National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Northeast Region 

Restoration of the Turning Basin and Tidal Wetlands 

at Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site 

2009 Post-Restoration Monitoring Data Report 

Natural Resource Data Series NPS/NER/SAIR/NRDS—2010/093 
ON THE COVER 

Restored turning basin at Saugus Iron Works NHS, October 2009. 

Photograph by: Mary-Jane James-Pirri 
Restoration of the Turning Basin and Tidal Wetlands 

at Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site

2009 Post-Restoration Monitoring Data Report 

Natural Resource Data Series NPS/NER/SAIR/NRDS—2010/093 

Mary-Jane James-Pirri 

Graduate School of Oceanography 

University of Rhode Island 

Narragansett, RI 02882 

John Burgess 

CH2MHill 

25 New Chardon St. Suite 300 

Boston, MA 02117-4770 

Charles T. Roman 

National Park Service 

Graduate School of Oceanography 

University of Rhode Island 

Narragansett, RI 02882 

Marc Albert 

National Park Service 

Boston Harbor Islands NRA, 

Saugus Iron Works NHS, Salem Maritime NHS 

Boston, MA 02110 

October 2010 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Northeast Region

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 
ii 

The National Park Service publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of 

interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural 

resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and 

the public. 

The Natural Resource Data Series is intended for timely release of basic data sets and data 

summaries. Care has been taken to assure accuracy of raw data values, but a thorough analysis 

and interpretation of the data has not been completed. Consequently, the initial analyses of data 

in this report are provisional and subject to change. 

All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the 

information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended 

audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received informal 

peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, 

or reporting of the data. 

This report provides the results of a project accomplished with assistance from the NPS under 

Cooperative Agreement 4520-99-007 with the University of Rhode Island. Views, statements, 

findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily reflect views 

and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of trade 

names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by 

the U.S. Government. 

This report is available from the Northeast Region’s Science website 

(http://www.nps.gov/nero/science) and the Natural Resource Publications Management website 

(http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/NRPM). 

Please cite this publication as: 

James-Pirri, M. J., J. Burgess, C. T. Roman, and M. Albert. 2010. Restoration of the turning 

basin and tidal wetlands at Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site: 2009 post-restoration 

monitoring data report. Natural Resource Data Series NPS/NER/SAIR/NRDS—2010/093. 

National Park Service, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

NPS 444/105879, October 2010 
iii 

 Contents 

Page 

Figures..............................................................................................................................................v

Tables ............................................................................................................................................ vii

Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ix

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1

Biological Variables: Marsh and Aquatic Vegetation .....................................................................4

Methods: Native Vegetation Planting ..........................................................................................4

Results: Native Vegetation Planting ............................................................................................4

Methods: Marsh and Aquatic Vegetation ....................................................................................4

Results: Marsh Vegetation .........................................................................................................15

Results: Aquatic Vegetation ......................................................................................................17

Results: Invasive Plants .............................................................................................................17

Biological Variables: Nekton Community .....................................................................................22

Methods: Nekton ........................................................................................................................22

Results: Pre-restoration Nekton .................................................................................................23

Results: Post-restoration Nekton ...............................................................................................29

Results: Rainbow smelt and American eel monitoring .............................................................30

Biological Variables: Bird Community .........................................................................................33

Methods: Bird Community ........................................................................................................33

Results: Bird Community ..........................................................................................................33

Biological Variables: Mammals and other Wildlife ......................................................................38

Methods: Mammals and other Wildlife .....................................................................................38

Results: Mammals and other Wildlife .......................................................................................38
iv 

Water Quality (monitored by NETN) ............................................................................................38

Methods: NETN Water Quality monitoring ..............................................................................38

Results: NETN Water Quality monitoring ................................................................................38

Physical Variables and Benthic Invertebrates (Monitored by CH2MHill) ....................................40

Methods: Tidal Hydrology .........................................................................................................40

Results: Tidal Hydrology-water surface elevation ....................................................................40

Results: Tidal Hydrology-salinity ..............................................................................................40

Methods: River Geomorphology and Sediment Composition ...................................................44

Results: River Geomorphology and Sediment Composition .....................................................44

Methods: Sediment Analyses and Water Quality ......................................................................44

Results: Sediment Analyses and Water Quality ........................................................................48

Methods: Benthic Invertebrate Community ..............................................................................48

Results: Benthic Invertebrate Community .................................................................................48

Literature Cited ..............................................................................................................................53
v 

Figures 

Page 

Figure 1. Pre-restoration (left image) and post-restoration (right image) aerial photographs of 

Saugus Ironworks NHS................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 2. Location of pre-restoration nekton and vegetation sampling stations at Saugus Iron 

Works NHS in 2004. ..................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 3. Location of post-restoration sampling stations at Saugus Iron Works NHS in 2009. .. 13

Figure 4. Location of post-restoration sampling stations at Saugus Iron Works NHS in 2008. 

Note: vegetation was not sampled in 2008. .................................................................................. 14

Figure 5. Cover type distribution in the restored wetland at Saugus Iron Works NHS in 2009. 

Presented is the percent of sampled plots where the indicated cover was found. ........................ 16

Figure 6. Location of invasive plants1 observed during vegetation sampling at Saugus Iron 

Works NHS in 2009. ..................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 7. Percent catch of common nekton sampled from throw traps at Saugus Iron Works NHS 

during pre-restoration (2004) and post-restoration monitoring (2008 and 2009). ........................ 27

Figure 8. Average length (mm ± SD) of nekton sampled at Saugus Iron Works NHS with throw 

traps and seines during pre-restoration (2004) and post-restoration (2008 and 2009) monitoring. 

Average adult length (mm) is given under each species name for reference. Only nekton where 

more than five individuals were sampled (all years combined) are shown. ................................. 27

Figure 9. Rainbow smelt catch from MA-DMF fyke net monitoring (2005 to 2008) at Saugus 

Iron Works NHS. .......................................................................................................................... 32

Figure 10. Wildlife observation zones established in 2009, “*” denotes locations within the 

restoration area (figure excerpted from McNiff and Albert 2010). .............................................. 34

Figure 11. Number of waterbird species observed before (2002-2003) and after (2008-2009) the 

restoration of the turning basin and marsh. ................................................................................... 37

Figure 12. Location of water quality monitoring instruments in 2008 (figure excerpted from 

CH2MHill 2009). .......................................................................................................................... 41

Figure 13. Water surface elevation and salinity at the turning basin in 2008 (figure excerpted 

from CH2MHill 2009). ................................................................................................................. 42

Figure 14. Water surface elevation and salinity at Hamilton Street in 2008 (figure excerpted 

from CH2MHill 2009). ................................................................................................................. 43
vi 

Figure 15. Pebble count and benthic invertebrate sampling stations in 2008 (figure excerpted and 

modified from CH2MHill 2009) ................................................................................................... 45

Figure 16. Cross-sections of river channel (figure excerpted from CH2MHill 2009). ................ 46
vii 

Tables

Page 

Table 1. Species list, average Braun-Blanquet score, and average percent composition (in 

parentheses, estimated from mid-point of Braun-Blanquet scores1) for vegetation sampled at 

Saugus Iron Works NHS in 2004 (pre-restoration) and 2009 (post-restoration). ............................6

Table 2. Species list for plants planted and observed on the berm area (streamside riparian buffer 

zone). ..............................................................................................................................................11

Table 3. Species list, average Braun-Blanquet1 score, and percent of plots where species were 

observed during aquatic vegetation sampling at Saugus Iron Works NHS in 2004 (prerestoration) and 2008 and 2009 (post-restoration). Aquatic vegetation was sampled at nekton 

sampling stations. ...........................................................................................................................19

Table 4. ANOSIM results comparing aquatic vegetation communities among years (2004, 2008, 

and 2009) and between habitats (river or basin). Only comparisons of interest (e.g., among years 

within the same habitat or between habitats in the same year are shown). ...................................19

Table 5. List of invasive plants and the state where listed (in parentheses) observed during 

vegetation sampling at SAIR. Status information is from USDA Plants Database and the 

Massachusetts Invasive Plant Working Group (MIPAG 2005). ....................................................20

Table 6. Nekton sampled during pre-restoration monitoring (2004) and post-restoration 

monitoring (2008 and 2009) at Saugus Iron Works NHS. .............................................................24

Table 7. Nekton density (number m-2 ± SD) and total number of individuals captured (in 

parentheses) from 1m2 throw trap sampling at Saugus Iron Works NHS during pre-restoration 

monitoring (2004) and post-restoration monitoring (2008 and 2009). Sample size is given after 

date. ................................................................................................................................................25

Table 8. Nekton composition, average abundance per seine haul, and total number of individuals 

collected (in parentheses) with a seine at Saugus Iron Works NHS during pre-restoration 

monitoring (2004) and post-restoration monitoring (2008 and 2009). Sample size is given after 

date. ................................................................................................................................................26

Table 9. List of exotic and native transplant nekton (species native to the U.S. that have been 

introduced to areas outside of their original range). Status information is from the USGS (2004) 

Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database. ....................................................................................28

Table 10. ANOSIM results comparing nekton communities among years (2004, 2008, and 2009) 

and between habitats (river or basin). Only comparisons of interest are shown (e.g., among years 

within the same habitat or between habitats in the same year). .....................................................31

Table 11. Environmental data (average ± SD) associated with nekton throw trap sampling. 

Sample size is given after location. Bold face and underlined indicate values that exceed warm 

water fisheries water quality criteria1,2. .........................................................................................31
viii 

Table 12. Birds observed in 2008 (one survey date) and 2009 (three survey dates) during NETN 

monitoring and park wildlife observations (38 survey dates). Partners in Flight status1, if 

applicable, is indicated in parentheses after name. ........................................................................35

Table 13. Water quality measurements from NETN monitoring (data courtesy of W. Gawley). 39

Table 14. Pebble count size distribution (table excerpted from CH2MHill 2009). ......................47

Table 15. Comparison of pre- and post-restoration average concentrations of detected metals. 

One-half of reporting limit used for non-detected samples in calculating the average 

concentration (table excerpted from CH2MHill 2009). .................................................................50

Table 16. Benthic invertebrate abundance from 2008 sampling (table excerpted from CH2MHill 

2009). .............................................................................................................................................50

Table 17. Average number of benthic invertebrates, average number of taxa, and diversity index 

at each of the sample stations from 2008 sampling (table excerpted from CH2MHill 2009). ......51

Table 18. Benthic invertebrate community at each of the sample stations, 2004 and 2008 

sampling (data excerpted from CH2MHill 2009). Comparison with 2004 samples is only for the 

five common taxa (n/a notation). ...................................................................................................51
ix 

Abstract 

In 2007, the National Park Service initiated a restoration program at Saugus Iron Works National 

Historic Site to restore the historic turning basin and wetland area adjacent to the Saugus River. 

To fulfill regulatory requirements and enhance understanding of tidal freshwater wetland 

restoration practices, an intensive pre- and post-restoration monitoring program was 

implemented. This report summarizes monitoring data collected prior to the restoration and the 

two years (2008 and 2009) after restoration. Data summaries included in this report describe the 

status of biotic (e.g., vegetation, nekton, benthic invertebrate, and bird communities) and abiotic 

parameters (e.g., tidal hydrology, river geomorphology, sediment, and water quality). Statistical 

analyses for variables with more than one year of post-monitoring data are provided; however, 

given the short time-frame of post-restoration monitoring the results from these analyses should 

be viewed with caution. The monitoring program is intended to continue for five years postrestoration and perhaps longer. This is the second of several data reports associated with the 

restoration of the turning basin and wetlands at Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site. 

1 

Introduction 

Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site (SAIR), located approximately 16 km north of Boston 

on the upper reaches of the Saugus River estuary, preserves the site of the first sustained iron 

works of North America. The iron works was in operation from 1646 to 1668 and was critical in 

the development of America’s iron manufacturing legacy (NPS 2006). Raw materials were 

delivered to the iron work’s wharf by shallow draft boats navigating the Saugus River while 

finished products were transported back down the river bound for Boston and beyond (NPS 

2006). 

In the late 1950’s, a breach of an upstream dam at Prankers Pond caused extensive sedimentation 

and siltation of the historic turning basin, waterfront, and wharf area of the iron works (NPS 

2006). Over time the silted turning basin was colonized by invasive plants and the southern 

wetland lining the Saugus River became choked with undesirable vegetation such as common 

reed (Phragmites australis) and other exotic species (Agius 2003, CH2MHill 2005). The Saugus 

River is a pivotal landscape feature of the historic setting and cultural interpretation of the park, 

and in the fall of 2007, a project was initiated to restore the turning basin and remove much of 

the invasive vegetation from the wetland bordering the river (Figure 1). The goals of the 

restoration included excavating sediment in the turning basin to restore the open water condition, 

removing invasive exotic plants, improving water quality, replacing the wharf and bulkhead, and 

restoring the river to a more suitable habitat for aquatic and terrestrial organisms (CH2MHill 

2005). Phase I of the project restored the open water area of the turning basin while Phase II 

removed invasive vegetation and restored the native freshwater wetland along the river. This is 

one of the first tidal freshwater wetland restoration projects in New England. 

To satisfy regulatory requirements, guide any necessary adaptive management actions, and to 

enhance understanding of tidal freshwater wetland restoration practices, the National Park 

Service (NPS), in collaboration with university researchers and CH2MHill, are studying the 

restoration area for five years (2008 to 2012), with some monitoring to continue for the longterm. Research and monitoring follow protocols developed and utilized by the NPS Northeast 

Coastal and Barrier Network, NPS Northeast Temperate Network, and the environmental firm 

CH2MHill (2005). The monitoring program is conducted cooperatively by CH2MHill, NPS 

staff, and the University of Rhode Island. 

This report summarizes the initial two years of post-restoration (2008 and 2009) monitoring for a 

wide variety of biological and physical parameters. This summary report includes data collected 

by the University of Rhode Island, CH2MHill, and the Northeast Temperate Network (NETN) of 

the NPS. Information on physical variables (tidal hydrology, river geomorphology, sediment and 

water quality) and benthic invertebrate community collected by CH2MHill in 2008 has been 

excerpted from the 2008 Monitoring Data Report submitted to the National Park Service by 

CH2MHill (CH2MHill 2009). 

Information from the 2004 monitoring report of salt marsh vegetation and nekton conducted in 

conjunction with the NPS Inventory and Monitoring Program (James-Pirri 2004) has been 

excerpted and is included in this report in an effort to describe the pre-restoration conditions for 
2 

salt marsh vegetation and nekton. Also included in this report are data from the Massachusetts 

Division of Marine Fisheries annual smelt and eel sampling on the Saugus River. 
3 

Figure 1. Pre-restoration (left image) and post-restoration (right image) aerial photographs of Saugus Ironworks NHS.
4 

Biological Variables: Marsh and Aquatic Vegetation 

Methods: Native Vegetation Planting 

Following the excavation and removal of the Phragmites-dominated area along the Saugus 

River, the newly created wetland was planted with native freshwater wetland vegetation in 

October 2008. Native species were planted in three zones (low marsh, high marsh, streamside 

riparian buffer) according to elevation and location within the project area. More than 15,000 

plants from four species were planted in the 0.54-ha low marsh zone and 165 plants from 12 

species were planted in the 0.07-ha high marsh zone (Table 1) (NPS 2005). The low marsh 

planting also included distribution of cotton mesh bags containing gravel and a pinch of wild rice 

seeds (Zizania aquatica), which is difficult to grow from transplants due to its weak, floating 

stems. A streamside riparian buffer zone was established on the constructed gravel/cobble berm 

that separates the river channel from the turning basin. This 0.01-ha area was planted with 51 

shrubs from four species, along with 350 sedge (Carex species) plants (Table 2) (NPS 2005). 

Results: Native Vegetation Planting 

Planting was conducted very late in the growing season (October 2008) due to project 

sequencing, and was largely unsuccessful. Qualitative monitoring to determine planting success 

was conducted by New England Environmental, Inc., along with NPS staff, on 28 July 2009 

(New England Environmental 2009). It was determined that in the low marsh zone only a single 

patch of one planted species (hardstem bulrush, Schoenoplectus acutus) was evident. A few 

scattered individuals of green arrow arum (Peltandra virginica) and deep water duck potato 

(Sagittaria rigida) were found; no wild rice seedlings were observed (Table 1). In the high 

marsh, planting was more successful, with seven of the 12 species observed (Table 1), although 

total survivorship was well below 50%. On the streamside riparian buffer berm, 38 of 51 planted 

shrubs survived; however, only a few of the 350 planted sedges were observed (Table 2). Heavy 

rains and high water in March 2010 washed out many of the planted shrubs in the streamside 

riparian buffer that were observed in 2009, and only 15-20 plants were present on the berm as of 

May 2010. 

Two planted high marsh species not observed during the July 2009 site visit by New England 

Environmental, Inc. (2009) were observed during September 2009 vegetation monitoring by the 

University of Rhode Island (Table 1). Crimsoneyed rosemallow (Hibiscus moscheutos) was 

observed in three of the vegetation plots. This plant was found in plots located along the upland 

border of the restored marsh and may have been wild plants as opposed to individuals that were 

planted. Pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata) seedlings were observed in nine plots throughout the 

newly restored wetland area. 

A second round of planting, including replacement of failed plantings, from species in all 

planting zones will be conducted in early June 2010. 

Methods: Marsh and Aquatic Vegetation 

Quantitative vegetation monitoring of the restoration area (turning basin and southern salt marsh 

area) was conducted following protocols of the NPS Northeast Coastal and Barrier Network 

(Roman et al. 2001, James-Pirri and Roman in review). According to the protocol, vegetation, 

including intertidal freshwater marsh and submerged aquatic vegetation, is sampled once per 
5 

year at the end of the growing season in late summer/early fall. Vegetation was sampled in a 

minimum of 30, 1-m2 plots that were randomly located throughout the restoration area (JamesPirri et al. 2007). Species composition and species cover/abundance were recorded for each 1-m2

plot. Estimates of percent cover were determined using the Braun-Blanquet (1965) visual cover 

scale method. For this method the observer stands over the plot and visually estimates the cover 

of each species present in the plot. Cover was estimated using standard cover classes as follows: 

0: absent; 1: <1%; 2: 1-5%; 3: 6-25%; 4: 26-50%; 5: 51-75%; 6: 76-100%. In statistical analyses, 

the Braun-Blanquet data were analyzed as ordinal data. Multivariate statistical techniques, 

including Analysis of Similarities (ANOSIM, PRIMER version 6, Clarke and Gorley 2006) were 

used to evaluate responses of the vegetation community to the restoration actions. ANOSIM is a 

non-parametric multivariate permutation analysis and was used to compare vegetation 

community composition and abundance among years. 

Submerged aquatic vegetation cover in the river was estimated during nekton throw trap 

sampling. Percent cover of aquatic vegetation was estimated using the Braun-Blanquet (1965) 

visual cover scale method in 1-m2

 plots randomly located throughout the river and in the restored 

turning basin. 

Pre-restoration vegetation monitoring of the silted turning basin and wetlands was conducted on 

13 July 2004 as part of the NPS Inventory and Monitoring Program. Thirty (30) vegetation plots 

were randomly located along seven transects. Four transects (16 plots) were randomly placed in 

the former turning basin with the remaining three transects (14 plots) placed in the southern 

wetland adjacent to the Saugus River (Figure 2). For ease of comparison with future vegetation 

data, the data from the former turning basin area and southern wetland are presented separately 

(Table 1). 

The first year of post-restoration vegetation monitoring occurred in the fall of 2009 in both the 

newly restored and planted wetland adjacent to the Saugus River (11 September 2009, 53 plots 

sampled) and in two small natural wetland areas (13 October 2009, 17 plots sampled) that were 

not part of the restored wetland (Figure 3). Vegetation monitoring did not occur in 2008 as the 

planting of vegetation on the restored marsh was not completed until October 2008, and 

sampling would have negatively affected the newly planted vegetation. 

Pre-restoration aquatic vegetation sampling was conducted on 12 July 2004 in the river (12 plots 

sampled) (Figure 2). Post-restoration monitoring of aquatic vegetation was conducted on 18 and 

23 September 2008 with samples from the river (15 plots) and the restored turning basin (11 

plots) (Figure 4), and on 15 July 2009 and 14 and 15 September 2009 (27 plots in the river and 

21 plots in the turning basin) (Figure 3).
6 

Table 1. Species list, average Braun-Blanquet score, and average percent composition (in parentheses, estimated from m

Blanquet scores1) for vegetation sampled at Saugus Iron Works NHS in 2004 (pre-restoration) and 2009 (post-restoration). 

planted native species and planting zone2, for species planted in the created wetland in 2008, and presence3 in August 200

New England Environmental, Inc.

Scientific Name Common Name 

Zone2 (if planted) 

and presence 

 (V, +, or -) 

Average Braun-Blanquet score (percent o

 2004 

Turning Basin

(n=16 plots) 

Southern marsh 

(n=14 plots) 

Natu

(n=

Acer negundo Boxelder -7 - - Acorus americanus Sweet flag HM (+) - - Apios americana Groundnut - - - Aster lanceolatus var. lanceolatus White panicle aster - - - 

Aster novi-belgii New York aster - - - Aster species Aster species - - - Bidens frondosa Devil's beggartick - - - Bidens tripartita Estuary beggarticks - 0.1 (0.9%) - Calamagrostis canadensis Bluejoint reedgrass - 0.1 (0.9%) - Callitriche species3 Water starwort species (V) 0.1 (0.5%) - 

Calystegia sepium Hedge bindweed - 1.3 (9.0%) 0.4 (4.6%) Carex species Carex species - - - Echinochloa muricata Rough barnyardgrass - - - Eleocharis acicularis Needle spikerush - - - Eleocharis species Eleocharis species - - - Epilobium coloratum Purpleleaf willowherb (V) - - Eupatorium maculatum Spotted joepyeweed - - - Eupatorium perfoliatum Common boneset - 0.4 (3.2%) - 
7 

Table 1. Species list, average Braun-Blanquet score, and average percent composition (in parentheses, estimated from m

scores1) for vegetation sampled at Saugus Iron Works NHS in 2004 (pre-restoration) and 2009 (post-restoration). Also indi

native species and planting zone2, for species planted in the created wetland in 2008, and presence3 in August 2009 during 

England Environmental, Inc. (continued). 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Zone2 (if planted) 

and presence 

(V, +, or -) 

Average Braun-Blanquet sc

 2004 

Turning Basin

(n=16 plots) 

Southern marsh 

(n=14 plots) 

Natu

(n

Eupatorium purpureum Sweetscented joepyeweed - 0.3 (1.8%) - Geum canadense White flowered avens (V) - - Geum macrophyllum Largeleaf avens - - - 

Hibiscus moscheutos Crimsoneyed rosemallow HM (-) - - 

Impatiens capensis Jewelweed - 1.3 (9.0%) 0.1 (1.5%) Iris versicolor Blue flag HM (+) - - Juncus effusus4 Comon rush HM (+) 0.2 (1.4%) - 

Juncus species Juncus species - - - Leersia oryzoides Rice cut grass (V) Lycopus europaeus 5 Gypsywort - - - 

Lythrum salicaria5 Purple loosestrife (V) 0.6 (4.1%) 0.8 (8.3%) 

Mikania scandens Climbing hempvine - 0.5 (3.6%) 0.1 (1.5%) Nasturtium officinale5 Watercress - - - 

Oenothera biennis Common evening primrose - - - Oxalis stricta Common yellow oxalis - - - Panicum flexile Wiry panicgrass - - - Panicum virgatum, Switchgrass HM (-) - - Peltandra virginica Green arrow arum LM (+) 1.1 (8.1%) 0.6 (6.8%) Phalaris arundinacea5, 6 Reed canary grass - 0.4 (3.2%) 0.3 (3.0%) 
8 

Table 1. Species list, average Braun-Blanquet score, and average percent composition (in parentheses, estimated from m

scores1) for vegetation sampled at Saugus Iron Works NHS in 2004 (pre-restoration) and 2009 (post-restoration). Also indi

native species and planting zone2, for species planted in the created wetland in 2008, and presence3 in August 2009 during 

England Environmental, Inc. (continued). 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Zone2 (if planted) 

and presence 

(V, +, or -) 

Average Braun-Blanquet sc

 2004 

Turning Basin 

(n=16 plots) 

Southern

marsh (n=14 

plots) 

Natu

(n

Phragmites australis5 Common reed (V) 0.2 (1.4%) 4.1 (43.6%) Phytolacca americana Pokeweed - - - 

Pluchea odorata var. succulenta Saltmarsh fleabane (V) - - Poaceae species Unknown grass (Poaceae) - - - Polygonum hydropiper Marshpepper knotweed - - - Polygonum hydropiperoides Swamp smartweed - - - Polygonum persicaria Spotted ladysthumb - - - Polygonum punctatum Dotted smartweed - 0.1 (0.9%) 0.1 (1.5%) Polygonum pensylvanicum Pennsylvania smartweed - - - Polygonum species Polygonum species (V) 0.3 (2.3%) 0.1 (1.5%) Pontederia cordata Pickerelweed HM (-) 0.3 (1.8%) 0.1 (1.5%) Potamogeton crispus5 Curly pondweed - - - 

Ranunculus sceleratus Cursed buttercup (V) - - Robinia pseudoacacia5 Black locust - 0.3 (2.3%) - 

Rorippa palustris var. hispida Hispid yellowcress (V) - - Rosa multiflora5 Multiflora rose - 1.0 (7.2%) - 

Rumex crispus Curly dock - 0.1 (0.9%) - Rumex species Water hemp species - - - 
9 

Table 1. Species list, average Braun-Blanquet score, and average percent composition (in parentheses, estimated from m

scores1) for vegetation sampled at Saugus Iron Works NHS in 2004 (pre-restoration) and 2009 (post-restoration). Also indi

native species and planting zone2, for species planted in the created wetland in 2008, and presence3 in August 2009 during 

England Environmental, Inc. (continued). 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Zone2 (if 

planted) and 

presence 

(V, +, or -) 

Average Braun-Blanquet sc

 2004 

Turning Basin 

(n=16 plots) 

Southern

marsh (n=14 

plots) 

Natu

(n

Sagittaria graminae Grassy arrowhead HM (-) - - Sagittaria latifolia Broadleaf arrowhead HM (+) - - Sagittaria rigida Deep water duck potato LM (+) - - Schoenoplectus acutus Hardstem bulrush LM (+) - - Schoenoplectus pungens Common threesquare HM (+) - - Schoenoplectus validus Soft-stem bulrush HM (-) - - Schoenoplectus/Scirpus species Schoenoplectus/Scirpus species - - - 

Sciyos angulatus Oneseed bur cucumber - - - Sium suave Hemlock waterparsnip HM (+) - - Solanum americanum American black nightshade - 0.1 (0.9%) - Solanum dulcamara Climbing nightshade (V) - - Sparganium americanum American bur-reed - 0.3 (2.3%) 0.1 (1.5%) Spartina pectinata Prarie cordgrass HM (+) - - Toxicodendron radicans Poison ivy - 0.1 (0.9%) 0.3 (3.0%) Trifolium repens White clover (V) - - Typha angustifolia Narrowleaf cattail - 2.4 (17.1%) 1.6 (16.5%) 3

Unknown forb seedling Unknown forb seedling - - - Unknown grass Unknown grass - - - 
10 

1 Braun-Blanquet cover class scale (0; 1: <1; 2: 1%- 5%; 3: 6-25%; 4: 26-50%; 5: 51-75%; 6: 76-100%). 2 Native vegetation planting zones: HM: High marsh, LM: low marsh; and presence (+), absence (-), or volunteer plant (a pl

not planted) (V) during site visit by New England Environmental, Inc. on 28 July 2009. 3 Callitriche species was possibly C. terrestris (identified by H. Leeson, Rhode Island Natural History Survey, October 2009

4 Wetland Planting Table lists Juncus balticus and not J. effusus. It is likely that J. effusus was the planted species (M. Albe

Service, pers. comm.). 

5 Invasive or potentially invasive plants as identified by the Massachusetts Invasive Plants Advisory Group (MIPAG) (2005)6 Tentatively identified as Phalaris arundinacea (flowers and seeds were not present) based on colonial growth form and ab

ligule (identified by H. Leeson, Rhode Island Natural History Survey, October 2009). 7 “-” Indicates species was not observed.

Table 1. Species list, average Braun-Blanquet score, and average percent composition (in parentheses, estimated from m

scores1) for vegetation sampled at Saugus Iron Works NHS in 2004 (pre-restoration) and 2009 (post-restoration). Also indi

native species and planting zone2, for species planted in the created wetland in 2008, and presence3 in August 2009 during 

England Environmental, Inc. (continued). 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Zone2 (if planted) 

and presence 

(V, +, or -) 

Average Braun-Blanquet sc

 2004 

Turning Basin 

(n=16 plots) 

Southern

marsh (n=14 

plots) 

Natu

(n

Verbena hastata Blue vervain (V) - - Veronica serpyllifolia Thymeleaf speedwell - - - Zannichella palustris Horned pondweed (V) - - Zizania aquatica Wild rice LM (-) - - Total species 25 15 Non living covers Bare ground Bare ground - 1.4 (9.9%) 0.2 (2.3%) Litter/wrack Litter/wrack - 1.0 (7.2%) 0.3 (3.0%) 2Woody dead Woody dead - - - 
11 

Table 2. Species list for plants planted and observed on the berm area (streamside riparian buffer zone). 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Planted (P) and 

presence (+, -) or 

Volunteer plant (V) 

Alisma plantago-aquatica Water plantain V 

Alnus iincana spp. rugosa Speckled alder P (+) 

Ambrosia artemisiifolia Common ragweed V 

Bidens cernua Nodding beggar tick V 

Bidens frondosa Devil’s beggartick V 

Brassica nigra Black mustard V 

Calystegiasepium Hedge bindweed V 

Carex lacustris Lake sedge P (-) 

Carex stricta Tussock sedge P (-) 

Carex species Carex species P/V (+) 

Commelina communis Asiatic dayflower V 

Cornus amomum Silky dogwood P (+) 

Cornus sericea Redosier dogwood P (+) 

Eleocharis obtusa Soft-stem spikerush V 

Epilobium coloratum Purpleleaf willowherb V 

Eupatorium perfoliatum Common boneset V

Glyceria grandis Tall mannagrass V 

Humulus japonicus2 Japanese hop V 

Impatiens capensis Jewelweed V 

Juncus effusus Common rush V 

Lepidium virginicum Wild peppergrass V 

Lycopus americanus American water horehound V 

Mimulus ringens Monkey flower V 

Oenothera biennis Evening primrose V 

Plantago lanceolata Narrowleaf plantain V 

Polygonum persicaria Spotted ladysthumb V 

Potentilla norvegica Rough cinquefoil V 

Potentilla simplex Old field cinquefoil V 

Rorippa species1 Watercress species V 

Rosa multiflora2 Multiflora rose V 

Rosa palustris Swamp rose P (+) 

Sium suave Water parsnip V 

Trifolium hybridum Alsike clover V 

1

 There are both native and introduced watercress, this individuals could not be identified to species; 

however, introduced watercress (Nasturtium officinale) was observed in the natural wetland in 2009 (refer 

to Table 1). 

2

 Invasive or potentially invasive plants as identified by the Massachusetts Invasive Plants Advisory 

Group (MIPAG) (2005). 

 
12 

Figure 2. Location of pre-restoration nekton and vegetation sampling stations at Saugus Iron Works NHS 

in 2004. 
13 

Figure 3. Location of post-restoration sampling stations at Saugus Iron Works NHS in 2009. 
14 

Figure 4. Location of post-restoration sampling stations at Saugus Iron Works NHS in 2008. Note: 

vegetation was not sampled in 2008. 
15 

Results: Marsh Vegetation 

Prior to restoration (2004 data) there was vegetation present in the area of the former turning 

basin (transects 1-4) and 23 species were identified in this location. Narrowleaf cattail (Typha 

angustifolia) was the most common representing 17% of the vegetation community (estimated 

from mid-point of Braun-Blanquet scores, Table 1). The southern wetland (transects 5-7) was 

dominated by common reed (Phragmites australis) and accounted for 44% of the vegetation 

community. Narrowleaf cattail was also abundant, comprising 17% of the vegetation. A total of 

13 species were identified in southern wetland (estimated from mid-point of Braun-Blanquet 

scores, Table 1). Several invasive plants were also observed during pre-restoration monitoring 

(refer to Invasive Plants section for more detail). 

Twenty-one species were observed in the newly restored and planted southern wetland adjacent 

to the Saugus River during the first year of post-restoration sampling in 2009. The restored 

wetland was sparsely vegetated and bare ground was the dominant cover type (47% of total 

cover, estimated from mid-point of Braun-Blanquet scores) (Table 1). This amount of bare 

ground was not surprising since the wetland was still recovering from the restoration activities. 

Other common plants included narrowleaf cattail (12% of total cover), horned pondweed 

(Zannichella palustris, 11% of total cover), and waterwort species (Callitriche sp., possibly C. 

terrestris, 8% of total cover) (estimated from mid-point of Braun-Blanquet scores). 

An alternative description of the restored wetland can be illustrated by examining the percent of 

plots where common cover types were found. Cover types that were present in >10% of plots 

included bare ground, narrowleaf cattail, horned pondweed, Callitriche sp., wrack, hardstem 

bulrush, pickerelweed seedlings, and unknown grass (Figure 5). Three invasive plants, purple 

loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), curly pondweed (Potamogeton crispus), and flowering rush 

(Butomus umbellatus) were also observed in the restored wetland (refer to Invasive Plants 

section for more detail). 

The small natural wetland areas (sampled in 2009) near the turning basin was a diverse 

community with 35 plant species present (Table 1). The wetland on the eastern side of the river 

(closest to the picnic area) had a greater variety of vegetation with 88% of the species (31 of 35 

species) observed. The wetland on the eastern side had 13 species (37% of the species). Overall, 

the most common plant in these small natural wetlands was narrowleaf cattail (22% of the total 

cover) that was primarily located in the wetland on the western side of the river. Other common 

plants were green arrow arum (7% of the total cover) and purple loosestrife, an invasive plant 

(7% of the total cover) (estimated from mid-point of Braun-Blanquet scores). The majority of 

species had a percent of total cover of less than 5% (estimated from mid-point of Braun-Blanquet 

scores, Table 1). Four invasive plants were also observed in these natural areas, including 

multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), purple loosestrife, reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), 

and watercress (Nasturtium officinale) (refer to Invasive Plants section for more detail). 

Statistical analyses of the vegetation community before and after the restoration would not be 

meaningful. Phase II of the restoration effectively removed all vegetation from the area along the 

banks of the river and in 2009 the vegetation of the newly restored marsh was still in the early 

stages of recovery. 
16 

Figure 5. Cover type distribution in the restored wetland at Saugus Iron Works NHS in 2009. Presented is 

the percent of sampled plots where the indicated cover was found.

0

25

50

75

100

Percent of Plots
17 

Results: Aquatic Vegetation 

The most common aquatic vegetation in the river in 2004 was horned pondweed, found in 42% 

of the plots. Curly pondweed, an invasive plant (Massachusetts Invasive Plant Advisory Group 

[MIPAG] 2005), was observed within four of the 12 plots. Other aquatic taxa that were present 

were Callitriche sp. and green alga. Forty-two percent of the plots (five plots) had no aquatic 

vegetation (Table 3). 

In 2008, the first year after restoration, the only type of aquatic plant found in the river was 

horned pondweed, observed at 20% of the stations (Table 3). In the restored turning basin, four 

aquatic plants were present. The three common taxa were Elodea sp., horned pondweed, and 

curly pondweed. Horned pondweed and Elodea sp. were present at 55% and 45% of the stations, 

respectively (Table 3). Curly pondweed, an invasive plant, was present in 27% of the stations. 

An unknown pondweed (Potamogeton sp.) was observed at one of the stations in the restored 

turning basin. 

In 2009, the only aquatic vegetation in the river was horned pondweed, present in 96% of the 

plots, at an average cover of 26% to 50% (Table 3). In the restored turning basin, four aquatic 

taxa were present, with horned pondweed found at 52% of the stations. Curly pondweed was also 

abundant, observed at 38% of the stations. Both these plants had an average cover of about 1% to 

5% (average Braun-Blanquet cover 1 to 1.5). Two other aquatic plants, ribbonleaf pondweed 

(Potamogeton epihydrus) and Elodea sp., were also present at sampling stations. Variableleaf 

pondweed (Potamogeton gramineus) was observed in the turning basin outside of the sampling 

plots (Table 3). 

Based on Analysis of Similarities (ANOSIM), the aquatic vegetation community of the river was 

different in 2009 primarily due to a higher abundance of horned pondweed compared to the other 

years (Table 3 and Table 4). In both 2008 and 2009 there was a difference in the aquatic 

vegetation between the river and the basin habitats, with more species present in the basin than in 

the river in both years (Table 3 and Table 4). There were no differences between years for 

aquatic vegetation sampled in the turning basin. 

Results: Invasive Plants 

Nine invasive and/or introduced plants have been encountered at SAIR during pre- and postrestoration monitoring (USDA 2004, MIPAG 2005, New England Environmental, Inc. 2009). 

Prior to the restoration six invasive species (all either wetland or terrestrial plants) were observed 

in the former turning basin and wetland along the river. In 2008, only one invasive species was 

observed (P. crispus), but only aquatic vegetation was monitored in 2008 (the newly restored 

wetland was not sampled) (Table 5). In 2009, eight invasive plant species were observed, 

including three new ones (flowering rush, watercress, and Japanese hop [Humulus japonicus]). 

Curly pondweed was primarily found in the restored turning basin, and if left unchecked it could 

outcompete the native pondweeds (e.g., ribbonleaf and variableleaf pondweed). Curly pondweed 

was also observed in the southern section of the restored wetland at lower elevations on the river 

floodplain (Figure 6). Purple loosestrife, was fairly abundant (representing 7% of the total cover) 

in the natural wetlands in the northern section of the river, and was also present along the upland 

border in the southern section of the restored wetland. Other notable invasive plants, included the 
18 

flowering rush (present along the upland edges of the restored marsh), watercress, and multiflora 

rose (the latter two were both present in the natural wetlands). A site visit by New England 

Environmental, Inc. (2009), observed two invasive species (Japanese hop and multiflora rose) on 

the streamside riparian buffer area (e.g., the berm) and a few stems of common reed in the 

restored wetland (Figure 6). These invasive plants provide seed sources, especially when they are 

well-established in the natural wetland areas, and potentially threaten the native wetland species 

currently found in the restored wetland area. 
19 

Table 3. Species list, average Braun-Blanquet1 score, and percent of plots where species were observed 

during aquatic vegetation sampling at Saugus Iron Works NHS in 2004 (pre-restoration) and 2008 and 

2009 (post-restoration). Aquatic vegetation was sampled at nekton sampling stations. 

Common Name Scientific Name Average Braun-Blanquet score and percent of plots

observed

 

2004

River

 (n=12)

2008

River

 (n=15)

2008

Basin

 (n=11)

2009

River

(n=27)

2009

Basin

(n=21)

Callitriche species2 Water starwort species 0.3 (17%) -5 ---

Elodea species Elodea species - - 1.8 (55%) - 0.3 (14%)

Potamogeton crispus3

 Curly pond weed 0.6 (33%) - 1.0 (27%) - 1.0 (38%)

Potamogeton epihydrus Ribbonleaf pondweed - - - - 0.4 (19%)

Potamogeton gramineus Variableleaf pondweed - - - - Present

Unknown green algae Unknown green algae 0.7 (17%) - - - -

Unknown pondweed4 Unknown pondweed - - 0.2 (9%) - -

Zannichella palustris Horned pondweed 1.5 (42%) 0.9 (20%) 1.2 (45%) 4.0 (96%) 1.5 (52%)

1

 Braun Blanquet cover class scale (0; 1: <1; 2: 1%- 5%; 3: 6-25%; 4: 26-50%; 5: 51-75%; 6: 76-100%). 2

 Possibly C. terrestris (identified by H. Leeson, Rhode Island Natural History Survey, October 2009). 3 Invasive plants as identified by MIPAG (2005). 

4 Possibly P. gramineus, P. gramineus was present but was not observed in plots in 2009. 5 “-” indicates species was not observed. 

Table 4. ANOSIM results comparing aquatic vegetation communities among years (2004, 2008, and 

2009) and between habitats (river or basin). Only comparisons of interest (e.g., among years within the 

same habitat or between habitats in the same year are shown). 

Comparison (sample 1, sample 2) R Statistic p-value

2009 River, 2009 Basin 0.372 0.00001*1

2009 River, 2008 River 0.630 0.00001*1

2009 River, 2004 River 0.604 0.00001*1

2009 Basin, 2008 Basin 0.097 0.06200 

2008 River, 2008 Basin 0.430 0.00010*1

2008 River, 2004 River 0.135 0.02900 

1 “*”Indicates significant difference at alpha=0.0083 (Bonferroni adjusted alpha). 
20 

Table 5. List of invasive plants and the state where listed (in parentheses) observed during vegetation 

sampling at SAIR. Status information is from USDA Plants Database and the Massachusetts Invasive 

Plant Working Group (MIPAG 2005). 

Scientific Name Common Name Status Year(s) Observed 

Butomus umbellatus1 Flowering rush potentially invasive (CT) 2009 

Humulus japonicus2 Japanese hop Invasive (MA) 2009 

Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife Invasive (MA) 2004, 2009 

Nasturtium officinale Watercress potentially invasive (CT) 2009 

Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary grass Invasive (MA) 2004, 2009 

Phragmites australis2

 Common reed Invasive (MA) 2004, 2009 

Potamogeton crispus Curly pond weed Invasive (MA) 2004, 2008, 2009 

Robinia pseudoacacia Black locust Invasive (MA) 2004 

Rosa multiflora2

 Multiflora rosa Invasive (MA) 2004, 2009 

1 Butomus umbellatus was not found in vegetation plots, but was observed along the upland marsh border 

and on the berm near the sewer pipe in the restored marsh. 

2 Observed during site visit (28 July 2009) by New England Environmental, Inc. 
21 

Figure 6. Location of invasive plants1

 observed during vegetation sampling at Saugus Iron Works NHS in 

2009.

1

Symbols for multiple species collected at a single location have been shifted slightly for visual clarity. 

Representative photos of each species were obtained from the University of Georgia and USDA Forest 

Service website, "Invasive Plants of the US", www.invasive.org. Photo credit: John D. Byrd, Mississippi 

State University (Lythrum); Chris Evans, River to River CWMA, United States (Humulus, Phalaris); Mary 

Ellen Harte (Nasturtium); Leslie J. Mehrhoff, University of Connecticut (Butomus, Phragmites, 

Potamogeton); James H. Miller, USDA Forest Service (Rosa).
22 

Biological Variables: Nekton Community 

Methods: Nekton 

The nekton community of the turning basin and the Saugus River were monitored following 

protocols of the NPS Northeast Coastal and Barrier Network (Raposa and Roman 2001, JamesPirri et al. in review). Nekton were sampled twice per year - once in mid-summer and once in 

late summer/early fall on low or ebbing tides. Quantitative data on nekton composition and 

abundance (density) were collected using a 1-m2

 throw trap at a minimum of 15 stations 

randomly located throughout the turning basin-river system (Raposa et al. 2003). The sampling 

area is limited to locations with standing water present at lower tide conditions, but not higher 

than the top of the side walls of the trap (0.5-m high) (i.e., the deepest portion of the river 

channel and the deeper areas in the turning basin and river edge were excluded). The throw trap 

is an enclosure sampler that has excellent efficiency and provides quantitative, repeatable results 

(Kushlan 1981, Sogard and Able 1991, Rozas and Minello 1997). The trap has an open top and 

bottom, is 0.5-m in height and 1-m square, and the sides are covered with 3-mm wire mesh. The 

trap is thrown into water, embedding it in the bottom sediments, and capturing any nekton in the 

1-m2 area of the trap. All nekton were collected from the trap with a 1-mm mesh dip net that fits 

snuggly within the trap. The trap was considered empty when three successive attempts with the 

dip net produced no organisms. 

Qualitative samples of nekton were also collected using a seine (6-m seine with bag, 3-mm 

mesh) at a minimum of five random locations throughout the turning basin and river system as 

ancillary information on the nekton community. Seine hauls were taken in order to achieve a 

more complete species list by attempting to catch faster swimming fishes that may not be 

adequately sampled by the throw trap. 

At each station (both throw trap and seine stations), all nekton were identified and enumerated. A 

representative number (up to 15 individuals) of each species collected was measured for length 

(total length for fish and shrimp, carapace width for crabs). Once identified and measured all 

organisms were returned to the water. Physical variables (water temperature [oC], salinity [ppt], 

and dissolved oxygen [mg/L]) were recorded at each nekton sampling station with a YSI unit 

(model 85) at the time of sampling. 

Pre-restoration nekton throw trap sampling occurred on 9 June and 5 August 2004 in the Saugus 

River, with 16 stations sampled on each day. Seven seine hauls were made on three separate days 

in 2004 (5 August, 11 August, and 2 September) at two locations in the river. Two hauls (on 11 

August) were made in the upper portion of the Saugus River and the other five (on 5 August, 11 

August, and 2 September) were made immediately north of the Hamilton Street Bridge (Figure 

2). 

The first post-restoration nekton sampling event occurred on 18 September (turning basin 

samples) and 23 September 2008 (river samples). Since construction activities were not 

completed until late summer, only the late summer nekton sampling was conducted in 2008. 

Twenty-six throw trap stations were sampled (11 stations in the basin, and 15 in the river) 

(Figure 4). Nine seine stations (three in the turning basin and six in the river) were also sampled 

on these two days. 
23 

The second year of post-restoration nekton sampling was conducted during two sampling periods 

on 15 July 2009 and on 14 and 15 September 2009. During each of these sampling periods, 24 to 

25 throw trap stations were sampled (14 in the river and 10-11 in the basin) (Figure 3). 

Seventeen seine hauls (11 in the river and six in the turning basin) were sampled during these 

sampling events. 

The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MA DMF), in conjunction with the Saugus 

Watershed Council, has sampled rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax ) and young-of-year (YOY) 

American eel (Anguilla rostrata) at SAIR since 2005. Rainbow smelt were sampled using a fyke 

net (6-mm delta mesh, 0.8-m hoop entrance, and 1-m wings) set in the intertidal zone below the 

downstream limit of smelt egg deposition. Nets were set overnight, facing upstream, three times 

per week from early March through late May (Chase et al. 2007). 

YOY American eel were sampled from April to June using Sheldon elver traps. Sampling occurs 

from the first week of April to the first week of June. 

Results: Pre-restoration Nekton 

During the 2004 pre-restoration sampling, 13 species (11 fish and two decapods) were sampled 

using seine and throw traps (Table 6). Young-of-the-year white suckers (Catostomus 

commersoni) dominated the catch (73% of total catch) (Table 7, Figure 7). Other nekton that 

were present were four-spine sticklebacks (Apeltes quadracus, 15% of the total catch), American 

eels (Anguilla rostrata, 9% of the catch), and three-spine sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus, 

2% of catch). green crabs (Carcinus maenas) and brook sticklebacks (Culaea inconstans) each 

accounted for less than 1% of the catch. It is possible that the brook sticklebacks may have been 

mis-identified and were really nine-spine sticklebacks, unfortunately voucher specimens were 

not available. The catch consisted of young-of-the-year or juveniles for most of the nekton 

(Figure 8). 

Eleven species (10 fish and one decapod) were sampled using the seine in 2004 (Table 6 and 

Table 8). As expected seine hauls captured the faster swimming nekton such as alewife (Alosa 

pseudoharengus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), and redfin pickerel (Esox 

americanus). Two invasive and/or native transplant species were also found (green crab and 

largemouth bass, Table 9). 
24 

Table 6. Nekton sampled during pre-restoration monitoring (2004) and post-restoration monitoring (2008 

and 2009) at Saugus Iron Works NHS. 

Common Name 

Scientific Name

Pre-restoration

(2004) 

River only 

Post-restoration

(2008) 

River & Basin 

Post-restoration 

(2009) 

River & Basin 

Seine Throw 

Trap Seine Throw 

Trap Seine Throw 

Trap 

Alosa pseudoharengus

Alewife X 

Anguilla rostrata 

American eel X X X X X 

Apeltes quadracus 

Four-spine stickleback X X X X X X 

Carcinus maenas 

Green crab X 

Catostomus commersoni

White sucker X X X X X X 

Culaea inconstans 1

Brook stickleback X X 

Esox americanus 

americanus 

Redfin pickerel 

X X 

Esox americanus 

vermiculatus 

Grass pickerel 

 X 

Fundulus heteroclitus

Mummichog X X X 

Gasterosteus aculeatus

Three-spine stickleback X 

Lepomis gibbosus

Pumpkinseed X X 

Lepomis macrochirus

Bluegill X X X 

Micropterus salmoides

Largemouth bass X X X 

Morone americana 

White perch X X 

Pungitius pungitius 

Nine-spine stickleback X X X 

Rhithropanopeus harrisii

Harris mud crab X 

Unknown minnow species X 

Total species caught 11 6 5 5 11 5 

1

Possibly a nine-spine stickleback (voucher specimen not available for verification). Brook sticklebacks

have not been verified to be present east of the Connecticut River. 
25 

Table 7. Nekton density (number m-2 ± SD) and total number of individuals captured (in parentheses) from 1m2 throw trap s

Works NHS during pre-restoration monitoring (2004) and post-restoration monitoring (2008 and 2009). Sample size is give

Scientific Name Common Name Average Density (Number m-2 ± SD [total no. individua

June 2004

n = 16

Aug 2004

n = 16

Sept 2008

n=15

J

River samples Anguilla rostrata American eel 1.6 ± 2.6 (25) 0.3 ± 1.0 (5) 0.2 ± 0.4 (3) 4.2 Apeltes quadracus Four-spine stickleback 2.3 ± 4.9 (37) 0.8 ± 1.4 (13) 0.6 ± 1.6 (9) 6.7 

Carcinus maenas Green crab 0 0.1± 0.3 (1) 0 Catostomus commersoni White sucker 13.9 ± 20.9 (223) 0.8 ± 2.5 (13) 0.1 ± 0.3 (1) 9.1 ± 1

Culaea inconstans Brook stickleback1 0 0.1± 0.3 (1) 0 

Fundulus heteroclitus Mummichog 0 0 0 1.5 

Gasterosteus aculeatus Three-spine stickleback 0.4 ± 1.5 (6) 0 0 Pungitius pungitius Nine-spine stickleback 0 0 0.5 ± 2.1 (8) Total Nekton Density 18.2 ± 26.9 (291) 2.1 ± 3.2 (33) 1.4 ± 3.0 (21) 21.6 ± 1

Scientific Name Common Name June 2004 n/a Aug 2004 n/a Sept 2008 n=11 J

Basin samples Anguilla rostrata American eel -2 - 2.6 ± 3.3 (29) 2.6 Apeltes quadracus Four-spine stickleback - - 1.4 ± 1.9 (15) 7.5 ± 

Catostomus commersoni White sucker - - 0 4.9 ± 

Fundulus heteroclitus Mummichog - - 0 0.1 

Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed - - 0 0.1 Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill - - 0.9 ± 1.4 (10) Pungitius pungitius Nine-spine stickleback - - 0.1 ± 0.3 (1) Total Nekton Density 5.0 ± 3.3 (55) 15.3 ± 2

1 Possibly nine-spine stickleback (voucher specimen not available for verification). Brook sticklebacks have not been verified to be prese

River. 

2 “-“ Indicates samples were not taken (basin was not yet excavated). 
26 

Table 8. Nekton composition, average abundance per seine haul, and total number of individuals collected (in parentheses

Saugus Iron Works NHS during pre-restoration monitoring (2004) and post-restoration monitoring (2008 and 2009). Sampldate. 

Common Name Scientific Name Average abundance per haul (total ca

2004

Upper 

portion of 

river 

n = 2 

2004 

Adjacent to 

Hamilton St. 

Bridge 

n=5 

River 

2008 

n=6 

Turning 

Basin 2008

n=3 

Alosa pseudoharengus Alewife 2.5 (5) 0.2 (1) 0 0 Anguilla rostrata American eel 0.5 (1) 0 0 0 Apeltes quadracus Four-spine stickleback 4.0 (8) 23.4 (117) 2.2 (13) 5.7 (17) 

Catostomus commersoni White sucker 1.0 (2) 168.2 (841) 0 15.7 (47) 

Culaea inconstans 1 Brook stickleback 1.5 (3) 15.2 (76) 0 0 

Esox americanus americanus Redfin pickerel 0 0.2 (1) 0 0 

Esox americanus vermiculatus Grass pickerel 0 0 0 0 Fundulus heteroclitus Mummichog 0 1.2 (6) 0 0 Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed 0 0 0 0 Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill 0 0 0.2 (1) 14.0 (42) Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass 0 0.8 (4) 0.3 (2) 2.0 (6) Morone americana White perch 0 0.6 (3) 0 0.3 (1) 

Pungitius pungitius Nine-spine stickleback 0 0.4 (2) 0 0 Rhithropanopeus harrisii Harris mud crab 0 0.2 (1) 0 0 

Unknown minnow species 0 0 0 0 

Average total abundance per haul 9.5 (19) 210.4 (1052) 2.6 (16) 37.7 (113) 16

1 Possibly nine-spine stickleback (voucher specimen not available for verification). Brook sticklebacks have not been verified to 

Connecticut River. 
27 

Figure 7. Percent catch of common nekton sampled from throw traps at Saugus Iron Works NHS during 

pre-restoration (2004) and post-restoration monitoring (2008 and 2009). 

Figure 8. Average length (mm ± SD) of nekton sampled at Saugus Iron Works NHS with throw traps and 

seines during pre-restoration (2004) and post-restoration (2008 and 2009) monitoring. Average adult 

length (mm) is given under each species name for reference. Only nekton where more than five 

individuals were sampled (all years combined) are shown. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

9-spine 

stickleback

4-spine 

stickleback

American eel Bluegill Mummichog White sucker

Percent of Catch

River, 2004 River, 2008 River, 2009

Basin, 2008 Basin, 2009

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Average length (mm + SD) .

2004

2008

2009

American eel

(600 mm)

4 spine 

stickleback

(100 mm)

White sucker

(450 mm)

Bluegill

(250 mm)

Pickerel 

species

(300-600 mm)

Mummichog

(150 mm)

Largemouth 

bass
28 

Table 9. List of exotic and native transplant nekton (species native to the U.S. that have been introduced 

to areas outside of their original range). Status information is from the USGS (2004) Nonindigenous 

Aquatic Species Database. 

Scientific Name Common Name Status Year Observed 

Carcinus maenas Green crab Exotic 2004 

Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill Native transplant 2008, 2009 

Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass Native transplant 2004, 2008, 2009 
29 

Results: Post-restoration Nekton 

In 2008, seven nekton species were collected using both throw trap and seine in the restored 

turning basin and the Saugus River (Table 6). Only three of these species, the bluegill (Lepomis 

macrochirus), four-spine stickleback, and white sucker were caught in both the throw trap and 

the seine. In the river, four-spine sticklebacks and nine-spine sticklebacks dominated the throw 

trap samples and comprised 43% and 38% of the catch, respectively. American eels comprised 

14% of the catch and white suckers accounted for the remaining 5% of the catch (Table 7, Figure 

7). The seine samples from the river stations were also dominated by four-spine sticklebacks 

(81% of the catch). Other nekton sampled with the seine in the river included largemouth bass 

(13% of the catch) and bluegill (6% of the catch) (Table 8). 

In the newly restored turning basin, American eels (all juveniles, average length 69 mm, Figure 

8) dominated the throw trap samples and comprised 53% of all individuals caught in 2008. Fourspine sticklebacks comprised 27% of the catch and bluegills comprised 18% of the catch. Ninespine sticklebacks comprised the remaining 2% of the throw trap catch in the turning basin 

(Table 7, Figure 7). In the seine samples, white suckers (42% of the catch) and bluegills (37% of 

the catch) dominated the catch in the turning basin. Four-spine stickleback comprised 15% of the 

catch with largemouth bass (5%) and white perch (Morone americana) (1%) making up the 

remainder of the individuals captured (Table 8). The high incidence of American eels in the 

throw trap samples in the turning basin is likely due to the fine sediment in the basin and the 

ability of the gear to sample the benthic sediment layer where these individuals are located. 

In 2009, four nekton species were observed in the throw trap samples from the river: white 

sucker (38% of the catch), four-spine stickleback (33% of the catch), American eel (19% of the 

catch), and mummichog (10% of the catch) (Table 7, Figure 7). Three of these species (white 

sucker, four-spine stickleback, and mummichog) were also abundant in the seine samples from 

the river (Table 7, Figure 7). Additional nekton sampled in the river with the seine included: 

nine-spine stickleback, redfin pickerel, grass pickerel (Esox americanus vermiculatus), and 

American eel (Table 8). 

The turning basin throw trap samples were dominated by American eel, four-spine stickleback, 

and white sucker in 2009 (Figure 7). Seine samples from the turning basin were also dominated 

by four-spine stickleback and white sucker (Table 8). Other nekton observed in the turning basin 

included mummichog, largemouth bass, bluegill, nine-spine stickleback, and pumpkinseed 

(Lepomis gibbosus). 

In both 2008 and 2009, the catch consisted of YOY or juveniles for most of the nekton (Figure 

8). 

One nonindigenous (non-native) fish, the largemouth bass, and one exotic crustacean (green 

crab) were found in 2004. In 2008 and 2009, an additional non-native species, the bluegill, was 

collected (Table 9). Both the largemouth bass and the bluegill are native transplants, North 

American species that were most likely transplanted into Massachusetts waters by intentional 

stocking programs (Fuller 2004, USGS 2004). The green crab is a well established exotic species 

(first recorded observation on the East Coast in 1817) that is abundant in coastal waters from 

Maine to Maryland (Benson 2004). 
30 

Based on ANOSIM analyses, there were significant differences in the nekton community 

sampled with the throw trap between the river and the basin in 2008 and in the river between 

2008 and 2009 (Table 10). No other comparisons of interest were significant. In 2008, American 

eel and four-spine stickleback were more abundant in the basin than in the river (comprising 

74% of the dissimilarity between the habitats). Bluegills were only sampled in the basin, while 

white suckers were only found in the river (Table 7). In the river, the density of all species in 

2009 (four-spine stickleback, white sucker, American eel, and mummichog) were all higher than 

in 2008 (Table 7). 

Water temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen collected in conjunction with the nekton 

sampling events were similar between 2004 and 2008 (Table 11). In 2009, water temperature and 

dissolved oxygen occasionally exceeded thresholds established for acceptable habitat for warm 

water fisheries (Lombard et al. 2006). 

Results: Rainbow smelt and American eel monitoring 

In 2005 (prior to restoration), rainbow smelt were present in 56% of the Saugus River samples 

(32 samples or hauls), but at a low density (4.4 individuals haul-1) compared to the other smelt 

monitoring stations in Massachusetts (Chase et al. 2007). The presence of alewife and white 

perch were also documented in the Saugus River during MA DMF smelt surveys. The catches 

for both species were low in 2005, but were still highest among fyke net stations in 

Massachusetts. Fish species richness from the fyke net surveys in 2005 ranked third among MA 

stations (11 species) with a relative high presence of freshwater yellow perch and white sucker 

present at SAIR (Chase et al. 2007). At the SAIR fyke net station, smelt numbers were highest in 

2006 and 2007 (pre-restoration) and then declined in 2008 (during the restoration of the turning 

basin) (Brad Chase, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, unpublished data) (Figure 9). 

Data from the 2006 to 2009 smelt surveys are currently being analyzed by MA DMF. 

In 2006, the catch per unit effort (CPUE) of 0.4 YOY American eel per set hour was slightly 

lower than the 0.6 CPUE observed in 2005. Historically, the Saugus River was noted for large 

catches of American eel, but recent catches have been small (Chase 2007). Juvenile American 

eel (< 50mm total length) are frequently observed in the throw trap samples (University of 

Rhode Island monitoring program), particularly in the restored turning basin (Table 7, Figure 8). 

More recent data on species richness data at other MA smelt sampling stations and American eel 

abundance are currently being compiled by MA DMF (Brad Chase, Massachusetts Division of 

Marine Fisheries, personal communication). 
31 

Table 10. ANOSIM results comparing nekton communities among years (2004, 2008, and 2009) and 

between habitats (river or basin). Only comparisons of interest are shown (e.g., among years within the 

same habitat or between habitats in the same year). 

Comparison (sample 1, sample 2) R Statistic p-value1 

2009 Basin, 2009 River 0.01 0.299 

2009 Basin, 2008 Basin -0.042 0.716 

2009 River, 2008 River 0.237 <0.001 *

2009 River, 2004 River 0.049 0.058 

2008 Basin, 2008 River 0.295 0.004 *

2008 River, 2004 River -0.016 0.543 

1 “*”Indicates significant difference at alpha=0.0083 (Bonferroni adjusted alpha).

Table 11. Environmental data (average ± SD) associated with nekton throw trap sampling. Sample size is 

given after location. Bold face and underlined indicate values that exceed warm water fisheries water 

quality criteria1,2.

1 Acceptable value for temperature (warm water fisheries) is <28.3°C (Lombard et al. 2006). 2 Acceptable value for dissolved oxygen (warm water fisheries) >6 mg l-1 (Lombard et al. 2006). 3 Only three readings taken.

Variable 

Water 

Temperature 

°C1 

(maximum) 

Salinity 

ppt 

Dissolved 

oxygen2 

mg l-1 

(minimum) 

June 9, 2004 (n=16) (river) 21.5 ± 1.4 (23.9) 0.3 ± 0.04 7.4 ± 0.5 (6.3) 

Aug 5, 2004 (n=16) (river) 19.9 ± 0.8 (20.9) 0.1 ± 0.1 7.5 ± 0.5 (6.3) 

 

Sept 18, 2008 (n=11, basin) 18.4 ± 0.8 (20.1) 0.5 ± 0.8 8.3 ± 1.3 (7.5) 

Sept 23, 2008 (n=15, river) 14.7 ± 0.4 (15.5) 0.3 ± 0.0 9.4 ± 0.2 (8.9) 

July 15, 2009 (n=13, basin) 24.1 ± 4.7 (31.0) 0.4 ± 0.06 6.1 ± 5.3 (1.7) 

July 15, 2009 (n=19, river) 19.7 ± 1.8 (26.5) 0.4 ± 0.05 6.4 ± 3.2 (2.6) 

Sept 14 & 15, 2009 (n=13, basin) 18.6 ± 1.0 (21.0) 0.7 ± 0.1 7.23

 ± 0.2 (7.0) 

Sept 14 & 15, 2009 (n=20, river) 18.6 ± 0.7 (19.9) 0.3 ± 0.1 8.6 ± 0.4 (7.2) 
32 

Figure 9. Rainbow smelt catch from MA-DMF fyke net monitoring (2005 to 2008) at Saugus Iron Works 

NHS. 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2005 2006 2007 2008

Number of individuals 
33 

Biological Variables: Bird Community

Methods: Bird Community 

Bird use of the restoration area was monitored by volunteers (coordinated by NPS staff) 

following the guidelines of the NPS Northeast Temperate Network (NETN) Breeding Bird 

Monitoring Protocol (Faccio et al. 2010). Birds were monitored using variable circular plot 

(VCP) point counts at three observation stations (Figure 4). At each station, all birds seen or 

heard were recorded during 10-minute point counts. Birds were surveyed twice annually, with 

replicates occurring about 7-14 days apart (Faccio et al. 2010). The avian community of SAIR 

was also surveyed in 2002 and 2003 by the NETN (Trocki and Paton 2005). During these 

surveys three VCP stations were randomly located in the park (one each in the forest and wetland 

areas and one in a developed area) (Trocki and Paton 2005). 

Wildlife observations, including birds, were recorded during the systematic wildlife observation 

program that was implemented in 2009 as part of the post-restoration monitoring of the turning 

basin (McNiff and Albert 2010). Observations of wildlife were conducted during all tide 

conditions, times of day, and locations in and adjacent to the restoration area. Briefly, wildlife 

observations occurred at least once a day, three days a week for 30 to 90 minutes from June 

through September 2009 (38 observation days) (McNiff and Albert 2010). Wildlife observations 

were recorded in ten wildlife observation zones (Figure 10); however, only data from the 

restoration area (high marsh, low marsh, mudflat, turning basin, river channel, and berm/riffle 

zones, Christine McNiff, National Park Service personal communication) are presented herein. 

Results: Bird Community 

NETN avian monitoring was initiated in 2008. Sampling was conducted once in 2008 (11 July 

2008) and on three occasions in 2009 (4, 10, and 18 June 2009). Twenty-one species (35 

individuals) were observed in 2008 and 33 species (151 individuals) were recorded in 2009. A 

net total of 35 species have been detected during the NETN monitoring, with 19 species 

observed in both years (Table 12). In 2008, the mean abundance (per point) was 11.7 individuals 

and was 17.0 individuals in 2009 (only first survey included in 2009 for consistency between 

NETN survey years) (Faccio and Mitchell 2009). During wildlife observations in 2009, 31 

species (excluding five taxa that were only identified as duck, heron, gull, shorebird, or sparrow) 

and 633 individuals were observed in the restored area (Table 12). 

Data from the 2002-2003 NETN avian surveys (wetland and forested station data only) (Trocki 

and Paton 2005) were used to compare the bird community before and after the restoration. Since 

the restoration of the turning basin there has been an increase in the number of waterbirds 

(waterfowl, waders, and shorebirds) observed at the park (Figure 11). Prior to the restoration of 

the turning basin no shorebirds (e.g., sandpipers, plovers), and only a few waders (e.g., egrets, 

herons) and waterfowl (e.g., geese, ducks, mergansers) were observed. After the restoration 

several waterbird species were observed, likely a result of the newly created open water and tidal 

flats of the turning basin.
34 

Figure 10. Wildlife observation zones established in 2009, “*” denotes locations within the restoration 

area (figure excerpted from McNiff and Albert 2010). 

 
35 

Table 12. Birds observed in 2008 (one survey date) and 2009 (three survey dates) during NETN 

monitoring and park wildlife observations (38 survey dates). Partners in Flight status1, if applicable, is 

indicated in parentheses after name. 

Scientific Name3 Common Name Category Number of detections 

NETN 

2008 

NETN 

2009 

20092

Park 

Actitis macularia Spotted sandpiper Shorebird 0 0 1 

Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged blackbird Non-waterbird 1 17 5 

Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Waterfowl 1 14 164 

Anas rubripes American black duck Waterfowl 0 0 13 

Ardea alba (V) Great egret Wader 0 3 14 

Ardea Herodias (V) Great blue heron Wader 0 2 7 

Baeolophus bicolor Tufted titmouse Non-waterbird 1 1 0 

Botaurus lentiginosus (V) American bittern Wader 0 0 3 

Branta canadensis Canada goose Waterfowl 0 2 142 

Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk Non-waterbird 0 0 1 

Butorides virescens Green Heron Wader 0 0 2 

Calidris minutilla Least sandpiper Shorebird 0 0 2 

Calidris pusilla Semipalmated sandpiper Shorebird 0 0 117 

Cardinalis cardinalis Northern cardinal Non-waterbird 3 3 3 

Carduelis tristis American goldfinch Non-waterbird 0 1 3 

Ceryle alcyon Belted Kingfisher Non-waterbird 1 0 5 

Chaetura pelagica (IIA) Chimney swift Non-waterbird 0 5 0 

Charadrius vociferus Killdeer Shorebird 0 1 0 

Colaptes auratus Northern/Yellow shafted flicker Non-waterbird 1 1 0 

Columba livia * Rock pigeon Non-waterbird 1 5 22 

Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow Non-waterbird 3 4 11 

Cyanocitta cristata Blue jay Non-waterbird 2 3 0 

Dendroica petechia Yellow warbler Non-waterbird 0 0 1 

Dumetella carolinensis Gray catbird Non-waterbird 2 6 2 

Egretta thula (V) Snowy egret Wader 0 0 4 

Geothlypis trichas Common yellowthroat Non-waterbird 1 3 0 

Hirundo rustica Barn swallow Non-waterbird 2 7 40 

Icterus galbula (IA) Baltimore oriole Non-waterbird 1 2 0 

Larus argentatus Herring gull Gull 1 5 0 

Larus delawarensis Ringed-billed gull Gull 0 0 5 

Larus marinus Great black-backed gull Gull 0 1 0 

Lophodytes cucullatus Hooded Merganser Waterfowl 0 0 1 

Melospiza melodia Song sparrow Non-waterbird 3 21 1 

Molothrus ater Brown-headed cowbird Non-waterbird 0 1 0 

Nycticorax nycticorax (V) Black-crowned night-heron Wader 0 4 12 

Passer domesticus * House sparrow Non-waterbird 3 0 1 

Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested cormorant Waterfowl 0 0 8 

Picoides pubescens Downy woodpecker Non-waterbird 2 2 0 

 
36 

Table 12. Birds observed in 2008 (one survey date) and 2009 (three survey dates) during NETN 

monitoring and park wildlife observations (38 survey dates). Partners in Flight status1, if applicable, is 

indicated in parentheses after name (continued). 

Scientific Name3 Common Name Category Number of detections 

NETN 

2008 

NETN 

2009 

20092

Park 

Pluvialis squatarola Black-bellied plover Shorebird 0 0 4 

Poecile atricapillus Black-capped chickadee Non-waterbird 0 1 0 

Quiscalus quiscula Common grackle Non-waterbird 1 6 0 

Sayornis phoebe Eastern phoebe Non-waterbird 0 6 0 

Sturnus vulgaris * European starling Non-waterbird 2 12 5 

Thryothorus ludovicianus Carolina wren Non-waterbird 0 2 0 

Troglodytes aedon House wren Non-waterbird 0 1 1 

Turdus migratorius American robin Non-waterbird 2 6 4 

Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed vireo Non-waterbird 0 1 0 

Zenaida macroura Mourning dove Non-waterbird 1 2 0 

- Unknown duck n/a 0 0 12 

- Unknown gull n/a 0 0 13 

- Unknown heron n/a 0 0 2 

- Unknown shorebird n/a 0 0 1 

- Unknown sparrow n/a 0 0 1 

Number of species detected 21 33 31 

1 Partners in Flight status: IA: High Continental Priority, High Regional Responsibility; IIA: High Regional Priority, High 

Regional Concern; V: Additional State Listed. 

2 Only data for birds observed in the six restoration zones in 2009 (high marsh, low marsh, mudflat, turning basin, 

river channel, and berm/riffle area) are presented. 

3 (*) Indicates non-native species. 
37 

Figure 11. Number of waterbird species observed before (2002-2003) and after (2008-2009) the 

restoration of the turning basin and marsh. 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Shorebirds Waders Waterfowl

Number of species

Pre-restoration Post-restoration
38 

Biological Variables: Mammals and other Wildlife 

Methods: Mammals and other Wildlife 

Sightings of mammals and other wildlife incidentally observed in the restoration area during the 

course of monitoring activities and sightings from other observers (e.g., park staff, consulting 

contractor) were recorded annually. Wildlife observations were also made during the systematic 

wildlife observation program that was implemented in 2009 as part of the post-restoration 

monitoring of the turning basin (McNiff and Albert 2010). Observations of wildlife were 

conducted during all tide conditions, times of day, and locations in and adjacent to the restoration 

area. Briefly, wildlife observations occurred at least once a day, three days a week for 30 to 90 

minutes from June through September 2009 (38 observation days) (McNiff and Albert 2010). 

Wildlife observations were recorded in ten wildlife observation zones (Figure 10); however, only 

data from the restoration area (high marsh, low marsh, mudflat, turning basin, river channel, and 

berm/riffle zones, Christine McNiff, National Park Service, personal communication) are 

presented herein. 

Results: Mammals and other Wildlife 

Three species of mammals (Eastern gray squirrel [Sciurus carolinensis], Northern American 

river otter [Lontra canadensis], and raccoon [Procyon lotor]) were observed in the restoration 

area in 2009. The Northern American river otter, observed in 2009, was not observed during the 

2004 NETN Mammal Inventory at SAIR (Gilbert et al. 2008). 

Two reptiles, common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentine) and painted turtle (Chrysemys 

picta), were also observed in the restoration area in 2009. 

Water Quality (monitored by NETN) 

Water-quality is monitored at SAIR by the NETN as part of the National Park Service Inventory 

and Monitoring Program following the Lakes and Streams Water Quality Protocol (Lombard et 

al. 2006). A continuous-record streamflow-gage has been operated on the Saugus River just 

upstream of the park boundary by the USGS since 1994 (USGS 01102345 Saugus River at 

Saugus, MA). Temperature and specific conductance have been measured at this station 

continuously since 2001. In addition, the NETN monitors water quality annually in May and 

August in the Saugus River (at the USGS stream gage 01102345, latitude 42o

28'05", longitude 

71o00'27”) and in the restored turning basin (William Gawley, National Park Service, personal 

communication). 

Methods: NETN Water Quality monitoring 

The methodology for NETN water quality monitoring is detailed in the Lakes and Streams Water 

Quality Protocol (Lombard et al. 2006). Briefly, water samples are taken twice per year during 

the summer and analyzed for nutrients by a laboratory at the University of Maine, and a YSI 

600XL sonde is used to sample temperature, pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen (William 

Gawley, National Park Service, personal communication). 

Results: NETN Water Quality monitoring 

The NETN has monitored water quality at SAIR since 2006 (Table 13). Based on the NETN 
39 

water quality monitoring, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH of the restored turning basin 

are within acceptable ranges as determined by NETN Lakes and Streams Water Quality Protocol 

(Lombard et al. 2006). Elevated values for total nitrogen and total phosphorus have been 

observed in the turning basin and the Saugus River since monitoring was initiated (with the 

exception of total phosphorus in the Saugus River in 2006 and 2007) (Table 13). 

Table 13. Water quality measurements from NETN monitoring (data courtesy of W. Gawley).

Parameter Acceptable 

value or 

range1 

2006 2007 2008 2009 

 Turning Basin2

 Temperature (oC) (warm water fishery) <28.3 -3 14.0 16.5 20.7

 Dissolved oxygen (mg l-1) >6 - 9.01 9.05 5.05

 Specific conductance (uS cm-1

) None given - 1000 644 13721

 pH 6.5-8.3 - 7.44 7.54 7.23

 Total Nitrogen (mg l-1

) <0.71 - - 0.95 1.00

 Total phosphorus (ug l-1

) <31.25 - - 45.00 51.00

Saugus River (at USGS stream gage) 

 Total Nitrogen (mg l-1

) <0.71 0.91 1.05 0.95 1.14

 Total phosphorus (ug l-1) <31.25 30.00 27.50 41.50 99.50

1 Acceptable range or value after Lombard et al. 2006. 

2 The turning basin was restored in the fall of 2007, prior to that it was vegetated wetland area 3 “-“ indicates data were not available
40 

Physical Variables and Benthic Invertebrates (Monitored by 

CH2MHill) 

CH2MHill conducted and analyzed parameters associated with tidal hydrology, river 

geomorphology, sediment and water quality, and benthic invertebrate community in 2008 (postrestoration). Additional rounds of sampling will be conducted in 2010 and 2012. The following 

is a brief summary of the analyses that were excerpted from the 2008 Monitoring Data Report 

prepared by CH2MHill in February 2009. No new analyses are presented. This summary is not 

meant to replace the CH2MHill Data Report, but is presented with the intent of providing an 

integrated post-restoration monitoring summary. The CH2MHill Data Report (CH2MHill 2009) 

should be referred to if more detail is desired. 

Methods: Tidal Hydrology 

The tidal hydrology was monitored using two remote water quality meters (YSI, model 6600V2 

data sonde) in the Saugus River deployed between 7 October 2008 and 18 November 2008 

(Figure 12). The instrument recorded data (water level, specific conductance/salinity, dissolved 

oxygen, temperature, pH, and turbidity) at 15-minute intervals. 

Results: Tidal Hydrology-water surface elevation 

The water surface elevation of the turning basin fluctuated between approximately 1.5 ft and 4 ft 

between high and low tides over the monitoring period with the trend following the lunar cycles 

of high and low tide (Figure 13). This pattern was somewhat confounded by increased river 

discharge during lower magnitude tide events. USGS stream gage data from the Saugus River 

show a pulse in discharge that coincided with two large rainfall events, one on 25 and 26 October 

and one on 6 November 2008, which resulted in considerable increases in river discharge levels 

on these dates. 

The water surface elevation for the downstream data sonde (Hamilton Street) showed a diurnal 

fluctuation that ranged from approximately 2.5 to 8 ft between high and low tides during the 

monitoring period (Figure 14). The expected pattern of the tidal lunar cycle was confounded by 

the two large rainfall events that increased river discharge levels. 

The average water surface elevation at the upstream location (turning basin) over the course of 

the monitoring period was approximately 3.0 ft, compared to an average of 1.4 ft at the 

downstream (Hamilton Street) location. 

Results: Tidal Hydrology-salinity 

There was little salt water intrusion into the turning basin during the first week of sampling 

(early October 2008); however, by mid to late October, high tide events brought higher salinity 

values into the area, indicating that saltwater intrusion was occurring as far upstream as the 

turning basin (Figure 13). This upstream movement of saltwater appears to be influenced heavily 

by stream flow because salinity values were low during periods of high stream flow. In general, 

the data suggests that if stream flow is higher than approximately 10 cfs, limited amounts of 

saltwater will reach the turning basin area, and 
41 

Figure 12. Location of water quality monitoring instruments in 2008 (figure excerpted from CH2MHill 

2009).
42 

Figure 13. Water surface elevation and salinity at the turning basin in 2008 (figure excerpted from CH2MHill 2009). 
43 

Figure 14. Water surface elevation and salinity at Hamilton Street in 2008 (figure excerpted from CH2MHill 2009). 
44 

if stream flow is less than approximately 10 cfs, saltwater will move upstream to the turning 

basin, except during neap tides. 

In general, the salinity values for the downstream (Hamilton Street) location were noticeably 

higher for a given tide event than those at the upstream location. Similar to the upstream 

location, it appears that saltwater reaches Hamilton Street during low flow periods, even on neap 

tides, if the river discharge level remains below about 15 cfs (Figure 14). 

Methods: River Geomorphology and Sediment Composition 

A section of the Saugus River immediately downstream of Bridge Street contains valuable smelt 

spawning habitat. Monitoring changes in river channel geomorphology are important because 

river flow and bed composition can influence rainbow smelt spawning. Cross-sectional 

dimensions and substrate composition (i.e., gravel, sand, and silt/clay composition) of the river 

channel were collected at five transects across the river. 

Pebble counts were conducted for three of the five transects: Transect A, Transect C, and 

Transect 7 (Figure 15, Table 14). Pebble counts were not conducted for Transect F and Transect 

23 because the substrate along these transects was uniformly sand. A total of 50 randomly 

selected particles were measured along each transect. The particles were selected by taking one 

step along the transect and reaching down and picking up the first particle touched. Particles 

were measured along the intermediate axis, not the longest or the shortest side for each particle. 

Results: River Geomorphology and Sediment Composition 

The elevation changes observed in the river channel portions of the cross-sections demonstrate 

the dynamic nature of the river, as some of the bedload sediment showed a redistribution 

between the 2004 and 2008 surveys (Figure 16). Cross-sections A and C show how the gravel 

bar just downstream of Bridge Street has migrated and built up on the west side of the channel as 

a result of high stream flows, likely related to the extreme flows that occurred in May 2006. The 

discharge reached a record level for the Saugus River of 1,420 cfs, a level that is estimated to 

occur once every 40 years (USGS 2006). Cross sections F and 7 show a build-up of bedload 

material in the river channel, while cross-section 23 shows evidence of scouring as the elevation 

decreased in the channel at this location. These changes are likely related to the extreme flows in 

May 2006, but also demonstrate the dynamic nature of rivers, where the movement and 

redistribution of bedload is a natural occurrence. 

Medium to coarse gravel dominated the substrate compositions at Transect A and Transect C. In 

contrast, the substrate along Transect 7 was characterized by finer grained substrate, dominated 

by sand and fine gravel (Table 14). 

Methods: Sediment Analyses and Water Quality 

Six sediment samples were collected from 0 to 6 inches below the sediment surface to monitor 

post-restoration sediment quality. Five of the samples were collected at the transition point from 

the subtidal to intertidal zones along the five cross-sections selected for monitoring. The sixth 

sediment sample was collected within the turning basin.
45 

Figure 15. Pebble count and benthic invertebrate sampling stations in 2008 (figure excerpted and 

modified from CH2MHill 2009) 

A-1

C-1

Bridge Street 
46 

Figure 16. Cross-sections of river channel (figure excerpted from CH2MHill 2009). 
47 

Table 14. Pebble count size distribution (table excerpted from CH2MHill 2009). 

Size Range (mm) Number of Particles 

 Transect A Transect C Transect 7 

<2mm, Sand 6 6 26 

2 to 4mm, Very fine gravel 2 1 7 

4 to 8mm, Fine gravel 6 2 15 

8 to 16mm, Medium gravel 14 5 2 

16 to 32mm, Coarse gravel 16 18 0 

32 to 64mm, Very coarse gravel 5 17 0 

64 to 90mm, Small cobble 0 1 0 

90 to 128mm, Medium cobble 1 0 0 
48 

Results: Sediment Analyses and Water Quality 

Chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc were detected in all the sediment samples. Arsenic was 

detected in only three of the samples and was not detected in sample SD-07R, where it was 

previously found at the highest concentration. Antimony, beryllium, selenium, silver, and 

thallium were not detected in any of the samples. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) 

were not detected in three of the samples (S-23, S-C, and S-F). Only one PAH compound 

(pyrene) was detected in sample SD-07R at a concentration of 221 ug kg-1. Only two PAH 

compounds (fluranthene and pyrene) were detected in sample S-A at concentrations of 204 and 

207 ug kg-1, respectively. Only one sample (S-7) contained several PAH compounds. The 

average concentrations of all the detected metals in the 2008 samples were consistently lower 

than in the pre-restoration samples (Table 15). 

One surface water sample was collected from the river channel and analyzed for PPMs in 2008. 

The only metal detected in the surface water sample was zinc at a concentration of 0.0271 mg l-1, 

which is below the criteria for the protection of aquatic life for this metal. No other metals were 

detected above the reporting limits. 

Methods: Benthic Invertebrate Community 

The benthic community was surveyed by collecting benthic community samples on 24 

September 2008 from six stations within the study area (Figure 15). Samples were collected from 

three cross-sections (7, 23, and F) within the project area. Two samples were collected from each 

cross-section, one within the river channel or subtidal habitat and one from the transition zone 

from subtidal to intertidal habitat. The samples were collected using an Eckman dredge with a 

sampling surface area of 81 in2

 (9 in x 9 in). Three replicate grabs were collected at each 

sampling station and sieved (500-μm mesh) in the field. Care was taken to replicate the sampling 

depth for each grab as much as possible (i.e., 3-4 in sample depth). The benthic samples were 

preserved with a 5-10% formalin solution. The preserved samples were shipped to Pennington & 

Associates, Cookeville, Tennessee for identification (identified to the lowest practical taxonomic 

level) and enumeration. 

Results: Benthic Invertebrate Community 

Chironomids, commonly known as midges, were the most abundant organism in the 2008 

benthic samples comprising 45% of the total number of organisms collected (Table 16). The 

second most abundant organisms were oligochaetes (majority of individuals from the family 

Tubificidae), which comprised 41% of the organisms collected. The third most abundant 

organisms were amphipods (Gammarus tigrinus), which comprised 9% of the total number of 

organisms. Fourth in abundance were gastropods, or snails, which comprised about 3% of the 

total number of organisms collected. Eight other groups of organisms were found, but together 

comprised less than 1% of the total number of organisms. 

Station F-1, a sand-dominated, subtidal location, contained the greatest abundance of organisms 

of all the stations. Station 7-1, a sand and gravel, subtidal location, contained the greatest number 

of taxa and highest Shannon-Weiner Diversity index, although it had a relatively low abundance 

of organisms (Table 17). There were no distinct differences in these measures between the 

subtidal and intertidal locations, although generally the intertidal locations tended to have a 

higher abundance of organisms. 
49 

The intertidal samples were generally dominated by chironomids (approximately 49% to 68%) in 

contrast to the subtidal samples where these organisms comprised only about 16% to 31% of the 

organisms present (Table 18). The subtidal samples collected in the uniform sand substrate 

habitats (samples F-1 and 23-1) were dominated by oligochaete worms, which comprised 63% to 

73% of the organisms in the samples. The subtidal samples collected in the sand and gravel area 

(sample 7-1) was the only sample where gastropods dominated the community, with 59% of the 

organisms in the sample. This sample also contained the highest diversity and this is likely 

related to the more diverse habitat than that of the uniform sand substrate stations. The 

differences in the benthic community composition within the various habitats are likely related to 

differences in substrate preference among species, although the dominance of oligochaetes, 

primarily tubificid worms, in two of the subtidal stations, may be an indicator of degraded 

habitat. Dominance of tubificid worms can be an indication of an organically enriched or 

polluted environment because oligochaete worms of the family Tubificidae are generally 

classified as a contaminant-tolerant indicator species. 

The benthic data from this survey were compared with the pre-restoration benthic data to 

determine if and how the composition of the benthic community might have changed. This 

comparison revealed that there may have been a shift in the benthic community structure within 

the sand substrate habitat since the restoration project was completed. The common organisms 

found in the sand substrate samples in 2004 were amphipods, which comprised more than 80% 

of the organisms in the samples (Table 18). In contrast, amphipods were third in numerical 

dominance in the 2008 samples, and comprised only 1.5% to 31.3% of the samples. The 

dominance of diptera in the 2008 samples is contrasted sharply by low abundance of these 

organisms in the 2004 samples (less than 2% of the total organisms). A similar increase in the 

abundance of oligochaete worms was observed. Oligochaete worms comprised only about 9% to 

15% of the organisms in the 2004 samples, but in contrast, comprised approximately 6% to 73% 

of the organisms in the 2008 samples. 

The apparent shift in the benthic community may be related to seasonal differences in benthic 

invertebrate abundance because the 2004 samples were collected in July and the 2008 samples 

were collected in late September. However, the changes in the common species within the 

community might also be related to the disturbance created from the restoration project. The 

changes may represent a community in transition that has not yet returned to baseline conditions. 

Future monitoring efforts will provide data to determine whether this change is temporary or 

related to long-term water quality issues in the Saugus River 
50 

Table 15. Comparison of pre- and post-restoration average concentrations of detected metals. One-half 

of reporting limit used for non-detected samples in calculating the average concentration (table excerpted 

from CH2MHill 2009). 

Detected Metal Average Concentration (mg kg-1

) 

2004

Northern Area

2004 

Southern Area

2004 

Average 

2008

Average

Arsenic 14.9 13.9 14.3 2.36 

Cadmium 1.45 1.53 1.5 0.589 

Chromium 57.3 69.5 63.5 18.7 

Copper 60.0 61.8 61.0 13.9 

Lead 171.4 162.4 164.7 30.1 

Mercury 0.291 0.139 0.316 0.057 

Nickel 46.7 44.7 45.8 19.9 

Zinc 261.4 266.7 263.7 68.7 

Table 16. Benthic invertebrate abundance from 2008 sampling (table excerpted from CH2MHill 2009). 

Class or 

Order Family Average number 

(individuals m-2) 

Percent 

of total 

Diptera Chironomidae 5,087 45.06 

Oligochaeta Tubificida, Lumbriculida 4,671 41.37 

Amphipoda Gammaridae 1,064 9.43 

Gastropoda Mesogastropoda, Basommatophora 387 3.43 

Bivalvia Unionoida, Veneroida 23 0.21 

Ostracoda Not Identified 20 0.18 

Polychaeta Nereidae, Spionidae 10 0.08 

Coleoptera Elmidae 10 0.08 

Isopoda Anthuridae 9 0.08 

Turbellaria Tricladida 3 0.03 

Hirudinea Not Identified 3 0.03 

Trichoptera Leptoceridae 3 0.03 
51 

Table 17. Average number of benthic invertebrates, average number of taxa, and diversity index at each 

of the sample stations from 2008 sampling (table excerpted from CH2MHill 2009). 

Sample Location Average number 

(individuals m-2) 

Average number of

Taxa

Shannon-Weiner Index

of Diversity

7-1 (subtidal) 3,419 14 2.137

7-2 (intertidal) 18,122 9 1.959

F-1 (subtidal) 18,855 8 1.422

F-2 (intertidal) 10,378 9 1.565

23-1 (subtidal) 2,673 9 1.929

23-2 (intertidal) 14,294 8 1.604

Table 18. Benthic invertebrate community at each of the sample stations, 2004 and 2008 sampling (data 

excerpted from CH2MHill 2009). Comparison with 2004 samples is only for the five common taxa (n/a 

notation). 

 Percent by Number of Organisms 

 2008 samples 2004 

samples

Class or 

Order 

7-1 

subtidal 

7-2 

intertidal 

F-1

subtidal

F-2

intertidal

23-1

subtidal

23-2 

intertidal 

 Sand1 Sand 

-2

Diptera 16.4 48.9 25.0 67.7 31.0 59.7 1.5 1.2

Oligochaeta 6.3 44.8 72.8 30.6 63.0 7.7 14.7 8.8

Amphipoda 14.4 5.0 1.6 1.5 2.1 31.3 81.9 86.6

Gastropoda 58.6 0.8 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.4

Bivalvia 1.5 0.3 0.2 - 0.2 - - 0.7

Ostracoda -1 - - - 0.5 0.8 n/a n/a

Polychaeta 0.4 - - - 1.0 0.1 n/a n/a

Coleoptera 0.7 0.2 - - - - n/a n/a

Isopoda - - - 0.2 1.2 - n/a n/a

Turbellaria 0.6 - - - - - n/a n/a

Hirudinea 0.6 - - - - - n/a n/a

Trichoptera 0.6 - - - - - n/a n/a

1 “-” Indicates taxa not observed 

Literature Cited 

Agius, B. 2003. Forging changes in an American landscape: Invasive plant species at the Saugus 

Iron Works National Historic Site. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR – 2005/010. 

National Park Service, Woodstock, VT. 

Benson, A. 2004. Carcinus maenas. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL. 

(http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=190). Accessed 11 March 2010 

Braun-Blanquet, J. 1965. Plant sociology: the study of plant communities. London: Hafner. 

Chase, B.C. 2007. Massachusetts 2007: American eel compliance report to the Atlantic States 

Marine Fisheries Commission. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Gloucester, 

MA.

Chase, B.C., M. H. Ayer, K. J. MacGowan, and K. Taylor. 2007. Population Indices of Rainbow 

Smelt Spawning Runs in Massachusetts – completion report. Massachusetts Division of 

Marine Fisheries, Gloucester, MA. 

CH2MHill. 2005. Restore Saugus River Turning Basin and Dock – Monitoring Plan. Technical 

Report, prepared for National Park Service, Denver Service Center, Denver, CO. 

CH2MHill. 2009. Draft Report – 2008 Monitoring Data Report- Restore Saugus River Turning 

Basin and Dock – Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site, Saugus MA, January 2009. 

Clarke, K.R. and R.N. Gorley. 2006. PRIMER (Plymouth Routines in Multivariate Ecological 

Research) v6: User Manual/Tutorial. PRIMER-E, Plymouth, UK. 

Dettmers, R. and K. Rosenberg. 2000. Draft Partners in Flight landbird conservation plan: 

Physiographic Area 9: Southern New England. Version 1.0, October 2000. American 

Bird Conservancy. Ithaca, NY. 

 (http://www.blm.gov/wildlife/plan/pl_09_10.pdf). Accessed 11 March 2010. 

Faccio, S.D. and B.R. Mitchell. 2009. Northeast Temperate Network Breeding Landbird 

Monitoring 2009 Annual Report. National Park Service, Woodstock, VT. 

Faccio, S., B. R. Mitchell, and P. S. Pooler. 2010. Breeding landbird monitoring protocol: Northeast 

Temperate Network. Natural Resource Report NPS/NETN/NRR—2010/198. National Park 

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/NETN/monitor/birds/docs/NETN_Landbird_Protocol_

FINAL_20100519.pdf

Fuller, P. 2004. Micropterus salmoides. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, 

FL. (http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=401). Accessed 11 March
Gilbert, A. T., A. F. O’Connell, Jr., E. M. Annand, N. W. Talancy, J. R. Sauer, and J. D. Nichols. 

2008. An inventory of terrestrial mammals at National Parks in the Northeast Temperate 

Network and Sagamore Hill NHS. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2007-5247. Laurel, MD. 

(http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/sir/sir20075245?from=home). Accessed 6 April 2010. 

James-Pirri, M.J. 2004. Summary of Nekton and Vegetation Sampling at Saugus Iron Works 

National Historic Site, June-August 2004. Data report submitted to the National Park 

Service dated November 11, 2004. 

James-Pirri, M.-J., C.T. Roman, and J. Heltshe. 2007. Power analysis to determine sample size 

for monitoring vegetation change in salt marsh habitats. Wetlands Ecology and 

Management 15:335-345. DOI: 10.1007/s11273-007-9034-x. 

James-Pirri, M.J., C.T. Roman. (In Review). Monitoring nekton in shallow estuarine habitats 

(Revision #1). A Protocol for the National Park Service’s Long-Term Monitoring 

Program, Northeast Coastal and Barrier Network. Submitted to Sara Stevens, National 

Park Service Northeast Coastal and Barrier Network. 

James-Pirri, M.J., C.T. Roman, and J.F. Heltshe. (In Review). Monitoring Salt Marsh Vegetation 

(Revision #1). A Protocol for the National Park Service’s Long-Term Monitoring 

Program, Northeast Coastal and Barrier Network. Submitted to Sara Stevens, National 

Park Service Northeast Coastal and Barrier Network. 

Kushlan, J.A. 1981. Sampling characteristics of enclosure fish traps. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 110:557-562. 

Lombard, P., W. Gawley, and J. Caldwell. 2006. Freshwater vital-signs monitoring plan for 

National Parks in the Northeast Temperate Network (NETN) PHASE III: Water-quality 

monitoring protocols in lakes, ponds and streams: USGS, Augusta, ME, 222 p. 

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Massachusetts List of Endangered, Threatened 

and Special Concern Species 

http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/species_info/mesa_list/mesa_list.htm

Accessed 5 May 2010. 

Massachusetts Invasive Plant Advisory Group (MIPAG). 2005. The evaluation of non-native 

plant species for invasiveness in Massachusetts (with annotated list). 

(http://www.massnrc.org/MIPAG/) Accessed 6 April 2010. 

McNiff, C. and M. Albert. 2010. Saugus Iron Works wildlife observation summary: Summer 

2009. National Park Service. Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site January 9, 2010. 

National Park Service. 2005. 100% Design Development Drawings for Restore Saugus River 

Turning Basin and Dock, Sub Sheet C11, Sheet 12, June 2005. National Park Service, 

Denver Service Center. Denver, CO. 
National Park Service. 2006. Restore Saugus River Turing Basin and Dock: Summary of 

Historic and Natural Resource Values. Project Synopsis July 14, 2006. Saugus Iron 

Works National Historic Site, Saugus, MA, National Park Service, U.S. Department of 

Interior. 

New England Environmental, Inc. 2009. Site Visit Results. Memo dated 31 July 2009. Amherst, 

MA. 

Raposa, K.B. and C.T. Roman. 2001. Monitoring nekton in shallow estuarine habitats. Part of a 

series of monitoring protocols for the Long-term Coastal Ecosystem Monitoring Program 

at Cape Cod National Seashore. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Coastal 

Research Field Station, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI 02882. 

(http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/VitalSigns/BrowseProtocol.aspx) Accessed 6 

April 2010. 

Raposa, K.B., C.T. Roman and J.F. Heltshe. 2003. Monitoring nekton as a bioindicator in 

shallow estuarine habitats. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 81: 239-255. 

Roman, C.T., M.J. James-Pirri, and J.F. Heltshe. 2001. Monitoring Salt Marsh Vegetation: Part 

of a series of monitoring protocols for the Long-term Coastal Ecosystem Monitoring 

Program at Cape Cod National Seashore. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 

Coastal Research Field Station, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI 02882. 

(http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/VitalSigns/BrowseProtocol.aspx) Accessed 6 

April 2010. 

Rozas, L.P. and T.J. Minello. 1997. Estimating densities of small fishes and decapod crustaceans 

in shallow estuarine habitats: a review of sampling design with focus on gear selection. 

Estuaries 20:199-213. 

Sogard, S.M. and K.W. Able. 1991. A comparison of eelgrass, sea lettuce macroalgae, and marsh 

creeks as habitats for epibenthic fishes and decapods. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf 

Science 33:501-519. 

Trocki C. and P. Paton. 2005. Avian surveys in Northeast Temperate Network Parks. Technical 

Report NPS/NER/NRTR--2005/004. National Park Service, Woodstock, VT. 

USDA. 2004. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5 (http://plants.usda.gov), Accessed 6 April 

2010. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. 

USGS. 2004. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database. Gainesville, FL. http://nas.er.usgs.gov

Accessed 7 September 2010. 

USGS. 2006. U.S. Geological Survey. Flooding in Massachusetts, May 2006. USGS Release, 

May 22, 2006. http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1510 Accessed 6 April 

2010.