9.6 mg/L in 

upstream and downstream sampling sites, respectively. 

The low slopes and low stream velocities in wetland 

reaches create depositional environments that accumulate organic material. Organic matter produced by wetland vegetation, such as emergent macrophytes, tends to 

decompose in the water column at or near the site of production (Wetzel and Ward, 1992). Other organic matter 

may be transported into the wetland reach from upstream 

sources. This organic material exists in many forms,

such as large particulate matter in the form of branches 

and vegetative debris and small particulate matter in the 

form of leaf litter, detritus, or colloidal material. Much of 

the organic matter present in streams has been in the 

water for some time, and is refractory in nature (decomposes slowly). However, the cumulative effect of large 

amounts of slowly decomposing organic material can 

exert substantial SOD.

The relative changes in water quality were plotted 

to test for consistent changes in water quality between 

the wetland reaches. Depending on the direction of 

change in the constituent throughout the reach, a plus 

(+), minus (-), or zero (0) was plotted (tables 6 and 7). 

Constituents that increased throughout the primary 

reaches include the following (numbers in parentheses 

give the percentage of the reaches that increased for that 

constituent): discharge (87 percent), specific conductance (60 percent), temperature (67 percent), turbidity 

(73 percent), DO (53 percent), sodium (73 percent), dissolved potassium (53 percent), dissolved sulfate (53 percent), total ammonia plus organic nitrogen (60 percent), 

dissolved ammonia (60 percent), total orthophosphorus 

(53 percent), iron (67 percent), chlorophyll-a (53 percent), and suspended sediment (67 percent). Decreases 

were measured in the primary reaches for DOC (53 percent). For the subordinate reaches, increases were measured in ammonia as nitrogen (50 percent).

Boxplots were constructed to display water quality 

at upstream and downstream boundaries of the stream 

reaches and to graph the differences between concentrations of constituents entering and leaving the wetland 

reaches. The nonparametric sign test and Wilcoxon 

signed-rank test were applied to test for significant differences between the upstream and downstream data. 

Few significant differences were detected at ap value of 

less than 0.05. Examples are given in figure 10 for (1) 

constituents that did not exhibit significant differences 

over the wetland reaches (specific conductance, pH, 

color, sulfate, chloride, ammonium, and DOC), (2) constituents for which data indicate that the effect of the 

wetland was to increase or decrease the variability of the 

constituent (instantaneous DO, COD, total ammonia 

plus organic nitrogen, total hydrolizable plus orthophosphorus), and (3) constituents for which the data suggest 

a slight change may occur over the wetland reach (turbidity, BOD, iron, suspended sediment), but for which 

statistical tests using the nonparametric sign test and 

Wilcoxon signed-rank test did not indicate a significant 

difference at a p value of less than 0.05.

28 Water Quality of Selected Wetland Streams in Central and Eastern Massachusetts, 1988-89
I

ao 

a

o

a

I

a

to

00 O 

00 ~*"

S|

CD 2. 

tf" 

CL

Q 

Q.

-o 

3

Q

03 

Q.

Q 

03 

CO

Q 

3

COLOR, IN PLATINUM COBALT UNITS

8

TURBIDITY, IN 

NEPHELOMETRIC-TURBIDITY UNITS PH, IN STANDARD UNITS

to u en o> 00 <O O O

SULFATE CONCENTRATION, 

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND, 

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND, 

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

rnTJ

s

^s

HYDROLIZABLE PLUS ORTHO- AMMONIA PLUS ORGANIC NITROGEN, 

PHOSPHORUS, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

DISSOLVED AMMONIA, IN 

MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

to u to u 

 fr CDSUSPENDED-SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION, 

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON, 

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

22 :d w c
Table 6. Relative changes in water quality throughout primary wetland-stream reaches, central and

[N, data not available; +, increase throughout reach; , decrease throughout reach; 0, no change throughout reach]

Stream name Specific 

(river basin name) Discharge conducand site No. tance

Temper- Oxygen °Xygen °Xygen pH , F Color Turbidity ,. , ' demand, demand, Calcium 

r ature J dissolved , . , , . , . , chemical biochemical

Central Massachusetts (fig. 2)

Quaboag River 

(Ware) 

QA1A-2 0 +

Ware River 

(Chicopee) 

Wl-2 + +

West Branch 

Ware River (Ware) 

WBW1-2 - 0

-+ + + - + + +

-+ + + -N N +

+ --0 + - 0 0

East-Central Massachusetts (fig. 3)

Beaver Brook 

(Merrimack) 

BBM1-2 + 

BBM2-3 +

Stony Brook 

(Merrimack) 

SB2-3 + + 

SB3-4 + +

;:;:;; - :

-- + + -- - 0

+ 0-- + - - +

Southeastern Massachusetts (fig. 5)

Beaver Brook 

(Taunton) 

BE1-2 + + 

BE2-3 + +

Bungay River 

(Ten Mile) 

BG2-3 + 

BG3-4

Chicken Brook 

(Charles) 

CB2-3 +

Dopping Brook 

(Charles) 

DP1-2 + +

Mine Brook 

(Charles) 

MB 1-2 + +

Town River 

(Taunton) 

TR3-5 + +

Total number of + 12 9

Total number of - 2 5

Total number of 0 1 1

+ +0 + +0 + +

0 + +0+0 - 0

-+ + + - + +

+ +- + + - 0

--- + -+ o +

+ +- + + - + +

7 10 7 11 8 5 6 7

747277 5 5

111202 3 3

30 Water Quality of Selected Wetland Streams in Central and Eastern Massachusetts, 1988-89
eastern Massachusetts, 1988-89

Stream name

(river basin name)

and site No.

Magnesium, Sodium, Potassium, . .. . Sulfate, 

dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved

Chloride, Nitrogen, 

dissolved nitrate, total

Central Massachusetts (fig. 2)

Quaboag River 

(Ware) 

QA1A-2

Ware River 

(Chicopee) 

Wl-2

West Branch 

Ware River (Ware) 

WBW1-2

East-Central Massachusetts (fig. 3)

Beaver Brook 

(Merrimack) 

BBM1-2 - - _ + - 

BBM2-3 - - 0 + +

Stony Brook 

(Merrimack) 

SB2-3 0 + + + o 

SB3-4 + + - + 0

0

+ :

Southeastern Massachusetts (fig. 5)

Beaver Brook 

(Taunton) 

BE1-2 0 + + - + 

BE2-3 + + + + +

Bungay River 

(Ten Mile) 

BG2-3 - - 0 0 _ 

BG3-4 +00-0

Chicken Brook 

(Charles) 

CB2-3 - + + - +

Dopping Brook 

(Charles) 

DP1-2 +

Mine Brook

(Charles) 

MB1-2 + + + + +

Town River 

(Taunton) 

TR3-5 + + 0 0 +

Total number of + 7 11 8 7 8

Total number of - 63354

Total number of 0 21433

: +

-

+

+

+ 0

0 0

8 3

5 6

2 6

Water Quality of Selected Wetland Streams 31
Table 6. Relative changes in water quality throughout primary wetland-stream reaches in central and

Stream name 

(river basin name) 

and site No.

Nitrogen, nitrite Nitrogen, Nitrogen, ammonia PhosNitrogen, nitrite plus nitrate ammonia plus organic phorus,

..... oitliopliosTotal Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved phate, total

Central Massachusetts (fig. 2)

Quaboag River 

(Ware) 

QA1A-2

Ware River

(Chicopee) 

Wl-2

West Branch

Ware River (Ware) 

WBW1-2

0000 0-+0 +

00 00 ++ 0+ 0

00 00 +0 ++ 0

East-Central Massachusetts (fig. 3)

Beaver Brook

(Merrimack) 

BBM1-2 

BBM2-3

Stony Brook 

(Merrimack) 

SB2-3 

SB3-4

0000 

oo-- -- 

0+++ 

-- o

+

00++ ++ 0 _ 0 

0 + ++ ++ 00 +

Southeastern Massachusetts (fig. 5)

Beaver Brook

(Taunton) 

BE 1-2

BE2-3

Bungay River 

(Ten Mile) 

BG2-3 

BG3-4

Chicken Brook

(Charles) 

CB2-3

Dopping Brook 

(Charles) 

DP 1-2

Mine Brook

(Charles) 

MB 1-2

Town River

(Taunton) 

TR3-5

Total number of +

Total number of -

Total number of 0

00++ 00+0 +

+ + ++ ++ -+ +

oo -- -- ++ +

00 -- ++ ++ 0

+ + --++++ +

00 __ __ _ 0 o

oo o- -- + +

oo o- -- ++ +

23 44 77 99 8

00 54 56 32 1

13 12 67 32 34 6

32 Water Quality of Selected Wetland Streams in Central and Eastern Massachusetts, 1988-89
eastern Massachusetts, 1988-89--Continued

Stream name

, . , . , (nver basin name)

, .. x T and site No.

Phosphorus, _^, , orthophos-

, phate, 

, , , dissolved

Phosphorus,

hydrolizable plus

orthophosphate

Total Dissolved

Iron> 

dissolved Carbon, organic 

Total Dissolved

Chloro. 

phyll-fl

chloro. 

phyll-fc

Suspended 

sediment

Central Massachusetts (fig. 2)

Quaboag River 

(Ware) 

QA1A-2

Ware River 

(Chicopee) 

Wl-2

West Branch 

Ware River (Ware) 

WBW1-2

East-Central Massachusetts (fig. 3)

Beaver Brook 

(Merrimack) 

BBM1-2 

BBM2-3

Stony Brook 

(Merrimack) 

SB2-3 

SB3-4

0 + - - + + 

0 + + + + -

o+o + - -

000 0 - -

+ :

:

Southeastern Massachusetts (fig. 5)

Beaver Brook 

(Taunton) 

BE1-2 

BE2-3

Bungay River 

(Ten Mile) 

BG2-3 

BG3-4

Chicken Brook 

(Charles) 

CB2-3

Dopping Brook 

(Charles) 

DP 1-2

Mine Brook 

(Charles) 

MB 1-2

Town River 

(Taunton) 

TR3-5

Total number of + 

Total number of 

Total number of 0

+ o - o

- + + +00

+ + + + 0 + 

000 - 0 +

+ + + + + + 

- o - + + - 

o-o - o - 

+ + + + + -

476 10 6 6 

313 448 

876 151

+ 0 

0

0 

0

+ 0 

+ 0

8 5 

7 3 

0 7

0

10 

4

1

Water Quality of Selected Wetland Streams 33
Table 7. Relative changes in water quality throughout subordinate wetland-stream reaches, central and 

eastern Massachusetts, 1973-81

[Data from Socolow (1994). N, data not available, +, increase throughout reach; , decrease throughout reach; 0, no change throughout reach]

Stream name 

(river basin 

name) 

and site No.

Date of pH 

sample

Color Turbidity

Oxygen 

demand, 

biochemical

. Nitro- Alka-

.. . gen, Unity . . nitrite

Nitrogen, Phos- Nitrogen, , 

. total, phorus, ammonia ,.,,,, . . , kjeldahl total

Suspended 

sediment

Central Massachusetts (fig. 2)

Quaboag River

(Ware)

QA2-3 7-16-74 + N N + 0 + + N + -

East-Central Massachusetts (fig. 3)

Assabet River

(Concord)

AS 1-2

Stony Brook

(Merrimack)

SB2-3

Sudbury River

(Concord)

SU4-5

6-04-74 0

9-17-74 +

6-25-74 +

8-27-74 0

6-25-74 +

8-27-74 +

7-10-73

8/28/73

6/11/79

8/13/79 +

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

+

+

-

-

+

-

+

-

0

-

-

-

0 +

0 +

+ +

+ +

-

+

+ 0

- -

N 0

N

+ N -

-NO

+ N -

+ N +

+ N 0

-NO

+ N +

N +

00 +

+ - +

-

0

-

+

-

-

+

+

+

+

Northeastern Massachusetts (fig. 4)

Ipswich River

(Ipswich)

IP 1-2

IP9-10

IP10-11

6/05/75

8/14/73

6/05/75 0

8/14/73 +

9/12/78 0

6/05/75

8/14/73 0

9/12/78 0

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

-

N

N

-

-

+

+

-

-

0

+

+

0

+

0

+ +

+ 0

+ 0

0

0 0

+ N 0

-NO

+ N 0

0 N 0

+ N -

-NO

+ N 0

N +

+

+

-

-

-

N

N

N

Southeastern Massachusetts (fig. 5)

Beaver Brook

(Taunton)

BE 1-2 6/10/75

7/22/75 0

6/10/75 +

7/22/75 +

+

+

N

-

N

N

N

N

N

+

+

-

+ +

+

+ +

+ +

- N -

+ N 0

+ N +

- N -

-

+

+

-

34 Water Quality of Selected Wetland Streams in Central and Eastern Massachusetts, 1988-89
Table 7. Relative changes in water quality throughout subordinate wetland-stream reaches in central 

and eastern Massachusetts, 1973-8 ~\--Continued

Stream name

(river basin ~ t » TT 

v , Date of pH name) , K

and site No. samPle

Oxygen

A A All Nltr°- XT' ^ , ^ , ... demand, Alka- Nitrogen, Color Turbidity , . , ,. . gen, & . biochem- unity . . ammonia 

. , nitrite ical

Nitrogen, Phostotal, phorus, 

kjeldahl total

Suspended 

sediment

Southeastern Massachusetts (fig. S)~Continued

Charles River 

(Charles) 

CH5-6 6/23/81 0

Chicken Brook 

(Charles) 

CB2-3 6/23/81

Dopping Brook 

(Charles) 

DP1-2 6/23/81 +

Town River 

(Taunton) 

TR3-5 6/10/75

7/22/75 +

6/10/75 +

7/22/75 +

Total number of + 13

Total number of - 9

Total number of 0 8

N N + - - -

N N + + + +

N N - + - -

N N - - 0 0

N N + + - -

N + - + -

+ N + + - +

3 2 14 14 13 15

2 2 13 10 8 12

0 0 2493

+

N

N +

N

N +

1 11

3 9

1 10

+

+

+

-

+

13

13

0

Wetlands may increase or decrease the loads of certain constituents in the stream. Differences in load were 

calculated using the following equation:

Difference in load = (CdxQcf) - (CuxQu),

where:

Cd is concentration at downstream sampling site; 

Qd is discharge at downstream sampling site; 

Cu is concentration at upstream sampling site; and 

Qu is discharge at upstream sampling site.

When boxplots were constructed for loads instead 

of concentrations, the loads for most constituents 

increased from upstream to downstream for most 

reaches. However, because the discharges also increased 

for these reaches, the changes in load are most likely to 

be caused by the increases in discharge instead of 

increases in the concentrations of constituents. Using the

nonparametric sign test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test, 

significant differences at/? values of less than 0.01 were 

detected between constituent loads at upstream and 

downstream sampling sites for calcium, magnesium, 

potassium, total ammonia as nitrogen, ammonia plus 

organic nitrogen, total hydrolizable plus 

orthophosphorus, and iron.

The effect of stream and wetland characteristics 

were analyzed by grouping stream and wetland characteristics by relative differences and constructing boxplots 

for water quality at upstream and downstream sites and 

for differences in the water-quality constituents over the 

wetland reach. Few significant differences were detected. 

Boxplots that display constituents of interest for which 

data indicate slight differences are included in figure 11. 

Some caution should be used in interpreting these 

boxplots because of the small size of the data set.

Water Quality of Selected Wetland Streams 35
A.

u.o

Q

LU ^r

CD P

S£UJ °'2

0 CC

CO LU

Q °~

Z Q- 0.1

LU jij

O uj

LU -*

CC 0

t§ °°

_

1

5

 i

-

5

 I 5

H cr3

i

T

i i i

£IAJ

Z CC

LU LU

CD b

> -i

X rr

O LU 15° 

-I Qf * CO

-~ t^

LU CC

I CD 100

<-> _l

U^

o z

Lu Q 50

oc z

LU <

"- 5

1 I ^

y= LU

Q Q

n

-

-

5

[

J-,

^ [ |

R *

^

i i i

EARLY MID- LATE EARLY MID- LATE

SUMMER SUMMER

15 

LU

CCD

< CO 10

LU CO

§; LU

^ffi 5

LU ^

 y uj LU Q

u_ 

u_

Q

-5

-

5

O

-

5 5

 0??-

EARLY MID- LATE 

SUMMER

1,500

S5 

O CC 

Z LU 

O O. 

O CO

O <

^5

z o

Lug i-i

SI? 

LU

1,000

B

WETLAND REACHES

EXPLANATION

VEGETATION

NUMBER OF SAMPLES

o DATA POINT-greater 

than 3.0 times the IQR

* DATA POINT-between 

1.5 to 3.0 times the IQR

 UPPER WHISKER

I 75TH PERCENTILE

Interquartile 

range 

(IQR)

J,

I-

(UPPER HINGE) 

- MEDIAN

25TH PERCENTILE 

(LOWER HINGE)

- LOWER WHISKER

B. Upper whisker end is defined as the largest data 

point less than or equal to the upper quartile plus 

1.5 times the interquartile range. Lower whisker

OXYGEN HEMICAL GRAMS PERLITER

tB 

Z =!

LU^

o z

DIFFEREN DEMAND, ^ B

7

' 1

-

8

*

_

LARGE SMALL 

WETLAND AREAS

CHEMICAL OXYGEN 

GRAMS LITER PER 

*o ro

CO -1

Z 2

lu Z

DIFFERENC DEMAND, i M

7 

O

8

1

1

-

LARGE SMALL 

WETLAND AREAS

Figure 11. Effects of wetland characteristics on the water quality of selected wetland streams, central and eastern 

Massachusetts, 1988-89. (A) Differences in discharge, temperature, and chemical oxygen demand throughout wetland reaches 

in early, mid-, and late summer. (B) Differences in concentration of chemical oxygen demand and biochemical oxygen demand 

over wetland reaches that have large and small wetland areas. (C) Differences in iron concentration in open, partially shaded, 

and shaded wetland reaches and in wetlands covered predominantly by herbaceous, mixed, or woody vegetation.

36 Water Quality of Selected Wetland Streams in Central and Eastern Massachusetts, 1988-89
Several relations can be observed in the boxplots. 

Discharge and temperature appear to have greater variability in early summer than in late summer. Low flows 

and high temperatures would result in less than optimal 

DO concentrations. Temperature has a direct relation 

with the rate of growth and decomposition of algae and 

bacteria. Consequently, COD and BOD in the selected 

streams were higher in late summer than in early 

summer and also appear to be higher in reaches that have 

large wetland areas. Large amounts of organic matter 

that originate or accumulate in these reaches provide a 

large sink for DO upon their decay. Although SOD was 

not measured during this investigation, high temperatures in late summer also would result in high concentrations of SOD. At the same time, decreased stream 

velocities associated with low flows would increase the 

effect of SOD on a given volume of water by increasing 

the time of travel through the wetland reaches. In addition to an increase in oxygen demands in late summer, 

DO also is proportionately less available in the stream to 

meet oxygen demands because of lower flows, reduced 

reaeration caused by decreased stream surface areas and 

reduced turbulence associated with low flows, and 

because temperature has an inverse relation with DO 

saturation. Although production and respiration conditions may balance in early summer, respiration dominates in late summer as light availability decreases and 

temperatures remain high. Oxygen demands that do not 

affect the stream much at other times of the year, such as 

the discharge of ground water that has low concentrations of DO or high concentrations of reduced chemical 

constituents, may have relatively greater effects during 

periods of low flows. Wetland streams likely have less 

capacity to absorb additional oxygen demands during 

late summer than during other periods.

Limitations of the Data

Limitations of the data analyzed for this report may 

have prevented detection of relations between physical 

characteristics and water quality in wetland reaches. Initially, an objective of this study was to develop equations for expressing relations between stream-water 

quality and physical, hydrological, and climatological 

characteristics of riparian wetlands (N.C. Suurballe, 

U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 1989). In 

addition to collection of water-quality data by the 

USGS, the study was to make use of the large data base 

of water-quality data collected by the MDEP. Data 

collected by the MDEP were initially collected for the

purposes of monitoring and reporting the stream-water 

quality in the Commonwealth. Consequently, most data 

were collected in reaches of streams suspected to have 

water-quality problems caused by point sources of 

pollution such as sewage-treatment plants.

Additional limitations of the data were caused by 

the timing and frequency of sampling. The initial study 

design required sampling of a large number of reaches. 

Consequently, many of the sites sampled by the MDEP 

also were sampled by the USGS. Although the MDEP 

data base is quite extensive, measurements of many 

water-quality constituents or physical and biological 

conditions that would have been useful to meet the 

objectives of this report are not present in the data base 

because the initial MDEP data-collection program was 

designed for a different purpose. For example, one of the 

primary ways that wetlands affect stream-water quality 

is through contact time with organic material in the wetland. Time-of-travel data are necessary for calculation 

of productivity, respiration, and community metabolism 

with the use of a computer program developed by 

Stephens and Jennings (1976) and are important variables in the Streeter-Phelps equation (Mills and others; 

Thomann and Mueller, 1987) and many other waterquality models. Although time of travel can be approximated by the velocities from discharge measurements, 

this practice is discouraged (Mills and other, 1985). The 

MDEP data base also did not have data on barometric 

pressure concurrent with DO sampling. These data are 

necessary for calculation of percentage of saturation of 

DO. Many water-quality constituents cycle on a seasonal basis in response to biologic cycles and different 

flow conditions. Many of the data collected by the 

MDEP and USGS cannot be directly compared between 

streams because the streams were sampled at different 

times of the year. Similarly, the response of an individual 

wetland reach to different flow conditions and seasonal 

cycles cannot be discerned because each reach was only 

sampled for a 2- to 4-day period once per year, and 

antecedent conditions are unknown.

The MDEP monitoring program and the study 

design for this investigation (which was implemented 

with the collaboration of the USGS and MDEP) required 

that a large number of wetland reaches be sampled. Consequently, ease of access was a consideration, and sampling sites were located at road crossings to save time 

and expense. However, road crossings seldom coincide 

with boundaries of natural features such as wetlands. 

Because most of the sampling sites were within wetland

Water Quality of Selected Wetland Streams 37
complexes and not upstream and downstream of the 

wetland proper and because paired reaches in upland 

areas were not sampled as a control, the changes in water 

quality that are observed between the upstream and 

downstream sampling sites may not be attributed solely 

to the presence of wetlands.

Three methods of analysis that were initially 

identified as appropriate for interpretation of the 

effects of wetlands on stream-water quality were 

unsuccessful when applied to the MDEP and USGS 

data. These methods were Odum 2-station analysis 

(Owens, 1974; Stephens and Jennings, 1976) for estimation of daytime productivity, night respiration, and 

net community metabolism; the Streeter-Phelps equation (Mills and others, 1985; Thomann and Mueller, 

1987) for prediction of downstream DO conditions 

using upstream DO data; and the use of multiple 

regression to develop equations for prediction of DO 

and nutrient concentrations from easily measured 

physical and hydrological characteristics of riparian 

wetlands.

In an effort to improve understanding of the 

sources and sinks of DO, available data initially were 

used in a computer program developed by Stephens 

and Jennings (1976) that uses Odum two-station 

analysis to estimate daytime production, night 

respiration, and net-community metabolism. This program requires inputs of hourly DO, a diffusion constant (reaeration), salinity, mean depth, time of sunrise 

and sunset, barometric pressure, mean velocity, surface area, and traveltime. Data for diffusion constant, 

mean depth, mean velocity, surface area, and traveltime were unavailable for this stufly. Consequently, 

diffusion constants were estimated using mean depths 

and an empirical equation for determining reaeration 

rate from the work of Parker and DeSimone (1992). 

Values for mean depth, mean velocity, and traveltime 

were estimated from discharge measurements made at 

upstream and downstream ends of the reaches. Results 

from the computer program were inconclusive, most 

likely because of the error associated with estimation 

of variables. Mean depths and velocities calculated 

from discharge measurements at the upstream and 

downstream ends of a wetland reach represent the 

means for water moving through the reach and do not 

account for standing water (water in storage) in the 

wetland reach. Consequently, estimated mean depths

and traveltimes likely underestimated actual depths 

and traveltimes in the wetland reaches, and estimated 

mean velocities likely overestimated velocities in the 

wetland reaches. Long traveltimes that increase the 

time of contact between water and organic materials in 

wetland reaches may be the principal means by which 

wetlands affect water quality. Careful measurement of 

these variables concurrent with water-quality 

sampling may prove beneficial for future 

investigations.

In an effort to predict water quality downstream of 

wetland reaches, oxygen deficits determined from DO 

data collected downstream of wetland reaches were 

compared to oxygen deficits predicted by the StreeterPhelps equation (Mills and others, 1985; Thomann and 

Mueller, 1987). The Streeter-Phelps equation requires 

inputs of upstream oxygen deficits, BOD, reaeration 

coefficients, BOD decay rates, reach length, and average 

velocity. Values for mean depth and velocity were estimated from discharge measurements made at upstream 

and downstream ends of the reaches. Reaeration coefficients were estimated using mean depths and an empirical equation for determining reaeration rates from the 

work of Parker and DeSimone (1992); BOD decay rates 

were estimated using published values from Bowie and 

others (1985). Results from application of the StreeterPhelps equation were inconclusive, most likely owing to 

error associated with estimation of variables and 

because of violations of assumptions in the equation 

when applied to wetland reaches. Although modified 

versions of the Streeter-Phelps equation (Mills and others, 1985; Thomann and Mueller, 1987) can account for 

carbonaceous BOD and nitrogenous BOD, these equations do not account for the addition of BOD throughout 

the wetland reach, bacterial respiration, reduced reaeration due to surfactants (Parker and DeSimone, 1992), 

benthic photosynthesis, SOD created by organic detritus 

in the wetland reach, discharge of anoxic ground water 

containing reduced compounds such as iron (Fe2+), manganese (Mn2+), sulfide (HS1 "), or ammonium (NH4+), 

and photochemical reactions involving iron-humicmatter complexes (Miles and Brezonik, 1981). The 

MDEP previously attempted to use the Streeter-Phelps 

equation for the prediction of DO in wetland streams 

and determined that it poorly predicts DO conditions 

(Arthur Screpetis, Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection, oral commun., 1993).

38 Water Quality of Selected Wetland Streams in Central and Eastern Massachusetts, 1988-89
An exhaustive effort was made to use multiple 

regression for development of predictive equations (R.S. 

Socolow, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 

1992). Analysis of data were completed on the full set of 

MDEP and USGS data in Socolow (1994). No relations 

between DO and nutrient concentrations and hydrological, biological, and physical characteristics of wetland 

streams were detected using multiple regression analysis 

(R.S. Socolow, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 1992). The lack of relation could have been 

caused by numerous factors, including: (1) data were 

collected and compared across several growing seasons, 

whereas many constituents cycle seasonally, (2) critical 

data, such as traveltime, were not collected, and (3) 

insufficient samples were collected. Because of differing 

sample times and the nature of the variability of DO concentrations through a daily cycle, multiple regression 

may have been more successful if productivity or productivity/respiration (P/R) ratios could have been used 

as the independent variable, if those data were available, 

instead of DO concentrations. Multiple regression was 

not used after stream reaches were screened for this 

report owing to the small size of the remaining data set.

Need for Further Study

Although conditions in many Massachusetts 

streams have improved since the 1960's and early 

1970's, low DO and high nutrient concentrations remain 

a problem in some wetland streams. A carefully designed 

data-collection program is needed to successfully evaluate DO and nutrient behavior in wetland reaches. Components of the data-collection program would include 

careful site selection, proper timing and intensity of sampling throughout the year, and additional water-quality 

data required for DO and nutrient modeling.

The selection of sampling sites is critical to the 

study design of any future investigation of the effects of 

wetlands on stream-water quality. In most cases, logistics 

and personnel would limit intensive investigation to 

three or four streams. The study described in this report 

included a large number of reaches, limiting the frequency of sampling in any one reach. Study design also 

limited most sampling to sites adjacent to road crossings. 

However, road crossings seldom coincide with the 

boundaries of natural features such as wetlands. 

Sampling locations would be most appropriate if established where streams flow into and out of wetland areas. 

Reaches in upland areas also would need to be sampled 

to serve as controls. Ideally, upland reaches just upstream 

of wetland reaches could be selected so that the effects of

the wetland and upland reaches on the same parcel of 

water could be directly compared using Lagrangian sampling. If several paired reaches are selected along the 

same stream system, comparisons could be made 

between the water quality of wetlands on low-order and 

high-order streams and the water quality in the 

nonwetland reaches.

In addition to sampling upstream and downstream 

boundaries of a study reach, data collection along a reach 

would confirm where water-quality changes occur within 

the stream reach and whether these changes were sudden 

or gradual. This sampling also may provide information 

about where in the stream processes such as nitrification 

or denitrification occur. Additional sampling adds 

expense, but often it is the only way to control variability 

and reduce uncertainty. Quantification of identified 

inflows, such as ground water, tributaries, or storm sewers, would aid in pinpointing sources of water-quality 

changes. Similarly, if lakes or impoundments are 

between the sampling sites, then the stream would need 

to be sampled upstream and downstream of these 

features so that their effects can be clearly discerned.

Temporal aspects of sampling also are critical to 

study design. Because of the large number of streams 

sampled, the current study sampled each stream only 

once and made comparisons among data that spanned 

different seasons, years, and decades. The uncertainty 

inherent in this approach is that it does not allow for 

detection of the effects of wetlands during storms nor for 

the detection of seasonal effects, climatic cycles, or 

changes in land use. If the samples are collected monthly 

or at more frequent intervals throughout a year, data 

fluctuations in response to hydrologic and biologic 

cycles may be discerned.

Extensive water-quality data are required for investigation of the effects of wetlands on stream-water quality. Data would include major ions, physical properties, 

nutrients, and organic carbon. Investigation of DO 

requires continuous water-quality monitoring of DO and 

temperature. Data for barometric pressure and time-oftravel data also are necessary. Differences in sources and 

sinks of DO can be evaluated using calculations of production, respiration, and community metabolism. Two 

commonly used measurements of community metabolism are P/R and net-daily metabolism (NDM). The P/R 

indicates the proportion of respiration that could be supported by ongoing autotrophic production, whereas the 

NDM indicates the absolute amount of respiration that is 

being supported by sources other than ongoing 

autotrophic production, such as from allochthonous

Water Quality of Selected Wetland Streams 39
organic material or upstream autotrophic production 

(Meyer and Edwards, 1990). Several methods are available to determine primary productivity, community respiration, and stream metabolism in a stream reach, 

including open-stream oxygen change or carbon dioxide 

change, oxygen change in chambers, C-14 techniques 

(Bott and others, 1978), and diurnal curve analysis (Erdmann, 1979a, 1979b). Direct measurement of SOD could 

provide important information on DO sinks that may 

otherwise be unavailable.

Information about the wetland and upland reaches is 

useful to have before comparing data. Knowledge of 

local conditions, such as canopy shading, stream depths, 

substrate materials, nature of wetland vegetation, presence of point sources of pollution, geology, soils, and 

local land use, is invaluable to understanding water 

quality. Much of this information is only available 

through onsite investigation.

Although the Streeter-Phelps equation (Thomann 

and Mueller, 1987) is useful for determining the downstream effects of point sources of waste discharges in 

wetland reaches characterized by changing channel 

geometries and diffuse sources of nutrients and organic 

material, the Streeter-Phelps equation may be an oversimplification. There are several more advanced waterquality models that may be appropriate to use in an investigation of the effects of wetlands on stream-water 

quality. A numerical model that is widely used for wasteload allocations is QUAL2E (Brown and Barn well, 

1987). QUAL2E can simulate 15 water-quality 

constituents, including temperature, DO, BOD, nitrite, 

nitrate, ammonia, organic nitrogen, organic phosphorus, 

dissolved phosphorus, coliforms, algae as chlorophyll-a, 

and conservative and nonconservative constituents 

(Brown and Barnwell, 1987). QUAL2E can be operated 

as a dynamic model to study the effects of diurnal variations in meteorological data on water quality or to study 

diurnal DO variations due to algal growth and respiration. Another model that can simulate the transport and 

transformation of conventional and toxic pollutants, as 

well as eutrophication-DO kinetics is WASP (Water 

Quality Analysis Simulation Program) (DiToro and others, 1983). WASP can simulate three organic parameters 

(nitrogen, phosphorus, and carbon), six inorganic constituents (DO, chloride, silica, nitrite plus nitrate nitrogen, ammonia as nitrogen, and orthophosphate 

phosphorus) and two biological compartments (phytoplankton and zooplankton) (Thomann and Mueller, 

1987). Application of these models requires that study 

and data-collection activities be designed specifically to 

meet the data requirements of the models.

Multivariate statistical techniques, such as principle 

component analysis (PCA), are appropriate for examining the relation among several quantitative variables 

simultaneously (SAS Institute, Inc., 1990). PCA could be 

used to relate physical characteristics of basins, streams, 

and wetlands (independent variables) to stream-water 

quality (dependent variables). For example, Whittier and 

others (1988) used PCA to show relations between 

ecoregions in Oregon and water quality and physical 

habitats of streams, and Johnston and others (1990) successfully applied PCA to investigate the cumulative 

effect of wetlands on stream-water quality and quantity 

in Minnesota. Like the application of water-quality 

models, however, such an approach would require that 

study and data-collection activities be designed specifically to meet the data requirements of the method of 

analysis.

SUMMARY

The purposes of this report are to describe basin, 

stream, and wetland characteristics for selected wetlands 

of central and eastern Massachusetts; to describe the concentrations of DO, nutrients, and other water-quality 

characteristics; to describe limitations of the data for 

determining relations among basin, stream, and wetland 

characteristics and water quality of wetland streams; and 

to identify additional data and information needed to 

understand processes that affect water quality of wetland 

streams.

Data used in this investigation were selected from 

Socolow (1994). Data in Socolow (1994) were collected 

by the MDEP from 1962 through 1988, and by the USGS 

from 1988 through 1989. The data include a wide range 

of water-quality and stream and wetland characteristics. 

Wetland reaches described by Socolow (1994) were 

evaluated to restrict the data set to natural systems 

stream reaches where water quality was not affected by 

point-source discharges and to eliminate reaches that 

may have been affected by other than wetland factors, 

such as lakes or tributaries. Data from 22 wetland 

reaches on 15 streams in central and eastern 

Massachusetts were selected for analysis. Water-quality 

data were analyzed by construction of boxplots for 

selected water-quality constituents and for basin, stream, 

and wetland characteristics. Nonparametric statistical 

techniques were used to check for significant differences 

between concentrations and loads from upstream and 

downstream sampling sites.

40 Water Quality of Selected Wetland Streams in Central and Eastern Massachusetts, 1988-89
Stream nutrient and DO conditions were quite variable in the selected wetland-stream reaches. For 15 wetland streams, constituents that increased in more than 65 

percent of the reaches included discharge, specific conductance, temperature, turbidity, sodium, dissolved and 

total ammonia plus organic nitrogen, and iron. Easily 

measured characteristics of wetland streams were not 

reliable indicators of water quality for the existing data 

set. A literature review indicates that wetlands can have 

a wide variety of effects on stream-water quality and that 

an intensive data-collection program would be necessary 

to identify these effects. In this study, the lack of consistent changes in water quality between the upstream and 

downstream sampling sites suggests that the existing 

data for the selected wetland reaches cannot be used to 

reliably determine the effect of wetlands on stream-water 

quality.

A carefully designed data-collection program is 

needed for the successful evaluation of dissolved oxygen 

and nutrients in wetland reaches. The data-collection 

program needs to be designed specifically to meet the 

data requirements of the method of analysis. Components of the data-collection program would include careful site selection, proper timing and intensity of sampling 

throughout the year, and additional water-quality data for 

dissolved oxygen and nutrient modeling.

REFERENCES CITED

Beck K.C., Reuter, J.H., and Perdue, E.M., 1974, Organic and 

inorganic geochemistry of some coastal plain rivers of 

the southeastern United States: Geochimica et 

Cosmochimica Acta, v. 38, p. 341-364.

Bott, T.L., Brock, J.T., Gushing, C.E., Gregory, S.V., King, D., 

and Petersen, R.C., 1978, A comparison of methods for 

measuring primary productivity and community 

respiration in streams: Hydrobiologia, v. 60, no. 1, 

p. 3-12.

Bowie, G.L., Mills, W.B., Porcella, D.B., Campbell, C.L., 

Pagenkopf, J.R., Rupp, G.L., Johnson, K.M., Chan, 

P.W.H., Gherini, S.A., and Chamberlin, C.E., 1985, 

Rates, constants, and kinetics formulations in surface 

water quality modeling: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA/600/3-85/040, 455 p.

Brinson, M.B., 1988, Strategies for assessing the cumulative 

effects of wetland alteration on water quality: 

Environmental Management, v. 12, p. 655-662.

Britton, L.J., and Greeson, P.E., eds., 1989, Methods for 

collection and analysis of aquatic biological and 

microbiological samples: U.S. Geological Survey 

Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 5, 

chap. A4, 363 p.

Brown, L.C., and Barnwell, TO., Jr., 1987, The enhanced 

stream water quality models QUAL2E and QUAL2EUNCAS Documentation and user manual: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/3-87/007, 

189 p.

Cowardin, L.M., Carter, Virginia, Golet, F.C., and LaRoe, 

E.T., 1979, Classification of wetlands and deepwater 

habitats of the United States: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Report FWS/OBS 79/31, 131 p.

DiToro, D.M., Fitzpatrick, J.J., Thomann, R.V., 1983, 

Documentation for water quality analysis simulation 

program (WASP) and model verification program 

(MVP): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA-600/3-81-044, 145 p.

Edwards, R.W., 1968, Plants as oxygenators in rivers: Water 

Research, v. 2, p. 243-248.

Elder, J.F., 1985, Nitrogen and phosphorus speciation and flux 

in a large Florida river wetland system: Water Resources 

Research, v. 21, p. 724-732.

___1988, Factors affecting wetland retention of nutrients, 

metals, and organic materials, in Wetland hydrology, 

Proceedings of the National Wetlands Symposium, 

Chicago, 111., Sept. 16-18, 1987: Berne, N.Y., 

Association of State Wetland Managers, p. 205-212.

Erdmann, J.B., 1979a, Systematic diurnal curve analysis: 

Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, v. 51, no. 1, 

p. 78-86.

___1979b, Simplified diurnal curve analysis: American 

Society of Civil Engineers, 21 p.

Fishman, M.J., and Friedman, L.C., eds., 1985, Methods for 

determination of inorganic substances in water and 

fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations, book 3, chap. C2, 59 p.

Frimpter, M.H., 1988, Massachusetts ground-water quality, in 

National Water Summary 1986 Hydrologic events and 

ground-water quality: U.S. Geological Survey WaterSupply Paper 2325, p. 297-304.

Gadoury, R.A., and Wandle, S.W, 1986, Massachusetts 

surface-water resources, in National Water Summary 

1985 Hydrologic events and surface-water resources: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2300, 

p. 271-276.

Guy, H.P., and Norman, V.W, 1970, Field methods for 

measurement of fluvial sediment: U.S. Geological 

Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, 

book 3, chap. C2, 59 p.

Hampson, PS., 1989, Dissolved-oxygen concentrations in a 

central Florida wetlands stream, in Wetlands Concerns 

and successes: American Water Resources Association, 

p. 149-159.

Helsel, D.R., and Hirsch, R.M., 1992, Statistical methods in 

water resources: New York, Elsevier Science Pub. Co., 

Inc., 522 p.

References Cited 41
Hem, J.D., Demayo, Adrian, and Smith, R.A., 1990, 

Hydrogeochemistry of rivers and lakes, in Wolman, 

M.G., and Riggs, H.C., eds., Surface water hydrology: 

Boulder, Colo., Geological Society of America, The 

Geology of North America, v. O-l, chap. 9, p. 189-231.

Hemond, H.F., and Benoit, Janina, 1988, Cumulative impacts 

on water quality functions: Environmental Management, 

v. 12, p. 639-653.

Hoskin, C.M., 1959, Studies of oxygen metabolism of streams 

of North Carolina: Port Aransas, Texas, Publications of 

the Institute of Marine Science, v. 6-8, p. 186-192.

Hynes, H.B.N., 1974, The biology of polluted waters: 

Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 202 p.

Johnston, C.J., Detenbeck, N.E., and Niemi, G.J., 1990, The 

cumulative effect of wetlands on stream-water quality 

and quantity A landscape approach: Biogeochemistry, 

v. 10, p. 105-141.

Jorgensen, Neil, 1977, A guide to New England's landscape: 

Chester, Conn., The Globe Pequot Press, 256 p.

Likens, G.E., Bormann, F.H., Pierce, R.S., Eaton, J.S., and 

Johnson, N.M., 1977, Biogeochemistry of a forested ecosystem: New York, Springer-Verlag, 146 p.

Madson, E. L., Morgan, M.D., and Good, R.E., 1986,

Simultaneous photoreduction and microbial oxidation of 

iron in a stream in the New Jersey Pinelands: Limnology 

and Oceanography, v. 31, no. 4, p. 832-838

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 

1992, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Summary of 

water quality, 1992: North Grafton, Mass., 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 

Division of Water Pollution Control, 96 p.

Meyer, J.L., and Edwards, R.T., 1990, Ecosystem metabolism 

and turnover of organic carbon along a blackwater river 

continuum: Ecology, v. 71, no. 2, p. 668-677.

Miles, C.J., and Brezonik, PL., 1981, Oxygen consumption in 

humic-colored waters by a photochemical ferrous-ferric 

catalytic cycle: Environmental Science and Technology, 

v. 15, no. 9, p. 1089-1095.

Mills, W.B., Porcella, M.J., Ungs, M.L., Gherini, S.A., 

Summers, K.V., Mok, Lingfung, Rupp, G.L., Bowie, 

G.L., and Haith, D.A., 1985, Water quality assessment 

A screening procedure for toxic and conventional pollutants in surface and ground water (revised 1985): U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/6-85/002a, 

609 p.

Mitsch, W.J., and Gosselink, J.G., 1986, Wetlands: New York, 

Von Nostrand Reinhold, 88 p.

Motts, W.S., and O'Brien, A.L., 1981, Geology and hydrology 

of wetlands in Massachusetts: Amherst, University of 

Massachusetts, Water Resources Research Center, Publication No. 123, 147 p.

Mulholland, P.J., 1981, Organic carbon flow in a swamp, 

stream ecosystem: Ecological Monographs, v. 51, no. 3, 

p. 307-322.

Mulholland, P.J., and Kuenzler, E.J., 1979, Organic carbon 

export from upland and forested wetland watersheds: 

Limnology and Oceanography, v. 24, p. 969-966.

O'Brien, A.L., 1977, Hydrology of two small wetland basins 

in eastern Massachusetts: Water Resources Bulletin, 

v. 13, no. 2, p. 325-340.

_____ 1980, The role of ground water in stream discharges 

from two small wetland controlled basins in eastern Massachusetts: Ground Water, v. 18, no. 4, p. 359-365.

___1988, Evaluating the cumulative effects of alteration on

New England wetlands: Environmental Management, 

v. 12, p. 627-636.

Owens, M., 1974, Measurements on non-isolated natural 

communities in running waters, in Vollenweider, R.A., 

ed., A manual on methods for measuring primary 

productivity in aquatic environments: Oxford, Blackwell 

Scientific, IBP Handbook No. 12, p. 111-119.

Parker, G.W., and DeSimone, L.A., 1992, Estimating 

reaeration coefficients for low-slope streams in 

Massachusetts and New York, 1985-88: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 91-4188, 

34 p.

Parker, G.W, and Suurballe, N.C., 1988, Differences in

oxygen productivity rates and reaeration coefficients for 

wetland reaches of Natty Pond Brook, Massachusetts, in 

Wetland hydrology, Proceedings of the National 

Wetlands Symposium, Chicago, 111., Sept., 16-18, 1987: 

Berne, N.Y, Association of State Wetland Managers, 

p. 205-212.

Peverly, J.H., 1982, Stream transport of nutrients through a 

wetland: Journal of Environmental Quality, v. 11, no. 1, 

p. 38-43.

___1985, Element accumulation and release by 

macrophytes in a wetland stream: Journal of 

Environmental Quality, v. 14, no. l,p. 137-143.

42 Water Quality of Selected Wetland Streams in Central and Eastern Massachusetts, 1988-89
Rantz, S.E., and others, 1982, Measurement and computation 

of streamflow: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 2175, 631 p.

Richardson, C.J., 1989, Freshwater wetlands Transformers, 

filters, or sinks, in Freshwater wetlands and wildlife: 

U.S. Department of Energy, Symposium Series, no. 61, 

p. 25-46.

Rittmaster, R.L., and Shanley, J.B., 1994, Factors affecting 

water quality and net flux of solutes in two stream basins 

in the Quabbin Reservoir drainage basin, central 

Massachusetts, 1983-85: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 94-4003, 66 p.

Sammel, E.A., 1967, Water resources of the Parker and 

Rowley River Basins, Massachusetts: U.S. Geological 

Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-247, 

1 sheet, scale 1:24,000.

SAS Institute, Inc., 1990, SAS/STAT users guide, version 6, 

volume 2: Gary, N.C., SAS Institute Inc. 846 p.

Skougstad, M.W., Fishman, M.J., Friedman, L.C., Erdmann, 

D.E., and Duncan, S.S., eds., 1979, Methods for 

determination of inorganic substances in water and 

fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations, book 5, chap. Al, 

626 p.

Socolow, R.S., 1994, Water-quality data for selected wetland 

streams in central and eastern Massachusetts: 

U.S.Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-482, 89 p.

Stephens, D.W, and Jennings, M.J., 1976, Determination of 

primary productivity and community metabolism in 

streams and lakes using diel oxygen measurements: Bay 

St. Louis, Miss., U.S.Geological Survey Computer 

Program Documentation, program no. J330, 100 p.

Suurballe, N.C., 1992, Effects of a wetland on quality of Natty 

Pond Brook, Massachusetts, 1985-86: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 91-4144, 

52 p.

Thomann, R.V., and Mueller, J.A., 1987, Principles of surface 

water quality modeling and control: New York, Harper 

and Row, 644 p.

Thyssen, Niels, Erlandsen, Mogens, Jeppesen, Eric, and

Ursin, Christian, 1987, Reaeration of oxygen in shallow, 

macrophyte rich streams, I Determination of the 

reaeration rate coefficient: Internationale Revue der Gesamten Hydrobiologie, v. 72, no. 4, p. 405-429.

Trombley, T.J., 1991, Quality of water from public-supply 

wells in Massachusetts, 1975-86: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 91-4129, 

63 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994, National 

Primary Drinking Water Standards: Washington DC, 

Office of Water, EPA 810-F-94-001A, February 1994.

Wershaw, R.L., Fishman, M.J., Grabbe, R.R., and Lowe, L.E., 

eds., 1987, Methods for the determination of organic 

substances in water and fluvial sediments: U.S. 

Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources 

Investigations, book 5, chap. A3, 80 p.

Wetzel, R.G., and Ward, A.K., 1992, Primary production, in 

Calow, Peter, and Petts, G.E., eds., The rivers handbook: 

Oxford, Blackwell Scientific Publications, p. 354-369.

Whigham, D.F., Chitterling, Carin, and Palmer, Brian, 1988, 

Impacts of freshwater wetlands on water quality a 

landscape perspective: Environmental Management, 

v. 12, p. 663-671.

Whittier, T.R., Hughes, R.M., and Larson, D.P, 1988, 

Correspondence between ecoregions and spatial 

patterns in stream ecosystems in Oregon: Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 45, no. 7, 

p. 1264-1278.

Winter, T.C., 1988, A conceptual framework for assessing 

cumulative impacts on the hydrology of nontidal 

wetlands: Environmental Management, v. 12, 

p. 605-620.

Wood, WW, 1976, Guidelines for collection and field

analysis of ground-water samples for selected unstable 

constituents: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations, book 1, chap. D2, 24 p.

References Cited 43