U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

The U.S. Geological Survey Streamflow and 

Observation-Well Network in 

Massachusetts and Rhode Island

By PHILLIP J. ZARRIELLO and ROY S. SOCOLOW

Open-File Report 03-277

In cooperation with the

MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; 

MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; 

METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION; WATER RESOURCES BOARD; 

RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; 

PROVIDENCE WATER SUPPLY BOARD; and the 

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Northborough, Massachusetts

2003
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

GALE A. NORTON, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Charles G. Groat, Director

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does 

not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

For additional information write to:

Chief, Massachusetts–Rhode Island District

U.S. Geological Survey

10 Bearfoot Road

Northborough, MA 01532

or visit our Web site at

http://ma.water.usgs.gov

Copies of this report can be purchased from:

U.S. Geological Survey

Branch of Information Services

Box 25286

Denver, CO 80225-0286
Contents III

CONTENTS

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

Introduction......................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Purpose and Scope.................................................................................................................................................... 2

Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................................................... 2

Previous Studies........................................................................................................................................................ 3

Network Objectives............................................................................................................................................................ 4

National Interest........................................................................................................................................................ 8

State Interest.............................................................................................................................................................. 12

Other Interest............................................................................................................................................................. 12

Trends in the Network........................................................................................................................................................ 14

Modernization of Streamflow Monitoring.............................................................................................................. 15

Modernization of Ground-Water-Level Monitoring .............................................................................................. 17

Correlated Streamgage Stations......................................................................................................................................... 18

Streamgage-Station Metrics............................................................................................................................................... 19

Record Length .......................................................................................................................................................... 19

Regulation................................................................................................................................................................. 19

Physiographic Region............................................................................................................................................... 20

Basin Characteristics ................................................................................................................................................ 22

Physical Characteristics.................................................................................................................................. 22

Land-Cover Characteristics............................................................................................................................ 24

Combined Metrics .................................................................................................................................................... 24

Observation-Well Metrics.................................................................................................................................................. 29

Record Length .......................................................................................................................................................... 19

Physiographic Region............................................................................................................................................... 20

Geologic Material..................................................................................................................................................... 30

Well Depth................................................................................................................................................................ 30

Future Directions of the Monitoring Network.................................................................................................................. 32

Summary............................................................................................................................................................................. 33

References Cited ................................................................................................................................................................ 34

Appendix 1: Streamgage Stations, Observation Wells, and Summary Tables by Major Basin in 

Massachusetts and Rhode Island......................................................................................................................... 37

Appendix 2: Table of Correlated Streamgage Stations in Massachusetts and Rhode Island ........................................ 109

FIGURES

1. Bar graph showing the number of U.S. Geological Survey streamgage stations operated in 

Massachusetts and Rhode Island by category of data use, 2000 water year............................................... 5

2. Map showing the locations of streamgage stations in Massachusetts and Rhode Island identified 

for inclusion in the National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP) ..................................................... 10

3–6. Bar graphs showing: 

3. Number of continuous streamgage stations reported annually, 1900 to 2000.................................... 15

4. Number of observation well records reported annually, 1900 to 2000............................................... 16

5. Record length of streamgage stations for (A) all stations (includes discontinued 

stations), and (B) stations active during the 2000 water year............................................................... 19

6. Number of streamgage stations affected by regulation, 2000 water year ........................................... 20

7. Map showing the physiographic regions, major river basins, and the streamflow station and 

observation-well network, 2000 water year.................................................................................................. 21
IV Contents

8. Bar graph showing distribution of streamgage stations by physiographic region, 2000 water year.......... 22

9. Box plots showing summary of selected basin characteristics upstream of active streamgage 

stations, 2000 water year: (A) physical characteristics, and (B) land-cover characteristics........................ 23

10–19. Bar graphs showing:

10. Number of streamgage stations by drainage-area size for (A) active stations during the 

2000 water year, and (B) discontinued stations.................................................................................... 24

11. Number of active streamgage stations by physiographic region and years of record, 

2000 water year ...................................................................................................................................... 25

12. Number of active streamgage stations by physiographic region and regulation, 

2000 water year ...................................................................................................................................... 26

13. Number of active streamgage stations by drainage-area size and physiographic region, 

2000 water year ...................................................................................................................................... 26

14. Number of active streamgage stations by regulation and record length, 2000 water year................. 27

15. Number of active streamgage stations by record length and drainage-area size, 

2000 water year ...................................................................................................................................... 28

16. Number of active streamgage stations by drainage-area size and regulation, 

2000 water year ...................................................................................................................................... 28

17. Record length of observation wells, 2000 water year .......................................................................... 30

18. Number of observation wells in the 2000 water year by physiographic region and type of 

geologic material in which the well is finished .................................................................................... 31

19. Box plots showing depths of observation wells by (A) type of geologic material, and 

(B) physiographic region, 2000 water year................................................................................................... 32

TABLES

1. Streamgage stations in Massachusetts and Rhode Island identified for inclusion in the 

U.S. Geological Survey National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP) ............................................. 9

2. Streamgage stations in Massachusetts and Rhode Island included in the U.S. Geological 

Survey national Hydro-Climatic Data Network (HCDN)............................................................................ 11

3. Observation wells in Massachusetts and Rhode Island included in the U.S. Geological Survey 

national Collection of Basic Records (CBR) observation-well network..................................................... 12

4. Additional streamgage stations identified in a monitoring needs assessment survey................................. 14

5. Number of active streamgage stations unaffected by regulation, tabulated by drainage-area 

range and physiographic region, 2000 water year ........................................................................................ 29

6. Number of active streamgage stations unaffected by regulation, or unaffected by regulation at 

high flows, tabulated by drainage-area range and physiographic region, 2000 water year........................ 29
Contents V

CONVERSION FACTORS, VERTICAL COORDINATE INFORMATION,

HORIZONTAL COORDINATE INFORMATION, AND ACRONYMS

CONVERSION FACTORS

VERTICAL COORDINATE INFORMATION

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29). 

Elevation, as used in this report, refers to distance above NGVD 29.

HORIZONTAL COORDINATE INFORMATION

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83), 

ACRONYMS

ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler

ADVMS Acoustic Doppler Velocity Meters

DCP Digital Collection Platforms

EOEA Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 

MA–RI Massachusetts and Rhode Island

MADEM Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management

MADEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

MWRA Massachusetts Water Resources Authority

MDC Metropolitan District Commission

MDC-DWM Massachusetts Metropolitan District Commission Division of Watershed Management

NWIS National Water Information System

NWS National Weather Service

PWSB Providence Water Supply Board

RIDEM Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management

RIWRB Rhode Island Water Resources Board

SAS Statistical Analysis System

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

Multiply By To obtain

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)

Abstract 1

The U.S. Geological Survey Streamflow and 

Observation-Well Network in 

Massachusetts and Rhode Island 

By Phillip J. Zarriello and Roy S. Socolow

ABSTRACT

The U.S. Geological Survey began systematic 

streamflow monitoring in Massachusetts nearly 

100 years ago (1904) on the Connecticut River at 

Montague City. Since that time, hydrologic data 

collection has evolved into a monitoring network of 

103 streamgage stations and 200 ground-water 

observation wells in Massachusetts and Rhode Island 

(2000 water year). Data from this network provide 

critical information for a variety of purposes to 

Federal, State, and local government agencies, 

engineering consultants, and the public. The uses of 

this information have been enhanced by the fact that 

about 70 percent of the streamgage stations and a 

small but increasing number of observation wells in 

Massachusetts and Rhode Island have been equipped 

with digital collection platforms that transmit 

data by satellite every 4 hours. Twenty-one of the 

telemetered streamgage stations are also equipped 

with precipitation recorders. The near real-time data 

provided by these stations, along with historical data 

collected at all stations, are available over the Internet 

at no charge. 

The monitoring network operated during the 

2000 water year was summarized and evaluated with 

respect to spatial distribution, the current uses of the 

data, and the physical characteristics associated with 

the monitoring sites. This report provides maps that 

show locations and summary tables for active 

continuous record streamgage stations, discontinued 

streamgage stations, and observation wells in each of 

the 28 major basins identified by the Massachusetts 

Executive Office of Environmental Affairs and 

five of the major Rhode Island basins. Metrics of 

record length, regulation, physiographic region and 

physical and land-cover characteristics indicate 

that the streamflow-monitoring network represents 

a wide range of drainage-area sizes, physiographic 

regions, and basin characteristics. Most streamgage 

stations are affected by regulation, which provides 

information for specific water-management 

purposes, but diminishes the usefulness of these 

stations for many types of hydrologic analysis. Only 

26 of the 103 active streamgage stations operated by 

the U.S. Geological Survey in Massachusetts and 

Rhode Island are unaffected by regulation; of these, 

17 are in Massachusetts and 9 are in Rhode Island. 

The paucity of unregulated stations is particularly 

evident when the stations are grouped into five 

drainage-area size classes; the fact that about half of 

these size classes have no representative unregulated 

stations underscores the importance of establishing 

and maintaining stations that are unaffected by 

regulation. The observation-well network comprises 

200 wells; 80 percent of these wells are finished in 

sand and gravel, 19 percent are finished in till, and 1 

percent are finished in bedrock. About 6 percent of 

the wells are equipped with continuous data 

recorders, and about half of these are capable of 

transmitting data in near real time. 
2 The U.S. Geological Survey Streamflow and Observation-Well Network in Massachusetts and Rhode Island

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) MA–RI 

District has collected streamflow and ground-water-level 

data in Massachusetts and Rhode Island for nearly 

100 years. Data are collected through the operation of a 

network of streamflow gages and observation wells 

in cooperation with other Federal, State, and local 

government agencies. Data from this network provide 

critical information for water supply, the management and 

regulation of dam storage and release, the magnitudes and 

frequencies of flood flows and low flows, trends in 

hydrologic conditions associated with rapidly changing 

land use, and for many other purposes. The network 

also provides regional information from which estimates 

of hydrologic characteristics at ungaged sites can be 

obtained. Thus, the network serves the dual purpose of 

obtaining site-specific data and regional data. Often, 

however, site-specific data needs are incompatible with 

regional data requirements. For example, a station 

operated to monitor streamflow below a dam may not 

provide information useful for developing regional-flow 

equations. Streamgage stations and observation wells 

must be maintained to reflect a wide range of hydrologic 

conditions to meet the needs of the users of this 

information within the constraints of the resources 

available.

Purpose and Scope

This report provides a broad description and 

characteristics of the long-term streamgage and the 

observation-well network required to meet waterresource planning and management needs. The 

purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the 

existing continuously recording streamgage station and 

observation well network operated by the USGS MA–RI 

District office. This network is evaluated with respect 

to current uses of the data, spatial distribution, and 

physical characteristics of the gaged basins. The report 

also describes trends in the historical operation of the 

network, funding sources, and modernization with 

emphasis on the streamgage stations. Most conditions 

presented in this report are current as of the 2000 water 

year (October 1, 1999, to September 30, 2000); however, 

some conditions, such as equipment modernization, have 

been updated through the 2002 water year. The report 

includes maps and summary tables of active streamgage 

stations, discontinued streamgage stations, and 

observation wells for each of the 28 major basins 

identified by the Massachusetts Executive Office of 

Environmental Affairs (EOEA) and five major Rhode 

Island basins (Appendix 1). 

Acknowledgments

The operation of the monitoring network in 

Massachusetts and Rhode Island is funded through 

cooperative agreements between the USGS and other 

Federal, State, and local government agencies. In the 

2000 water year, the USGS received financial support 

from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE); 

State of Massachusetts—Department of Environmental 

Management (MADEM), Department of Environmental 

Protection (MADEP), Metropolitan District Commission 

(MDC), and the Towns of Dartmouth, Franklin, and 

Rockport; State of Rhode Island—Water Resources Board 

(RIWRB) Department of Environmental Management 

Measuring discharge on the Saugus River at the Saugus River Ironworks, 

Saugus, Massachusetts (station number—01102345).
Introduction 3

(RIDEM), and the Providence Water Supply Board 

(PWSB). The USGS also receives non-monetary services 

from the Cape Cod Commission, the Cooperative 

Extension of Martha’s Vineyard, and the Nantucket Land 

Council to support the observation-well network in those 

areas. The authors are grateful to USGS employees Peter 

Steeves and Tomas Smieszek for compiling geographic 

information for the hydrologic monitoring network.

Previous Studies

Much of the information in this report was 

compiled from information provided in the USGS annual 

data reports (for example, Socolow and others, 2001). 

The annual data reports contain information on station 

descriptions; hydrologic conditions for the year; dailystreamflow values; daily, bimonthly, or monthly groundwater-level data; and statistical information about the 

current year’s data relative to the historical data collected 

at a site. Annual data reports also provide information 

on discontinued stations, partial record sites, and 

miscellaneous measurements made during the current 

water year, water-quality data, and information about 

how the data were collected. Partial-record sites and 

miscellaneous measurements provide data to augment the 

continuous monitoring network; partial-record sites are 

typically operated for specific hydrologic investigations 

for relatively short periods and, therefore, are not 

described further in this report. 

The USGS does not operate a long-term 

water-quality monitoring network in Massachusetts or 

Rhode Island. Water-quality data are collected and 

published in annual data reports or in specific hydrologic 

investigation reports. The need for a consistent waterquality monitoring network for Massachusetts streams 

and ponds, and the scope and specifications of such a 

network are described by DeSimone and others (2001).

An evaluation of the national streamgagemonitoring network and its associated Federal interest 

was prepared for Congress (U.S. Geological Survey, 

1999). The Federal interests of a hydrologic monitoring 

network are to quantify (1) interstate and international 

transfers of water, (2) flood warning and forecasting, 

(3) water budgets of major watersheds, (4) long-term 

hydrologic changes (trends), and (5) water quality. 

Although the need for streamflow data has continued to 

increase over time, the report for Congress pointed out the 

total number of streamgage stations has declined since 

the 1970s. In particular, the loss of streamgage stations 

with 30 or more years of record diminishes the ability to 

understand the long-term changes taking place in the 

environment or relations between climate, land use, and 

streamflow. Stations have been eliminated from the 

national network not because of their hydrologic value, 

but because of the financial constraints of cooperating 

agencies. The report to Congress also identified the need 

to modernize the streamgage network, harden streamgage 

installations from structural damage during floods, 

provide backup systems for near real-time dissemination 

of data, extend rating curves, and operate precipitation 

gages in conjunction with streamgage stations.

Streamgage station on the Ipswich River at South Middleton, 

Massachusetts (station number—01101500), during record high flows in 

March 2001.
4 The U.S. Geological Survey Streamflow and Observation-Well Network in Massachusetts and Rhode Island

Wahl and others (1995) described the national uses 

of streamflow data collected at 7,292 streamgage stations 

in operation as of 1994. The national evaluation indicated 

that most data were used for regional hydrologic or 

hydrologic system investigations and that data from 80 

percent of the stations were used in two or more of nine 

principal-use categories. The national network is 

supported by over 600 Federal, State, and local agencies, 

which provide 50 percent or more of the funds needed to 

operate these stations. The USGS funds the remainder 

through the Federal-State Cooperative Program; fewer 

than 10 percent of the streamgage stations are funded 

entirely by USGS. Thomas and Wahl (1993) concluded 

that the national network was operated in an efficient and 

cost-effective manner.

A streamgage-network analysis in the MA–RI 

District was completed in the early to mid-1980s 

(Gadoury and others, 1985). This analysis focused 

on the cost effectiveness of the network and the potential 

for reducing the numbers of streamgage stations by 

estimating flow by unit-flow routing from upstream or 

downstream stations or regression models that estimate 

flow from physical basin characteristics. This analysis 

concluded that the alternative flow-estimation techniques 

examined could not provide the same level of accuracy as 

a continuous streamgage station. This conclusion would 

limit most uses of these data. Of seven sites identified by 

Gadoury and others (1985) as candidates for alternative 

flow estimation, only one site, Cadwell Creek near 

Belchertown (0117490) in central Massachusetts, was 

discontinued (in 1997). The report concluded that 

alternative routes for site visits would not produce 

appreciable costs savings in the operation of the 

streamgage network. The network analysis report 

identified a streamgage on Cape Cod (Herring River at 

North Harwich—01105880) that could be replaced with 

an alternative site less influenced by regulation and 

evaporation from an upstream pond. The Herring River 

station was subsequently replaced in 1988 with a station 

on the Quashnet River at Waquoit Village (011058837) on 

Cape Cod. 

NETWORK OBJECTIVES

Streamgage stations and observation wells provide 

data for a variety of purposes for water-resources planning 

and design, hydrologic research, and operation of waterresources projects. To meet these needs, the monitoring 

network must provide consistent long-term data and 

provide ready access to the data. The process begins by 

employing a skilled staff to maintain and operate the 

network by using state-of-the-art equipment and 

culminates with storage of the data collected through the 

network in an accessible and dependable database.

Most hydrologic data collected by the USGS over 

the last 100 years is stored in the USGS National Water 

Information System (NWIS) database. In 2001, the NWIS 

Measuring discharge from a cableway, Squannacook River near West 

Groton, Massachusetts (station number—01096000).
Network Objectives 5

database contained streamflow data for about 21,000 sites, 

water-level data from more than 1,000,000 wells, and 

chemical data from surface water and ground water at 

338,000 sites (Brooks, 2001). In 1994, the Automated 

Data Processing System (ADAPS) part of NWIS 

(continuously recorded data) stored over 400,000 stationyears of record (Wahl and others, 1995). ADAPS contains 

mean daily discharge data for 198 streams and rivers in 

Massachusetts and Rhode Island; these data represented 

about 6,000 station-years of record as of the 2000 water 

year. The NWIS database also includes the ground-water 

site inventory (GWSI), which contains about 31,000 sites 

(the GWSI contains all site locations and nonautomated 

ground-water-level measurements), and the water-quality 

database (QWDATA), which contains data from 4,500 

sites in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Data stored in 

NWIS is typically available at no charge, and most data 

can be directly accessed through the Internet. 

Streamflow data in this report were categorized into 

1 or more of 11 principal uses (fig. 1). Qualitative-use 

categories were determined from (1) cooperating agency’s 

reported reasons for funding a station, (2) data requests, 

(3) hydrographers’ knowledge, and (4) responses to 

questionnaires from Massachusetts EOEA Watershed 

Team leaders and cooperating agencies about how they 

use the data. The categories are generally listed in order 

of the number of stations in each use category. 

The distribution of active stations in the 2000 

water year among each of the 11 categories indicates that 

most data are used for regional hydrologic information 

(45 percent of all stations). Stations were not assigned 

exclusively to one use category; rather, the station was 

assigned to all use categories that apply to it. About 55 

percent of all stations provide information for two or more 

categories. Eighteen stations in Massachusetts and one 

station in Rhode Island provide data for three or more use 

categories.

In my work, whether as a real estate broker 

in Berkshire Hills of western Massachusetts, 

as a Conservation Commissioner for my town 

of Stockbridge, or as a local watershed project 

coordinator for the Housatonic Valley Association, 

USGS map products and on-line web sites provide 

exceptional value for my tax dollar because they 

empower all of us to do far better work than we 

could do on our own. That’s what I have always 

thought government was suppose to do, you-all 

have hit the mark dead center.

—Shepley W. Evans, Stockbridge, 

Massachusetts; in U.S. Geological Survey, 

1999, p. 10

Rhode Island

Massachusetts

Minimum-Flow

Requirements

Monitoring below 

Wastewater Effluents

Water-Supply Quality

Hydrologic Forecasting

Flood Control

Ground-Water/

Surface-Water Relations

Project Specific

Recreation

Water-Supply Quantity

0 10 20 30 40

NUMBER OF STATIONS

Regional 

Hydrologic Information

Monitoring below

Power Dams

Figure 1. Number of U.S. Geological Survey streamgage stations operated in 

Massachusetts and Rhode Island by category of data use, 2000 water year.
6 The U.S. Geological Survey Streamflow and Observation-Well Network in Massachusetts and Rhode Island

Regional hydrologic information: These 

stations provide data that can be used to develop relations 

between basin characteristics and hydrologic conditions, 

extrapolate short-term streamflow data to reflect longterm conditions, and assess long-term hydrologic trends. 

STREAMSTATS (Ries and others, 2000), an application 

for determining flow characteristics at ungaged sites in 

Massachusetts, is an example of regional hydrologic use 

of the streamgage data. Regional hydrologic analysis 

requires data that are unaffected, or are minimally 

affected, by regulation under flow conditions appropriate 

for the regional analysis under consideration. Thirty-five 

stations in Massachusetts and 17 stations in Rhode Island 

provide data for this type of use.

Water-supply quantity: These stations provide 

data to state agencies and water suppliers to assess public 

water supplies. These stations are on major tributaries to 

supply reservoirs or the outlet from the reservoir, or both, 

and in rivers that have surface-water withdrawals. Twentysix stations in Massachusetts and eight stations in Rhode 

Island provide data for this type of use.

Hydrologic forecasting: Many stations provide 

information useful in flood forecasting and flood warning. 

These stations play a key role in efforts by Federal, State, 

and local agencies to protect the lives and welfare of the 

public. The National Weather Service (NWS) relies on 

these stations as part of their flood-forecasting system. 

Historical streamflow data are used by the NWS to 

calibrate river-forecasting models. Flood stages identified 

by the NWS are displayed on the USGS Web pages to 

provide immediate access to users during floods. Twentyfive stations in Massachusetts and one station in Rhode 

Island provide data for this type of use.

Flood control: These stations are below floodcontrol dams and are used by water managers for making 

operational decisions on outflow from the dam. The 

ACOE is the principal user of these data. Twenty-five 

stations in Massachusetts and no Rhode Island stations 

provide data for this type of use.

Minimum-flow requirements: These stations are 

used to monitor streamflow affected by water-supply 

withdrawals. Streamflow data is increasingly important 

for habitat protection, and maintaining streamflow has 

become a focal issue for water-supply planners and 

managers since the passage of the Massachusetts Water 

Management Act of 1986 (Massachusetts Water 

Management Act, 1986, accessed July 17, 2002). Many of 

these stations have been established as a requirement for 

permitting new withdrawals and have been in operation 

for a relatively short time. Some stations in this category 

are used to monitor streamflow for fish migration. 

Thirteen stations in Massachusetts and one station in 

Rhode Island provide data for this type of use.

Stage-discharge control for monitoring flows for water supply in the Quabbin 

Reservoir on East Branch Swift River near Hardwick, Massachusetts (station 

number—01174500). 

The streamflow-monitoring network provides critical information on peak 

flows essential for designing bridges and culverts, flood zoning, and land-use 

planning. 
Network Objectives 7

Water-supply quality: Streamflow data, along 

with the water-chemistry data, provide essential 

information for evaluating water-quality conditions in 

rivers and receiving-water lakes, reservoirs, and estuaries. 

Nine stations in Massachusetts and none in Rhode Island 

provide data for this type of use.

Recreation: Streamgage stations have not been 

operated solely for the purpose of recreational use; 

however, stations provide data to the commercial 

recreation industry, particularly white-water rafting 

adventure companies and for noncommercial 

recreational uses such as canoeists, rafters, and anglers. 

Noncommercial uses are difficult to estimate and are not 

included in this category; however, anecdotal information 

indicates that use of streamflow data for these purposes is 

extensive. Eight stations in Massachusetts and no stations 

in Rhode Island provide data for this type of use.

Ground-water/surface-water relations: Stations 

near observation wells could help provide data on the 

interaction between ground- and surface-water resources. 

Several project-specific water-resource investigations use 

data that relate ground-water conditions to streamflow; 

however, no continuous statewide programs exist to 

evaluate this relation. Seven stations in Massachusetts and 

one Rhode Island station provide data for this type of use.

Monitoring below wastewater effluents: These 

stations are on streams near effluents from wastewatertreatment plants. The stations provide data to help assess 

the impact of wastewater effluents on receiving waters, 

and in recent years, have become important for 

establishment of total maximum daily loads (TMDL) 

allocations to improve water-quality conditions of surface 

waters. Five stations in Massachusetts and none in Rhode 

Island provide data for this type of use.

Monitoring below power dams: These stations 

were established to satisfy a legal responsibility of the 

USGS or its cooperator to monitor streamflow below 

hydroelectric power-generating facilities for the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Four stations in 

Massachusetts and one Rhode Island station provide data 

for this type of use.

Project specific: Stations assigned to this category 

are typically short-term stations that have been installed to 

meet a specific project need. The number of active project 

stations varies from year to year. These stations are 

generally discontinued after the data needs of the project 

are satisfied. During the 2000 water year, two stations in 

Massachusetts and two stations in Rhode Island provided 

data for this type of use.

Flooding in Southbridge, Massachusetts, in August 1955 following back-toback Hurricanes Connie and Diane that dropped about 20 inches of rain in the 

Quinebaug River basin in a 2-week period. [Photo taken by Jim Houghton, 

courtesy of Richard Whitney (dickwhitney@meganet.net).]

Damage caused by the August 1955 flood on Mechanic Street, Southbridge, 

Massachusetts. (Photo taken by Donald Whitney, courtesy of Richard 

Whitney.)
8 The U.S. Geological Survey Streamflow and Observation-Well Network in Massachusetts and Rhode Island

National Interests

The USGS has identified five core interests for its 

National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP). The 

NSIP interests are (Hirsch and Norris, 2001; U.S. 

Geological Survey, 1999):

• Interstate and international waters: Provide data 

to support interstate compacts, court decisions, and 

international treaties on rivers at state-line crossings, 

compact points and international boundaries.

• Flood forecasting: Provide real-time stage and 

discharge data required to support flood forecasting 

by the NWS.

• River basin outflows: Provide data for resource 

managers to account for streamflow from each of 

the Nation’s 350 major river basins to the next 

downstream basin, estuary, ocean, or Great Lakes.

• Sentinel watersheds: Provide data that describe the 

changing status of streamflow as it varies in 

response to climate, land use, and water use in the 

800 watersheds across the country that are relatively 

unaffected by flow regulation or diversion and 

typify major ecoregions and river basins.

• Water quality: Provide data to support three 

national USGS water-quality networks on (1) the 

major rivers of the Nation, (2) intermediate-sized 

rivers, and (3) small pristine watersheds.

The MA–RI District Office, in conjunction with the 

USGS Office of Surface Water, has identified 23 

streamgage stations in Massachusetts and 2 streamgage 

stations in Rhode Island that meet NSIP interests (table 1, 

fig. 2). Three streamgage stations were identified for 

discharge information at interstate boundaries, 17 stations 

were identified for flood-forecasting needs, 4 stations 

were identified to provide water-budget data for major 

river basins, 3 stations were identified for monitoring 

long-term hydrologic trends, and 5 stations were 

identified to support USGS water-quality networks. Most 

potential NSIP stations are currently part of the existing 

streamflow-monitoring network, three new stations were 

identified for flood-forecasting purposes, and one 

discontinued station was identified for reactivation to 

collect discharge data at an interstate boundary.

Stations that meet one or more of the NSIP interests 

and are currently operated in cooperation with other 

Federal, State, and local agencies may be eligible for 

additional funding from the USGS in the future. The U.S. 

Congress has recognized that the disproportional decline 

in the number of long-term unregulated streamgage 

stations can adversely affect the achievement of the goals 

of this network and that new strategies are needed to fund 

the continued operation of priority stations (Hirsh and 

Norris, 2001).

The streamgage station (stage sensor is in the pipe protruding from the 

cement retaining wall) below the fish ladder on Whitmans Pond outlet in 

East Weymouth, Massachusetts (station number—01105608), provides 

data to help determine water-supply availability and flow for spring and fall 

herring runs. 
Network Objectives 9

Table 1. Streamgage stations in Massachusetts and Rhode Island identified for inclusion in the U.S. Geological Survey National Streamflow Information 

Program (NSIP)

[Status: A-Active, I-Inactive, N-New]

Station number Station name Status Interstate 

boundary

Flood

forecasting

Basin

water 

budgets

Long-term 

trend

Water 

quality

Massachusetts

01095220 Stillwater River near Sterling A •

01096500 Nashua River at East Pepperell A •

01097000 Assabet River at Maynard A •

01099500 Concord River below River Meadow Brook at Lowell A •

01100000 Merrimack River below Concord River at Lowell A • • • •

01100561 Spicket River near Methuen A •

01102500 Aberjona River at Winchester A •

01103500 Charles River near Dover A •

01104500 Charles River at Waltham A •

01104615 Charles River above Watertown Dam at Watertown A •

01105000 Neponset River at Norwood A •

01110500 Blackstone River at Northbridge A •

01162500 Priest Brook near Winchendon A •

01170100 Green River near Colrain A •

01170500 Connecticut River at Montague City A • • •

01172003 Connecticut River below Power Dam at Holyoke A •

01177000 Chicopee River at Indian Orchard A •

01183500 Westfield River near Westfield A •

01197500 Housatonic River near Great Barrington A • •

01198125 Housatonic River near Ashley Falls I •

MA 100 Merrimack River near Haverhill N •

MA 101 Merrimack River above Lowell N •

MA 102 Connecticut River below Montague City, above Holyoke N •

Rhode Island 

01112500 Blackstone River at Woonsocket A • •

01117500 Pawcatuck River at Wood River Junction A •
10 The U.S. Geological Survey Streamflow and Observation-Well Network in Massachusetts and Rhode Island DEERFIELD HUDSON WESTFIELD MILLERS NASHUA QUINEBAUG CONNECTICUT FARMINGTON CHICOPEE NORTH COASTAL IPSWICH PARKER MERRIMACK SUASCOCHARLES TAUNTON BLACKSTONE BOSTON HARBOR PAWTUXET Hunt ISLANDS CAPE COD BUZZARDS BAY NARRAGANSETT BAY HOUSATONIC SOUTH COASTAL TEN MILE PAWCATUCK

BLOCK ISLAND SOUND

FRENCH

Moshassuck

Woonasquatucket

QUINEBAUG

SHAWSHEEN

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:25,000, 1991,Lambert conformal conic projection. NAD 83

RHODE ISLAND

VERMONT

CONNECTICU

T

NEW HAMPSHIRE

NEW YORK

01198125

01197500

01170100

01170500

01162500

01172003

01177000

01185500

01096500

01095220

01110500

01112500

01117500

MA100

MA101

01100561 01100000

01099500

01102500

01104615 01104500

01097000

01103500

01105000

MA102

0117050001185500

MA100

01198125

MAJOR WATERSHED BOUNDARY

STREAMGAGE STATION AND NUMBER PARTIALLY FUNDED BY NSIP IN THE 2000 WATER YEAR

POTENTIAL NSIP STREAMGAGE STATIONS

Existing station and number New station and identification Reactivated discontinued station and number

EXPLANATION

0 25 50 75 KILOMETERS 

0 25 50 MILES

42o00'

73o00' 72o00'

42o30'

41o30'

70o00'

71o00'

Figure 2. Locations of streamgage stations in Massachusetts and Rhode Island identified for inclusion in the U.S. Geological Survey National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP).
Network Objectives 11

In the late 1980s, a network of streamgage stations 

was selected for study of surface-water conditions 

throughout the United States under fluctuations in the 

prevailing climatic conditions. These stations were 

designated as the Hydro-Climatic Data Network, or 

HCDN (Slack and others, 1992; 1994). This network 

consists of 1,659 streamgage stations throughout United 

States and its Territories and includes 17 stations in 

Massachusetts and 7 stations in Rhode Island (table 2). 

Stations selected for this network were thought to be 

largely unaffected by artificial diversions, storage, or other 

synthetic influences and, therefore, were suited to provide 

reliable data on natural hydrologic responses to 

fluctuations in climate. The HCDN network includes four 

stations (01165000, 01173000, 01175500, 01180500) that

1Stations appreciably affected by dam regulation or diversion, or both.

are appreciably affected by dam regulation or diversion, or 

both. Streamflow at these stations is likely affected by 

factors unrelated to climatic conditions. No additional 

funding has been provided for stations listed in the HCDN 

network.

The importance and uses of a national long-term 

ground-water-level-monitoring network have been 

described by Taylor and Alley (2002) and Grannemann 

(2001). An effort to fund a national water-levelmonitoring network, referred to as the Collection of Basic 

Records (CBR), has been underway by the USGS since 

1995 (U.S. Geological Survey, accessed July 17, 2002). 

Like NSIP, the CBR has identified the need for systematic 

long-term measurement of ground-water levels and the 

essential information these data provide to waterresources managers, planners, and regulators. Some 

important activities that use ground-water-level data are 

the evaluation of changes in ground-water levels over 

time, forecasts of trends, development of ground-waterflow models, and the design, implementation and 

monitoring of ground-water management and protection 

programs (Taylor and Alley, 2002). Observation wells 

identified for inclusion in the CBR include three wells in 

Massachusetts and one well in Rhode Island (table 3). 

Limited funding has been provided annually from the 

USGS NSIP program to support the operation of these 

wells.

Table 2. Streamgage stations in Massachusetts and Rhode Island included 

in the U.S. Geological Survey national Hydro-Climatic Data Network 

(HCDN)

Station number Station Name

Massachusetts Stations

01162500 Priest Brook near Winchendon

011650001 East Branch Tully River near Athol

01165500 Moss Brook at Wendell Depot

01169000 North River at Shattuckville

01169900 South River near Conway

01170100 Green River near Colrain

011730001 Ware River at Intake Works Near Barre

01174000 Hop Brook near New Salem

01174900 Cadwell Creek near Belchertown

011755001 Swift River at West Ware

01176000 Quaboag River at West Brimfield

01180000 Sykes Brook at Knightville

011805001 Middle Branch Westfield River at Goss Heights

01181000 West Branch Westfield River at Huntington

01198000 Green River near Great Barrington

01332000 North Branch Hoosic River at North Adams

01333000 Green River At Williamstown

Rhode Island Stations

01106000 Adamsville Brook at Adamsville

01111300 Nipmuc River near Harrisville

01111500 Branch River at Forestdale

01117500 Pawcatuck River at Wood River Junction

01117800 Wood River near Arcadia

01118000 Wood River at Hope Valley

01118500 Pawcatuck River at Westerly

Stations on unregulated streams provide important information for 

monitoring hydrologic responses to climatic and land-use changes and for 

other hydrologic investigations that require unaltered flow information. 
12 The U.S. Geological Survey Streamflow and Observation-Well Network in Massachusetts and Rhode Island

State Interest

State environmental and water-management 

agencies in Massachusetts and Rhode Island support the 

monitoring network to aid in fulfilling their respective 

missions. State governments share many of the same 

interests as NSIP, but their interest also extends to drought 

analysis, watershed planning and management, water 

supply, and localized or stream-specific management or 

developmental issues. Suburban and urban development 

in Massachusetts and Rhode Island has placed demands 

on State agencies to monitor and manage water resources 

in basins stressed by urbanization, particularly the 

allocation of water resources to meet competing demands 

for water supply and environmental protection. The 1986 

Massachusetts Water Management Act (2002) authorizes 

the MADEP to regulate the quantity of water withdrawn 

from surface- and ground-water supplies to ensure 

adequate water for current and future needs. When 

permitting new withdrawals and the reissuing of permits, 

the MADEP considers streamflow requirements to protect 

stream habitat and relies on data from the monitoring 

network to carry out this task. 

The observation-well network provides essential 

information for the implementation of the Massachusetts 

Title 5 septic-system regulations (Massachusetts 

Department of Environmental Protection, 310 CMR 

15.000, accessed July 17, 2002). In 1981, a technique was 

developed by the USGS to estimate high ground-water 

levels at a proposed septic-system site by comparing a 

one-time ground-water-level measurement at the 

proposed site to records at a nearby long-term observation 

well (Frimpter, 1981). In addition, observation-well, 

streamflow, and precipitation data are fundamental 

measures used by the States to evaluate drought 

conditions for deciding whether to issue drought warnings 

to ensure adequate public-water supplies.

The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority 

(MWRA), along with the Massachusetts Metropolitan 

District Commission Division of Watershed Management 

(MDC–DWM), is responsible for managing and 

protecting drinking-water supplies for more than 2 million 

residents in the Boston area. The MWRA and MDC–

DWM funds the operation of eight streamgage stations to 

monitor flows into and out of the Quabbin and Wachusett 

Reservoirs (primary supplies) and the Sudbury Reservoir 

(back-up supply). The MDC, through its Division of 

Parks, Engineering, and Construction, funds the operation 

of six streamgages in the Charles River, Mystic River, and 

Boston Harbor Basins primarily for flood protection for 

the City of Boston and nearby suburbs. 

The RIDEM, RIWRB, and the PWSB support the 

monitoring network in Rhode Island to help them meet 

their responsibilities for water-resource management and 

protection. The RIDEM funds eight streamflow stations, 

most of which are in northern Rhode Island. The RIWRB 

funds nine streamflow stations, most of which are in 

southern Rhode Island. The PWSB funds one streamflow 

station in central Rhode Island, on a tributary to the 

Scituate Reservoir, the State’s principal water supply. 

RIDEM and the RIWRB equally support the observationwell network to help them evaluate sustainability of 

ground-water supplies and for estimating high groundwater-level measurements at proposed septic sites 

(Socolow and others, 1994). 

Other Interest

Interest in streamflows and ground-water levels 

comes from a wide range of entities that include local 

government agencies, conservation commissions, 

watershed associations, consultants, academic research 

and teaching, developers and construction companies, 

owners of small hydro-electric dams, anglers, boaters, and 

private citizens. The MADEM and MADEP, under the 

direction of the EOEA, enacted the Massachusetts 

Watershed Initiative in 1995 (Executive Office of 

Environmental Affairs, accessed July 17, 2002) to address 

water-resources issues for localized river basins. 

Watershed Teams comprised of Federal and State 

agencies and community partners (non-profit 

organizations, municipal boards, and businesses) were 

formed to monitor water resources and develop protection 

strategies for each of the 27 major river basins in 

Massachusetts.

Table 3. Observation wells in Massachusetts and Rhode Island included in 

the U.S. Geological Survey national Collection of Basic Records (CBR) 

observation-well network

Identification

number

Town and state Period of record Geologic Material

A1W 47 Barnstable, MA 1962–present Sand and gravel

PTW 51 Pittsfield, MA 1963–present Sand and gravel

XNW 13 Winchendon, MA 1939–present Till

SNW 6 Kingston, RI 1947–present Sand and gravel
Network Objectives 13

An example of a local use of streamflow data is 

the commercial white-water rafting industry. These 

companies provide white-water adventures for about 

25,000 people annually on the Deerfield, Millers, and 

Westfield Rivers. Discharge information provided by 

stations on these rivers is routinely used by white-water 

outfitters to determine whether there is sufficient flow in 

the Millers and Westfield Rivers, and to evaluate highflow conditions. High-flow conditions are used to 

determine the class of the rapids, the size of the raft 

needed, and the ability and comfort level of their 

customers to run these rivers safely (Bruce Lessels, Zoar 

Outdoor, written commun., 2001).

Additional hydrologic-monitoring needs were 

assessed by a survey that was sent to EOEA Watershed 

Team Leaders and current cooperators. The survey asked 

participants to list additional stream-monitoring needs 

and their uses of existing station data. Thirty-three 

questionnaires were sent out and, of the responses 

received (about half), most indicated a need to obtain 

additional streamflow data in coastal streams with 

drainage basins under 25 mi2 (table 4). Flow data from 

most of these stations are needed for regional hydrologic 

information, protection of anadromous fish, and watersupply regulation. In western Massachusetts, one 

discontinued station was recommended for reactivation to 

provide minimum-flow information, additional floodwarning capabilities, and monitoring below a 

hydroelectric facility.

Whitewater rafting on the Deerfield River in western Massachusetts (photo 

courtesy of Zoar Outdoor). 

Discharge measurements during winter conditions are especially important 

to define changes in the stage-discharge relation. A flow meter is lowered 

through holes drilled in the ice to measure discharge on the South River near 

Conway, Massachusetts (station number—01169900). 
14 The U.S. Geological Survey Streamflow and Observation-Well Network in Massachusetts and Rhode Island

Table 4. Additional streamgage stations identified in a monitoring needs assessment survey

[FERC, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]

Basin Stream Reason station is needed

Housatonic West Branch Housatonic River Watershed, stormwater, and lake management

Deerfield Deerfield River near Rowe Minimum flow information, flood warning, and FERC verification

Clesson Brook Regional hydrologic information and habitat protection

Chickly Brook Regional hydrologic information and habitat protection

Cold Brook Regional hydrologic information and habitat protection

Merrimack Merrimack River Flow between Lowell and Newburyport

Parker Parker River at Georgetown Regional hydrologic information and minimum flows for habitat protection

Ipswich Maple Meadow Brook Regional hydrologic information and minimum flows for habitat protection

Ipswich River at Martins Brook Regional hydrologic information and minimum flows for habitat protection

North Coastal Small Pox Brook near Route 1 Salisbury Support for reintroduction of anadromous fish

Cape Cod Herring River near Harwich Reactivate discontinued streamgage station (01105880) for minimum flow 

information

Mashpee River near Mashpee Regional hydrologic information and habitat protection (anadromous fish)

Herring River near Wellfleet Regional hydrologic information and habitat protection (anadromous fish). 

Replace rated staff gage

Buzzards Bay Canoe River Water-supply regulation

Mill River Water-supply regulation

Pawcatuck Queen River at Route 2 Regional hydrologic information and water supply

TRENDS IN THE NETWORK

The first continuous streamgage station (01170500) 

in Massachusetts began operation in 1904 on the 

Connecticut River at Sunderland (moved to Montague 

City in 1929). During the early part of the century, a few 

stations were added to the network in Massachusetts each 

year until World War I (1916), when the number of 

stations leveled off at about 16 sites through the late 1920s 

(fig. 3). The first continuous streamgage station in Rhode 

Island began operating in 1915 on the Pawtuxet River at 

Fiskeville, but was discontinued 10 years later (fig. 3). 

Continuous streamgaging activity did not resume in 

Rhode Island until 1929 when the station on the 

Blackstone River at Woonsocket (01112500) began 

operation. 

Stations were gradually added to the network 

in Massachusetts through the late 1930s. Severe flooding 

in 1936 and 1938 (Wandle and Lautzenheiser, 1991) 

prompted a marked increase in the number of stations 

during the late 1930s and early 1940s in Massachusetts 

and Rhode Island. The rate at which stations were added 

to the network was lower throughout the next 20 years 

until 1962, when a study began in cooperation with the 

Massachusetts Department of Public Works and the 

Federal Highway Administration to define streamflow 

characteristics of small rural streams (Wandle, 1983). 

About 30 sites were added to the network, mostly on 

streams with drainage areas of less than 10 mi2, for 

peak-flow studies of small rural watersheds (Wandle, 

1983). The total number of stations in Massachusetts and 

Rhode Island peaked at 114 in 1973 before most of the 

flood-study stations were discontinued. 

After the early 1970s, the number of stations in 

Massachusetts steadily decreased through the early 1990s. 

In 1990, discharge records were no longer published at 

nine stations below flood-control dams operated in 

cooperation with the ACOE (not reflected in fig. 3). 

Although these stations are still operated for flood-control 

purposes, discharge records at these sites are not readily 

available because formal computation of the data, 

including estimating missing and erroneous records, is not 

routinely done. The number of stations in Massachusetts 

has increased in recent years because the MADEP, in the 

course of issuing water-management and waterwithdrawal permits, has required those seeking permits to 

establish streamflow-monitoring stations to protect 

wildlife habitat and fisheries and to protect the natural 

integrity of rivers. 
Trends in the Network 15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

NUMBER OF ACTIVE STATIONS

Massachusetts

YEAR

Rhode Island

Figure 3. Number of continuous streamgage stations reported annually by the U.S. Geological Survey in Massachusetts and Rhode 

Island, 1900 to 2000.

Figure 3 includes all stations that were operated 

during each water year; this count includes stations 

operated for specific short-term research needs. Although 

these stations provide data for current research or waterresource investigations, they are typically operated for 

relatively short periods dictated by the requirements of a 

particular project; thus, they do not provide the long-term 

streamflow records needed for many hydrologic 

investigations. Of the 76 stations that have been 

discontinued in Massachusetts, 59 percent of these 

stations have less than 10 years of record, 20 percent have 

between 10 and 20 years of record, and 21 percent have 

more than 20 years of record. Of the 14 stations that have 

been discontinued in Rhode Island, 36 percent of these 

stations have less than 10 years of record, 57 percent have 

between 10 and 20 years of record, and 7 percent have 

more than 20 years of record. 

Systematic observation-well measurements began 

in Massachusetts at Topsfield in 1936 and in Rhode Island 

at Providence in 1944. The number of observation wells in 

Massachusetts increased slowly until the early1960s, 

when about 50 wells were added to the network in a short 

time during and following the most severe drought of 

record (fig. 4). The number of observation wells in 

Massachusetts increased sharply again in the 1970s with 

the addition of 51 wells to the network on Cape Cod and 

the Islands. These observation wells were added to 

improve evaluation of water supplies and the effects of 

development pressure on sole-source aquifers. In Rhode 

Island, the number of observation wells increased slowly 

but steadily from the 1940s to the 1990s, when the 

number of wells nearly doubled because of a desire by the 

RIDEM to better represent ground-water levels in till.

Modernization of Streamflow 

Monitoring

The basic method for measuring streamflow by 

recording stream stage and relating the stage to flow by a 

stage-discharge relation has remained unchanged since 

the late 1800s, when streamgaging first began in this 

country. The equipment used to measure, record, and 

process streamflow data has changed considerably since 

that time, however. The earliest recording devices were 

graph-paper recorders that traced stream stage with time. 

A pen linked to a float suspended in a stilling well 

continuously traced stage on a paper chart that advanced 

by a mechanical clock driven by a weight. Hydrographers 

read the paper charts, made corrections to the time, or 

stage, or both, and converted the stage reading to a 

discharge from a stage-discharge rating developed from 
16 The U.S. Geological Survey Streamflow and Observation-Well Network in Massachusetts and Rhode Island

YEAR

Massachusetts

Rhode Island

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

NUMBER OF OBSERVATION WELLS

Figure 4. Number of observation well records reported annually by the U.S. Geological Survey in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, 

1900 to 2000.

periodic streamflow measurements. In the early 1960s, 

recorders that punched stage readings into paper tapes at 

set time intervals gradually replaced this technology. 

Punched tapes allowed the automated processing of stage 

readings into electronic files, and thus ushered in the era 

of digital record processing. Mercury manometers (bubble 

gages) were developed about this time as an alternative to 

float-tape gages. Some stations were telemetered by 

synchronizing remote recorders with a transmitter or by 

phone-line dial-up impulse recorders (telemark gages). 

Modern stream-measuring technology evolved rapidly in 

the 1980s and 1990s with electronic stage sensors and 

recorders. Electronic recorders and sensors progressively 

replaced older equipment; and by 1994, all streamgage 

stations in Massachusetts and Rhode Island had been 

equiped with electronic recorders. 

Current streamgaging equipment has improved the 

reliability of measurements; missing data have decreased 

from an average of about 5 percent per year when nondigital recorders were used to less than one percent per 

year at present. Electronic recording and processing have 

also vastly improved the dissemination of data. By the end 

of the 2001 water year, about 70 percent of all streamgage 

stations in Massachusetts and Rhode Island were

Digital recorder compiles flow meter readings and computes discharge 

measurements.
Trends in the Network 17

equipped with digital collection platforms (DCPs) that 

transmit data by satellite every 4 hours. Twenty-one of 

these stations are also equipped with precipitation 

recorders to allow near real-time transmission of 

streamflow and precipitation data. Data is downlinked to 

computers and stored in the NWIS database. These 

computers are networked within the USGS, and the data 

in NWIS is available to any user connected to the Internet 

(http://water.usgs.gov). In addition, many streamgage 

stations are equipped with telephone modems that allow 

transmission of real-time data (DCPs depend on the 

correct position of the satellite to transmit data, but are not 

affected by phone lines that could be down during severe 

storms). 

The MA–RI District has made limited use of 

Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) technology to 

measure streamflow. The ADCP continuously measures 

water velocity and depth as it moves across the stream 

channel (Morlock and others, 2002). An ADCP was used 

to measure discharge in the Connecticut River during high 

flow because conventional boat measurements were not 

possible. 

Data collected at stations have traditionally been 

published as a mean daily discharge printed in an annual 

data report. The widespread use of the Internet has 

enabled the USGS to provide streamflow, water-quality, 

and ground-water data on demand. Data available through 

the Internet include all historical mean daily streamflow 

records in addition to data collected as recently as the last 

hour. The NWIS database also contains unit-value

discharge records for the 1988 water year, and from the 

1990 water year to present; these are values that the 

streamgage records, typically at 15- or 60-minute 

intervals. Prior to this, only mean daily discharge values 

were saved electronically because of storage limitations. 

In addition, applications have been developed that allow 

users to view data in a variety of ways. As a result, the 

need to publish paper copies of the annual data report has 

diminished, and it is anticipated that printed copies of 

these reports will not be widely produced after the 2003 

water year. 

Modernization of Ground-Water-Level 

Monitoring

Ground-water observation wells were 

traditionally measured manually at monthly intervals. 

These measurements were made by lowering a chalked 

steel tape to determine the depth to water. A problem 

with these infrequent measurements is that they may 

not provide enough information for the interpretation 

of ground-water-level changes in response to recharge, 

pumping, or surface-water interaction. The importance of 

the frequency of measurements is described by Taylor and 

Alley (2002).

In response to this need, streamflow-measuring 

equipment was adapted to provide continuous water-level 

records to delineate changes at short, regular intervals in 

observation wells. The types of ground-water recording 

equipment evolved as streamflow-monitoring equipment 

changed—from paper chart recorders, to paper punch 

tapes, to digital records, and DCPs that transmit data in 

near real time. 

In 2001, the MADEP provided funding for a onetime capital improvement to upgrade four of the six 

recording wells and install DCPs in wells that were 

measured monthly. The benefits of real-time ground-water 

data are described by Cunningham (2001); these benefits 

include providing detailed and immediate ground-waterlevel data, improved data quality by minimizing 

equipment malfunctions, and potential operational cost 

savings. The ROBOWELL, an integrated ground-waterlevel and water-quality monitoring system, was developed 

by Granato and Smith (2002) to monitor sites where rapid 

changes in ground-water quality can occur. One 

ROBOWELL is currently used in the observation-well 

network in Truro, Mass., to monitor the position of the 

freshwater/saltwater interface in a water-supply well field.

Streamgage station and precipitation gage on Hobbs Brook below the 

Cambridge Reservoir near Kendall Green, Massachusetts (station number—

01104430).
18 The U.S. Geological Survey Streamflow and Observation-Well Network in Massachusetts and Rhode Island

CORRELATED STREAMGAGE 

STATIONS

Stations that are well correlated can often be used 

to estimate discharge records affected by equipment 

malfunctions, ice, or other causes. HYDCOMP, a 

Statistical Analysis System (SAS) macro, was developed 

to search the ADAPS daily-value records for the five best 

correlated stations (Curtis Sanders, U.S. Geological 

Survey, written commun., 2002). For each station, 

HYDCOMP regresses the log of the daily discharge 

values between two stations; independent station values 

are also lagged forward and backward from one to eight 

days from the dependent station values during the 

regression procedure. The five most correlated stations 

(index stations) are ranked from the lowest standard error 

of estimate and the highest correlation coefficient (r2) 

values. 

Correlations determined by HYDCOMP may 

identify index stations not previously considered in 

estimating missing records at a station and, if several 

stations are in physiographically similar areas and nearby 

one another, the list can be used to determine which ones 

are best correlated. HYDCOMP results should not be the 

sole basis for selecting index stations, however, because 

these stations could be in areas which are 

physiographically, climatically, or hydrologically 

dissimilar. Distant stations could be highly correlated 

strictly by chance; therefore, judgment is required to 

evaluate the goodness-of-fit with other criteria in 

identifying index stations. 

Index stations were selected by HYDCOMP for 

most stations by using discharge records between April 

1st and November 30th for the 1997 through 2001 water 

years. Eighteen stations were not included in this analysis: 

Merrimack River at Lowell, MA (01100000); Connecticut 

River at Montague City, MA, and at Holyoke, MA 

(01170500 and 01172003); Quashnet River at Waquoit 

Village, MA (011058837); Mother Brook at Dedham, 

MA (01104000); Town Brook at Quincy, MA, 

(01105585); and nine stations below reservoirs operated 

by the ACOE that have unpublished records (West River 

below West Hill Dam near Uxbridge, MA, 01111200; 

Quinebaug River below East Brimfield Dam near 

Fiskdale, MA, 01123360; Quinebaug River below 

Westville Dam near Southbridge, MA, 01123600; French 

River below Hodges Village Dam at Hodges Village, MA, 

01124350; Little River near Oxford, MA, 01124500; 

French River at Webster, MA, 01125000; Millers River at 

South Royalston, MA, 01164000; East Branch Tully 

River near Athol, MA, 01165000; and Middle Branch 

Westfield River at Goss Heights, MA, 01180500), and 

three stations with less than 2 years of record or more than 

30 days of missing record (Mill River near Rockport, MA, 

01102029; Sawmill River near Rockport, MA, 

011020308; and Charles River above Watertown Dam at 

Watertown, MA, 01104615). In general, most stations 

were paired with one or more highly correlated index 

stations. Correlated stations had a median-root-mean 

square error of 30 percent and lower and upper quartile 

ranges of 23 and 41 percent, respectively. The median 

correlation coefficient (r2) was 92.8 percent and the lower 

and upper quartiles ranged from 88.9 to 94.5 percent. 

Index stations and their correlation statistics are listed in 

Appendix 2.

Observation well equipped for continuous recording and satellite telemetry 

of ground-water-level data near Acton, Massachusetts (ACW 158).
Streamgage-Station Metrics 19

STREAMGAGE-STATION METRICS

Streamgage stations were evaluated for various 

measures that affect potential uses of the data. These 

metrics include record length, effects of regulation, 

distribution by physiographic region, drainage-basin size, 

physical basin characteristics, and combinations of these 

factors. These metrics do not provide an exhaustive 

measure of all factors that might be considered in 

evaluating the network; rather, they provide a general 

understanding of the types of basins represented and some 

of the limiting factors of the network. Summaries of 

various metrics are provided in the following section and 

information on these metrics can be found for individual 

stations in Appendix 1. 

Record Length

Besides the need to know present flow conditions, 

streamflow data from stations operated continuously over 

many years enable the analysis of the magnitudes and 

expected recurrence intervals of flood flows and low 

flows, evaluation of trends in hydrologic conditions 

associated with changing land use such as increased peak 

flow and decreased base flow, and the development of 

relations between physical basin characteristics and flow. 

Most stations (active during the 2000 water year and 

discontinued) have less than 5 years of record or more 

than 50 years of record (fig. 5A). If the discontinued 

stations are excluded, about 55 percent of the stations 

active during the 2000 water year have more than 50 years 

of record (fig. 5B). This indicates that most discontinued 

stations were operated for 5 years or less, which reflects 

the short-term nature of the hydrologic investigations for 

which they were used. 

The record lengths of active stations (during the 

2000 water year) provide a better indication of the 

continuity of the network. In Massachusetts, 74 percent 

of the active stations have 30 or more years of record; in 

Rhode Island 52 percent of the active stations have 30 

or more years of record. Collectively, 71 percent of the 

active stations in Massachusetts and Rhode Island have 

30 or more years of record and most of these have more 

than 50 years of record. Record lengths of 30 or more 

years are considered most appropriate for analysis of 

hydrologic trends and flow-frequency analysis. Although 

Massachusetts and Rhode Island are fortunate to have a 

high percentage of stations with long lengths of record, 

other factors need to be considered in the evaluation of the 

station record. For example, are records affected by 

regulation and do the stations represent a cross section of 

physiographic regions and basin characteristics?

Regulation

Regulation of flow upstream of a streamgage 

station can affect the potential use of its data. For example, 

flood-control reservoirs will likely dampen peak flows 

relative to a similar site without regulation; thus, data 

collected at a site downstream of a flood control reservoir 

would not be useful in a regional peak-flow study, but 

0

20

40

60

Less

than

5

5 

to 

10

11

to 

20

21

to

30

31

to

50

Greater

than

50

NUMBER OF STATIONS

YEARS OF RECORD

A. ALL STATIONS

B. ACTIVE STATIONS 2000 WATER YEAR

0

20

40

60

Figure 5. Record length of U.S. Geological Survey streamgage stations 

operated in Massachusetts and Rhode Island: (A) all stations (includes 

discontinued stations), and (B) stations active during the 2000 water year. 
20 The U.S. Geological Survey Streamflow and Observation-Well Network in Massachusetts and Rhode Island

depending on how the reservoir storage is managed, the 

data could be used for other purposes. For example, a 

flood control reservoir that is normally empty except for 

the water that passes through it could still be useful in an 

analysis of low flows. Forms of regulation include water 

withdrawals, discharges from wastewater-treatment 

facilities, diversions, and controlled releases of reservoir 

storage. Regulation can also be caused by natural 

influences such as beaver activity or tidal fluctuations. 

Few, if any, streams and rivers in Massachusetts and 

Rhode Island are completely free of regulation; 

nevertheless, the extent to which regulation influences 

flow has been assessed for each gaging station. Each 

station was assigned to one of five classes of regulation: 

(1) minimally affected or not affected, (2) affected only at 

low flows, (3) affected only at high flows, (4) affected at 

all flows, and (5) effects are variable, such as a tidal 

fluctuation. These assignments were determined on the 

basis of remarks published in the annual data report (for 

example, Socolow and others, 2001).

About 21 percent of stations in Massachusetts 

and 43 percent of stations in Rhode Island active in the 

2000 water year are considered unaffected, or minimally 

affected, by regulation. In Massachusetts, active stations 

are affected by regulation at low flows at 28 percent of 

stations, at all flows at 44 percent of stations, at variable 

flow at 6 percent of stations, and at high flows at 1 percent 

of stations. In Rhode Island, active streamflow stations are 

affected by regulation at low flows at 38 percent of 

stations, all flows at 14 percent of stations, and variable 

flow at 5 percent of stations (fig. 6).

Physiographic Region

The hydrologic variability associated with different 

physiographic regions can be an important consideration 

in hydrologic analysis. Denny (1982) described seven 

physiographic regions in Massachusetts and Rhode 

Island; from east to west, these are the Coastal Plain, 

Coastal Lowlands, Central Highlands, Connecticut Valley, 

Hudson Green-Notre Dame Highlands, Vermont Valley, 

and the Taconic Highlands (fig. 7). For this evaluation, the 

physiographic regions described by Denny were 

simplified into three regions—Coastal Lowlands, Central 

Uplands, and the Western Highlands. Stations were 

assigned to the region that includes most of their drainage 

area. Stations on the Connecticut and Merrimack Rivers 

were not assigned to a physiographic region because these 

stations have large drainage basins, which are not 

representative of any one region. 

The Coastal Lowlands include the Coastal Plain 

and Coastal Lowlands regions described by Denny (1982) 

and include part or all of the Nashua, Boston Harbor, 

Charles, Concord, Ipswich, Shawsheen, North Coastal, 

Parker, South Coastal, Buzzards Bay, Taunton, and Cape 

Cod and Islands drainage basins in Massachusetts, and 

part or all of the Narragansett Bay, Ten Mile, 

Woonasquatucket, Moshassuck, Blackstone, and the 

Pawcatuck drainage basins in Rhode Island. The Central 

Uplands includes stations with drainage basins in the 

Connecticut Valley region east of the Connecticut River. 

Basins in the Central Uplands include part or all of the 

Chicopee, Millers, Nashua, Quinebaug, French, and 

Blackstone drainage basins in Massachusetts, and the 

Pawtuxet, and Hunt drainage basins in Rhode Island. The 

Western Highlands, to the west of the Connecticut River, 

includes part or all of the Deerfield, Farmington, 

Housatonic, Hudson, and Westfield drainage basins. 

Most of the active stations in Massachusetts and 

Rhode Island have drainage basins in the Coastal 

Lowlands (48 and 77 percent, respectively). Stations with 

drainage basins in the Central Uplands represent 35 and 

23 percent of the active stations in Massachusetts and 

Rhode Island, respectively (fig. 8). In Massachusetts, 12 

percent of the active stations have drainage basins in the 

Western Highlands and about 5 percent were not assigned 

to a physiographic region. Normalized for area, the 

density of stations with drainage areas in the Coastal 

Lowlands and the Central Uplands regions is similar 

(about one station for every 100 mi2), but the density of 

stations is about half this value in the Western Highland 

region. 

0

10

20

30

40

Massachusetts (81 stations)

Rhode Island (22 stations)

Not

Affected

NUMBER OF STATIONS

Low 

Flow

Only

High

Flow

Only

All

Flows

Variable

Flow

Figure 6. Number of streamgage stations in Massachusetts and Rhode 

Island affected by regulation, 2000 water year.
Streamgage-Station Metrics 21

CENTRAL UPLANDS WESTERN HIGHLANDS

COA

STAL

OL

WLANDS

COA

STAL

OL

WLANDS

DEERFIELD

HUDSON

WESTFIELD

HOUSATONIC

MILLERS

NASHUA

QUINEBAUG

CONNECTICUT

FARMINGTON

CHICOPEE

NORTHCOASTAL

SOUTHCOASTAL

IPSWICH

PARKER

MERRIMACK

CONCORD

CHARLES

TAUNTON TEN

MILE

BLACKSTONE

BOSTON HARBOR

HUNT

PAWCATUCK

BLOCK ISLAND SOUND

ISLANDS

CAPE COD

BUZZARDS BAY

NARRAGANSETT BAY

SHAWSHEEN

FRENCH

MOSHASSUCK

WOONASQUATUCKET

PAWTUXET

Central Highlands

Taconic Highlands

Coastal Plain

Hudson Green Notre

Dame Highlands

Connecticut 

Valley

Vermont Valley

Coastal Lowlands

EXPLANATION

MAJOR WATERSHED BOUNDARYSIMPLIFIED PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONSPHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS (DENNY, 1982) CONTINUOUS STREAMGAGE STATIONNON-RECORDING OBSERVATION WELLRECORDING OBSERVATION WELLRECORDING OBSERVATION WELL WITH TELEMETRY

42o00'

73o00' 72o00'

42o30'

41o30'

70o00'

71o00'

0 25 50 75 KILOMETERS 0 25 50 MILES Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:25,000, 1991,

Lambert conformal conic projection. NAD 83

Figure 7. Physiographic regions, major river basins, and the U.S. Geological Survey streamflow station and observation-well network in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, 2000 water year.
22 The U.S. Geological Survey Streamflow and Observation-Well Network in Massachusetts and Rhode Island

Basin Characteristics

The basin characteristics associated with 

streamgage stations include mean basin slope, mean basin 

elevation, stream-channel length, land cover (percent of 

basin cover as water, wetlands, forest, urban areas) and the 

percent of the basin area underlain by sand and gravel. 

Basin characteristics, other than drainage-area size, were 

not determined for five stations in Massachusetts: 

Merrimack River at Lowell (01100000), Connecticut 

River at Montague City and at Holyoke (01170500 and 

01172003), Quashnet River at Waquoit Village 

(011058837), and Mother Brook at Dedham (01104000). 

Basin characteristics were not determined for these sites. 

The Merrimack and Connecticut River stations drain areas 

of 4,400 mi2 or more, and Mother Brook is a diversion 

channel between the Charles and Neponset Rivers. Basin 

features for these streamgage stations were not considered 

particularly relevant. The basin characteristics for the 

Quashnet River are not included in the summary 

characteristics because its ground-water and surface-water 

drainage areas differ; basin characteristics, however, are 

given for each in Appendix 1. As part of this analysis, the 

drainage area for each station (except for the Connecticut, 

and Merrimack River stations) was digitized to provide a 

standard basin-boundary reference for future applications. 

Basin slope and elevation were determined from 

1:24,000-scale National Elevation Data (U.S. Geological 

Survey, accessed July 17, 2002). Channel length was 

determined from 1:24,000 or 1:100,000-scale hydrology 

digital line graph (DLG) data. Land-cover features were 

determined mostly from MassGIS (Massachusetts 

Geographic Information System, accessed July 17, 2002) 

and RIGIS (Rhode Island Geographic Information 

System, accessed July 17, 2002) digital land-use/landcover maps, which generally reflect conditions of the 

early 1990s. Drainage areas outside of Massachusetts and 

Rhode Island were compiled from digital land-use/landcover (LULC) maps from neighboring states by using 

30-m National Land Cover Data (NLCD) described by 

Vogelmann and others (2001). All LULC maps were 

converted to NLCD classification and scale. Urban 

areas include LULC cover classified as high-intensity 

residential development, commercial, industrial, and 

transportation. Forest areas include LULC cover classified 

as deciduous, evergreen, and mixed forest. Agriculture 

areas include LULC cover classified as orchards, 

vineyards, pasture, and row crops. Other areas include 

LULC cover classified as low-intensity residential, 

quarries, gravel pits, bare rock and sand, shrub lands, and 

open urban. Basin characteristics are summarized for 98 

stations in box plots (fig. 9) and are presented for 

individual stations in tables in Appendix 1.

Physical Characteristics

Drainage-basin size is typically the single most 

important explanatory variable in streamflow-estimation 

techniques. Therefore, regional analysis should include 

stations that represent a wide range of drainage-basin 

sizes. In Massachusetts, gaged basins ranged in size from 

0.39 to 8,309 mi2, with a median of 60 mi2. In Rhode 

Island, gaged basins ranged in size from 3.55 to 417 mi2, 

with a median size of 54 mi2.

Stations with drainage areas under 10 mi2 represent 

about 10 percent of the stations in Massachusetts 

and about 23 percent of the stations in Rhode Island 

(fig. 10A). Drainage areas between 10 and 100 mi2

represent about 55 percent of the stations in 

Massachusetts and 64 percent of the stations in Rhode 

Island. About 22 percent of the stations in Massachusetts 

have drainage areas between 100 and 300 mi2, and about 

13 percent of the stations have drainage areas greater than 

300 mi2. In Rhode Island, only three stations have 

drainage areas greater than 100 mi2 (none more than 

500 mi2). In general, the current streamflow-monitoring 

network represents a broad range of drainage-basin sizes.

About 60 percent of the discontinued stations in 

Massachusetts and about 70 percent of the discontinued 

stations in Rhode Island have drainage areas less than 

10 mi2 (fig. 10B). The high proportion of discontinued 

stations with drainage areas less than 10 mi2 reflects the 

project-specific stations operated during the 1970s to 

estimate peak flows on small streams (Wandle, 1983). 

0

10

20

30

40

Coastal

Lowlands

Central

Uplands

Western

Highlands

Rhode Island

(22 stations)

NUMBER OF STATIONS

Massachusetts

(77 stations, 

4 stations not 

assigned to a 

region)

Figure 8. Distribution of U.S. Geological Survey streamgage stations in 

Massachusetts and Rhode Island by physiographic region, 2000 water year.
Streamgage-Station Metrics 23

EXPLANATION

MEDIAN

25TH PERCENTILE

75TH PERCENTILE

1.5 TIMES THE 

75TH PERCENTILE

OUTLIERS

MINUS 1.5 TIMES 

THE 25TH 

STATE IDENTIFICATION

NUMBER OF SITES

MA RI MA RI MA RI

DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES

0

5

10

15

20

25

0

400

800

1,200

1,600

2,000

0

400

800

1,200

1,600

CHANNEL LENGTH, IN MILES

MEAN ELEVATION, IN FEET ABOVE NGVD 29

MEAN BASIN SLOPE, IN PERCENT

PERCENT OF BASIN AREA

PERCENT OF BASIN AREA UNDERLAIN 

BY SAND AND GRAVEL

0

20

40

60

80

100

MA RI

Water Wetlands Forest Urban

MASSACHUSETTS

(76 SITES)

RHODE ISLAND

(22 SITES)

A. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

B. LAND-COVER CHARACTERISTICS

MA RI

Agriculture Other

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.1

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

(81) (22) (76) (22) (76) (22) (76) (22) (76) (22)

RI

(22)

Figure 9. Summary of selected basin characteristics upstream of active U.S. Geological Survey streamgage stations in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, 2000 

water year: (A) physical characteristics, and (B) land-cover characteristics.

In Massachusetts, the mean basin slope ranged 

from about 2 to 24 percent with a median of 6.2 percent 

(fig. 9A). In Rhode Island, the mean basin slope ranged 

from 2.5 to 7.3 percent with a median of 4.9 percent. The 

mean basin slope for stations in the Western Highlands 

(median of 12.1 percent) was about twice that of the 

Central Uplands (median of 7.3 percent) and Coastal 

Lowlands (median of 4.7 percent). Similarly, the mean 

basin elevation was greatest for stations in the Western 

Highlands (median of 1,460 ft) and lowest for stations in 

the Coastal Lowlands (median of 211 ft). Stations that 

drain the Central Uplands had a median mean basin 

elevation of 885 ft. The median of the mean basin 

elevation for all stations in Massachusetts and Rhode 
24 The U.S. Geological Survey Streamflow and Observation-Well Network in Massachusetts and Rhode Island

Island was 462 ft; the median elevation for Massachusetts 

basins (744 ft) was about twice that for Rhode Island 

basins (354 ft). The median channel length for 

Massachusetts stations (103 mi) was about twice that for 

Rhode Island stations (47 mi). 

The percentage of the basin area underlain by sand 

and gravel is greatest in Coastal Lowland basins in 

Massachusetts (median of 42 percent of the basin area) 

and least in the Western Highlands (median of 11 percent 

of the basin area). In the Central Uplands, a median of 18 

percent of the basin area was underlain by sand and gravel 

(fig. 9A). The areas underlain by sand and gravel were 

about the same for Rhode Island basins in the Coastal 

Lowlands and in the Central Uplands (29 and 25 percent 

of the basin area, respectively).

Land-Cover Characteristics

Land-cover characteristics indicate that gaged 

basins in Massachusetts and Rhode Island are mostly 

forested (median of 65 percent forest cover), but forest 

range from as little as 18 percent to as much as 95 percent 

of the basin area. Generally, basins are more forested in 

the Central Uplands (median 78 percent) and Western 

Highlands (median 81 percent) than in the Coastal 

Lowlands (median 52 percent). The Coastal Lowlands are 

generally more urbanized in Massachusetts (median of 10 

percent) than in Rhode Island (median of 4 percent). 

The percentage of gaged basin area classified as 

water, wetlands, and agriculture is generally small. The 

median basin area covered by water was 2.8 percent in 

Massachusetts and 2.5 percent in Rhode Island, but 

composed as much as 21 and 5.7 percent of the basin 

areas for Massachusetts and Rhode Island stations, 

respectively. The median basin area covered by wetlands 

was 3.9 percent in Massachusetts and 12 percent in Rhode 

Island, but composed as much as 21 and 18 percent of the 

basin area for Massachusetts and Rhode Island stations, 

respectively. The high percentage of wetland area in 

Rhode Island could be due, in part, to differences in the 

wetland covers from different sources. The median basin 

area in agriculture was 5.6 percent in Massachusetts and 

5.0 percent in Rhode Island, but composed as much as 15 

and 22 percent of the basin areas for Massachusetts and 

Rhode Island stations, respectively. Agricultural area 

tended to be slightly more prevalent in gaged basins in the 

Western Highlands (median of 7.6 percent) than in the 

other regions (median 5.2 percent). Land cover classified 

as "other" comprised about 12 percent of the basin areas 

in both Massachusetts and Rhode Island, and composed 

as much as 53 and 43 percent of the land cover in 

Massachusetts and Rhode Island basins, respectively. 

Combined Metrics

Often, hydrologic analyses require streamflow data 

that satisfy multiple criteria. For example, development of 

regionalized equations that relate flow statistics to basin 

characteristics in STREAMSTATS (Ries and others, 

2000) required stations with long records (generally 30 

years or more), minimal regulation, and a wide variety of 

Massachucetts

(76 stations)

Rhode Island

(14 stations)

25

Less

than

10

51

to

100

101

to

200

301

to

500

501

to

1,000

over

1,000

DRAINAGE AREA SIZE, IN SQUARE MILES

0

10

15

20

NUMBER OF STATIONS

10

to

25

5

Massachucetts

(88 stations)

Rhode Island

(22 stations)

26

to

50

201

to

300

0

20

40

60

B. Discontinued stations 

A. Active stations 2000 water year

Figure 10. Number of U.S. Geological Survey streamgage stations in 

Massachusetts and Rhode Island by drainage-area size for (A) active 

stations during the 2000 water year, and (B) discontinued stations.
Streamgage-Station Metrics 25

basin characteristics. Several of the metrics above were 

evaluated in combination to assess the distribution of 

stations with respect to multiple criteria commonly 

considered in hydrologic analyses.

Record length by region: Stations with record 

lengths of 10 years or less are mostly in the Coastal 

Lowlands, which reflects the introduction of these stations 

in recent years to monitor stressed basins (fig. 11). 

Stations with long-term records (greater than 30 years) are 

about equally distributed in the Central Highlands and 

Coastal Lowlands. 

Regulation by region: In Massachusetts, 

regulation affects about 70 percent of the stations in the 

Coastal Lowlands, about 82 percent of the stations in the 

Central Uplands, and about 90 percent of the stations in 

the Western Highlands. In Rhode Island, regulation affects 

about 65 percent of the stations in the Coastal Lowlands 

and about 40 percent of the stations in the Central 

Uplands. Overall, in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, 

regulation affects about 70 percent of the stations in the 

Coastal Lowlands, mostly under low-flow conditions and 

to a slightly lesser extent under all flow conditions, and 

about 76 percent of the stations in the Central Uplands, 

mostly under all flow conditions (fig. 12).

Drainage area by region: In general, the number 

of stations decline as the drainage area decreases in each 

region. In the Coastal Lowlands, stations represent all 

drainage area ranges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island 

(fig. 13). Stations with the largest drainage basins are in 

the Coastal Lowlands because these stations generally 

have the greatest available upstream area. Few stations 

exist in the Central Uplands of Rhode Island, but these 

stations have drainage areas that are about equally 

distributed across the ranges less than 100 mi2. In 

Massachusetts, about 16 percent of the stations in the 

Central Uplands have drainage areas less than 25 mi2. No 

active stations in the 2000 water year in the Western 

Highland region of Massachusetts have drainage areas 

less than 25 mi2.

STATION RECORD LENGTH, IN YEARS

None Assigned

Western Highlands

Central Uplands

Coastal Lowlands

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35NUMBER OF STATIONS

Massachusetts (81 stations)

Rhode Island (22 stations)

Less

than 5

5 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 30 Greater

than 30

Figure 11. Number of active U.S. Geological Survey streamgage stations in Massachusetts and Rhode Island by physiographic region and 

years of record, 2000 water year.
26 The U.S. Geological Survey Streamflow and Observation-Well Network in Massachusetts and Rhode Island

0

5

10

15

20

25NUMBER OF STATIONS

Massachusetts (81 stations)

Rhode Island (22 stations)

Coastal Lowlands

Central Uplands

Western Highlands

None Assigned

UNAFFECTED AFFECTS 

LOW 

FLOW ONLY

AFFECTS

HIGH

FLOW ONLY

AFFECTS ALL 

FLOWS 

AFFECTS

VARIABLE

FLOWS

REGULATION

Less than

10

10 to 25 26 to 50 51 to 100 Greater than

100 

Massachusetts (81 stations)

Rhode Island (22 stations)

DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES

0

5

10

15

20

NUMBER OF STATIONS

None Assigned

Western Highlands

Central Uplands

Coastal Lowlands

Figure 12. Number of active U.S. Geological Survey streamgage stations in Massachusetts and Rhode Island by physiographic 

region and regulation, 2000 water year.

Figure 13. Number of active U.S. Geological Survey streamgage stations in Massachusetts and Rhode Island by drainagearea size and physiographic region, 2000 water year.
Streamgage-Station Metrics 27

Regulation by record length: Massachusetts and 

Rhode Island stations with record lengths of 30 or more 

years are mostly affected by regulation (82 percent); about 

50 percent of the stations are affected at all flows or 

variable flows, and about 32 percent of the stations are 

affected at low flows (fig. 14). Regulation affects 82 

percent of Massachusetts stations with record lengths of 

30 or more years; of these, about 52 percent are affected 

over all flows or variable flows, and about 30 percent are 

affected at low flows. Regulation affects about 83 percent 

of Rhode Island stations with record lengths of 30 or more 

years; of these, about 42 percent are affected over all flows 

or variable flows and about 41 percent are affected at low 

flow. About half of all stations with less than 10 years of 

record (52 percent) are affected by regulation; this 

percentage is less than the percentage of stations with 

long periods of record affected by regulation. Stations 

unaffected by regulation with less than 10 years of record 

represent about 9 percent of the stations in Massachusetts 

and Rhode Island, however. This underscores the 

importance of continuing the operation of stations 

unaffected by regulation for use in hydrologic analysis. 

Record length by drainage area: Most stations in 

Massachusetts (74 percent) and about half of the stations 

in Rhode Island (54 percent) with drainage areas greater 

than 10 mi2 have 30 or more years of record (fig. 15). 

Stations with drainage areas under 10 mi2 are about 

equally distributed among the five record-length 

categories, but stations with the shortest record length 

(less than 5 years) are generally stations with the smallest 

drainage area. 

Regulation by drainage-area size: The number of 

stations affected by regulation grouped by drainage area 

(fig. 16) indicate that nearly 93 percent of stations in 

Massachusetts with drainage basins larger than 100 mi2

are affected by regulation; of these, 71 percent are affected 

at low flows. All four stations in Rhode Island with 

drainage areas greater than 100 mi2 are affected by 

regulation. The number of stations affected by regulation 

over all flows in Massachusetts increases sharply as the 

drainage-area size increases. About 50 percent of all 

stations in Massachusetts and Rhode Island with areas less 

than 50 mi2 are unaffected by regulation. 

Less than 5

5 to 10

11 to 20

21 to 30

Greater than 30

UNAFFECTED

REGULATION

AFFECTS 

LOW 

FLOW ONLY

AFFECTS 

HIGH 

FLOW ONLY

AFFECTS

VARIABLE 

FLOWS

AFFECTS

ALL FLOWS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30NUMBER OF STATIONS

35

Massachusetts

(81 stations)

Rhode Island

(22 stations)

RECORD LENGTH,

IN YEARS

Figure 14. Number of active U.S. Geological Survey streamgage stations in Massachusetts and Rhode Island by regulation and record length,

2000 water year.
28 The U.S. Geological Survey Streamflow and Observation-Well Network in Massachusetts and Rhode Island

Less than 10

10 to 25

26 to 50

51 to 100

 Greater than 100

0

5

10

15

20

25

30NUMBER OF STATIONS

Less

than 5

5 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 30 Greater

RECORD LENGTH, IN 

than 30

YEARS

Massachusetts (81 stations)

Rhode Island (22 stations)

DRAINAGE AREA,

 IN SQUARE MILES

Unaffected Affects Low

Flow Only Affects

All Flow

Affects

Variable

Flows

Less than 10

11 to 25

26 to 50

51 to 100

Greater than 100

0

5

10

15

20

25

NUMBER OF STATIONS

REGULATION

Affects High

Flow Only

Massachusetts

(81 stations)

Rhode Island

(22 stations)

DRAINAGE AREA,

 IN SQUARE MILES

Figure 15. Number of active U.S. Geological Survey streamgage stations in Massachusetts and Rhode Island by record length and 

drainage-area size, 2000 water year.

Figure 16. Number of active U.S. Geological Survey streamgage stations in Massachusetts and Rhode Island by drainage-area size and regulation, 

2000 water year.
Observation-Well Metrics 29

Regulation by drainage area and region: Only 

26 of 103 active stations in Massachusetts and Rhode 

Island are unaffected by regulation; of these, 17 are in 

Massachusetts and 9 are in Rhode Island (table 5). About 

half the bins, (regions and various drainage-area-size 

classes) have no unregulated stations. The greatest 

number of unregulated stations is represented by drainage 

areas between 26 and 50 mi2 in the Coastal Lowlands 

(total of six stations in Massachusetts and Rhode Island 

combined). Furthermore, only one unregulated station is 

operated in the Western Highlands, no unregulated 

stations are operated with drainage areas greater than 

51 mi2 in the Central Uplands, and only one unregulated 

station is operated with any drainage less than 10 mi2 in 

the Central Uplands in either Massachusetts or Rhode 

Island. The number of stations currently in operation in 

each drainage-area range by region indicates a paucity of 

unregulated stations.

The number of stations suitable for low-flow 

analysis increases by one when stations affected by 

regulation at high flows only are considered; this station 

was in the Coastal Lowlands of Massachusetts with a 

drainage area less than 10 mi2. The number of stations 

suitable for high-flow analysis (those affected at low flow 

only) increases slightly for each region and most drainagearea size classes (table 6). Thirty-four stations in 

Massachusetts and three stations in Rhode Island are 

unaffected by regulation at high flow, but 83 percent of 

these have drainage areas greater than 50 mi2, and 37 

percent of these are in the Central Uplands (table 6).

OBSERVATION-WELL METRICS

The observation-well network comprises 160 

wells in Massachusetts and 40 wells in Rhode Island. In 

Massachusetts, the network includes 57 wells on Cape 

Cod, 10 wells on Martha’s Vineyard, and 10 wells on 

Nantucket; the high proportion of observation wells on 

Cape Cod and the Islands reflects the importance of 

ground water as the sole source of drinking water. For this 

reason, observation-well metrics have been separately 

identified for Cape Cod and the Islands. The Rhode 

Island network includes two wells on Block Island.

About 6 percent of the observation wells in 

Massachusetts, mostly in the Coastal Lowlands, are 

equipped with continuous data recorders; of these, nine 

are telemetered. In Massachusetts, 73 percent of the 

observation wells are measured manually at monthly 

intervals; and 21 percent of the wells are measured 

bimonthly, all of which are on Cape Cod. In Rhode Island, 

most observation wells are measured manually at monthly 

intervals, but four were equipped with continuous 

recorders during the 2000 water year.

Record Length

The lengths of record for all observation wells in 

the Massachusetts network, range from 6 to 65 years, 

with a median of 26 years. For Cape Cod and the Islands, 

record lengths of observation wells range from 10 to 

Table 5. Number of active U.S. Geological Survey streamgage stations 

unaffected by regulation, tabulated by drainage-area range and 

physiographic region in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, 2000 

water year

Region

Drainage-area range in square miles

Less

than 10 10 to 25 26 to 50 51 to 100 Greaterthan 100

Massachusetts

Coastal Lowlands 2 0 5 2 2

Central Uplands 0 3 2 0 0

Western 

Highlands

0 0 0 1 0

Rhode Island

Coastal Lowlands 3 2 1 0 0

Central Uplands 1 1 1 0 0

Table 6. Number of active U.S. Geological Survey streamgage stations 

unaffected by regulation at high flows, tabulated by drainage-area range 

and physiographic region in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, 2000 water 

year

Region

Drainage-area range in square miles

Less

than 10 10 to 25 26 to 50 51 to 100 Greaterthan 100

Massachusetts

Coastal Lowlands 1 2 2 0 6

Central Uplands 0 0 2 6 7

Western 

Highlands

0 0 1 3 4

Rhode Island

Coastal Lowlands 0 0 0 0 0

Central Uplands 0 0 0 1 2
30 The U.S. Geological Survey Streamflow and Observation-Well Network in Massachusetts and Rhode Island

51 years and have a median of 26 years; 85 percent of 

these have more than 20 years of record, but only 11 have 

records that date back to 1962 or earlier, and are thus long 

enough to encompass the most severe drought of record in 

this region (fig. 17). Record lengths for mainland 

Massachusetts observation wells range from 6 to 65 years 

and have a median length of 36 years; nearly 70 percent of 

these have records from the 1960s drought. Record 

lengths of Rhode Island observation wells range from 9 to 

57 years with a median length of 11 years. 

Physiographic Region

Of the 200 observation wells in the Massachusetts 

and Rhode Island monitoring network, about two thirds 

(67 percent) are in the Coastal Lowlands, 24 percent are in 

the Central Uplands, and 9 percent are in the Western 

Highlands. Within mainland Massachusetts, about 46 

percent of the observation wells are in the Coastal 

Lowlands, 33 percent are in the Central Uplands, and 21 

percent are in the Western Highlands. In Rhode Island, 52 

percent of the observation wells are in the Coastal 

Lowlands, and 48 percent are in the Central Highlands.

Geologic Material

Observation wells in Massachusetts and Rhode 

Island are mostly (80 percent) finished in sand and gravel, 

19 percent are finished in till, and 1 percent (three wells) 

are finished in bedrock. In mainland Massachusetts, 

observation wells have a similar distribution—75 percent 

are finished in sand and gravel, 21 percent are finished in 

till, and 4 percent are finished in bedrock. Observation 

wells on the Cape and Islands are all finished in sand and 

gravel. In Rhode Island, half of the observation wells are 

finished in sand and gravel, and half are finished in till. 

The Rhode Island network does not have any wells 

finished in bedrock.

Observation wells in mainland Massachusetts and 

Rhode Island finished in sand and gravel are about three to 

four times more numerous than wells finished in till across 

each of the three physiographic regions (fig. 18). In the 

Massachusetts mainland Coastal Lowlands, Central 

Uplands, and Western Highlands, about 77, 68, and 83 

percent of wells are finished in sand and gravel, 

respectively; 20, 25, and 17 percent of wells are finished 

in till, resepctively; and 3, 7 and 0 percent are finished in 

bedrock, respectively. In Rhode Island Coastal Lowlands 

and Central Uplands, about 62 and 37 percent of wells are 

finished in sand and gravel, respectively, and 38 and 63 

percent of wells are finished in till, respectively. 

Well Depth

Depths of observation wells below land surface in 

Massachusetts and Rhode Island range from 10 to 740 ft, 

with a median depth of 32 ft. In mainland Massachusetts, 

depths of observation wells below land surface range 

from 11 to 740 ft, with a median depth of 25 ft; well 

depths on Cape Cod and the Islands range from 10 to 

294 ft, with a median depth of 53 ft. In Rhode Island, 

depths of observation wells below land surface range 

from 10 to 121 ft, with a median depth of 20 ft. 

Rhode Island

(40 wells)

Cape Cod & Islands

(77 wells)

Mainland (83 wells)

Massachusetts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Less

than

5

NUMBER OF OBSERVATION WELLS

5 to

10

11 to

20

21 to

30

31 to

50

Greater

than

50

YEARS OF RECORD

Figure 17. Record length of observation wells reported by the U.S. 

Geological Survey in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, 2000 water year.
Observation-Well Metrics 31

Depths of observation wells below land surface 

finished in sand and gravel (fig. 19A) range from 12 to 

71 ft in mainland Massachusetts (median depth of 27 ft), 

10 to 294 ft in the Cape and Islands (median depth of 

53 ft), and 10 to 121 ft in Rhode Island (median depth of 

28 ft). Depths of observation wells below land surface 

finished in till (fig. 19A) range from 11 to 39 ft in 

mainland Massachusetts (median depth of 21 ft) and 10 to 

52 ft in Rhode Island (median depth of 18 ft). On average, 

observation wells in mainland Massachusetts and Rhode 

Island finished in sand and gravel are deeper than wells 

finished in till. Observation wells finished in bedrock are 

generally deeper than sand and gravel wells. Depths of 

observation wells across different physiographic regions 

and states are not distinctly different, except that wells on 

the Cape and Islands tend to be about twice the depth of 

wells in other regions (fig. 19B). Installing a ground-water observation well by a rotary drill rig.

Coastal

Central

Western

Bedrock

Till

 Sand and 

Gravel

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

NUMBER OF OBSERVATION WELLS

 PHYSIOGRAPHIC 

REGION

Massachusetts

(Mainland)

Rhode Island

Massachusetts

Cape and Islands

Figure 18. Number of observation wells in the 2000 water year by physiographic region and type of geologic 

material in which the well is finished.
32 The U.S. Geological Survey Streamflow and Observation-Well Network in Massachusetts and Rhode Island

EXPLANATION

MEDIAN

25TH PERCENTILE

75TH PERCENTILE

1.5 TIMES THE 

75TH PERCENTILE

OUTLIERS

MINUS 1.5 TIMES 

THE 25TH 

PERCENTILE

B. PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGION

Sand and

Gravel

Till Bedrock

10

100

1,000

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW 

LAND SURFACE

MASSACHUSETTS

Rhode Island

Cape Cod 

and Islands

Mainland

A. GEOLOGIC MATERIAL

(3 wells)

Coastal 

Lowlands

Central

Uplands

Western

Highlands

PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGION PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGION

Figure 19. Depths of observation wells by (A) type of geologic material, and (B) physiographic region reported by the U.S. Geological Survey in 

Massachusetts and Rhode Island, 2000 water year.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS OF THE 

MONITORING NETWORK

For nearly 100 years, the streamflow and 

observation-well network of the USGS in Massachusetts 

and Rhode Island has provided hydrologic data for waterresources management, issuance of flood warnings, 

recreational, and numerous other purposes. Public and 

private interests have benefited from improvements in 

monitoring technology and from dissemination of 

historical and near real-time data through the Internet. The 

future monitoring network will continue to incorporate 

advances in technology to meet the needs of cooperators 

and the public. 

The technology of the collection and distribution of 

near real-time hydrologic data has improved rapidly over 

the last decade. Future advances in technology will likely 

improve accuracy and reliability over a wide range of 

conditions. An example of one technology under 

investigation is non-contact stage and flow sensors, which 

have the potential to make streamflow measurements 

safer, cheaper, and at least as accurate as traditional 

measuring techniques. This technology would be 

especially beneficial for obtaining discharge 

measurements during flood conditions or in dangerous 

locations such as confined storm drains. 

Acoustic Doppler Velocity Meters (ADVMs) have 

made it possible to produce accurate discharge records 

efficiently where conventional monitoring techniques 

yield unsatisfactory results because of variable backwater 

conditions or poor stage-discharge relations (Morlock and 

others, 2002). This technology could be cost-effective at 

stations that are regularly affected by beaver activity, 

where considerable time is spent correcting stagedischarge relations caused by dams only to yield records 

of poor or uncertain quality. In addition, the technology 

would eliminate the need to remove beavers in order to 

maintain a good-quality discharge record. 

A near-term goal at streamgage stations is to 

completely equip them with DCPs and increase the 

frequency of transmission of data from every 4 hours to 

every hour at selected sites. This improvement would 

make data from the entire network available in near real 

time and could improve flood warnings that can save lives 

and prevent property damage. 
Summary 33

Continued upgrades to the observation-well 

network are also anticipated in hydrologically sensitive 

areas in the near future. Improvements may include 

installation of continuous recording equipment, telemetry 

(DCPs), and use of the ROBOWELL (Granato and Smith, 

2002) where near real-time water-quality monitoring is a 

consideration. Additional observation wells finished in 

bedrock are also likely as communities seek new sources 

of water supply in bedrock aquifers.

Cooperator needs evolve as development 

pressure puts greater strain on limited water resources. For 

example, increased demands for public and private water 

supplies will likely initiate additional State-mandated 

monitoring to provide minimum flow information in 

streams and rivers. Whereas these needs dictate the need 

for additional data in stressed basins, the continued 

operation and enhancement of stations that provide 

hydrologic information at unregulated sites is essential for 

regional hydrologic analysis. Applications like 

STREAMSTATS would not be possible without stations 

that provided a relation between partial record or shortterm record sites to long-term unregulated stations. In an 

era of decreased financial resources and increasing 

demands for hydrologic information in stressed basins, the 

USGS and its cooperators will be challenged to maintain a 

balanced network that satisfies all these needs. 

Although the streamflow and observation-well 

network provides needed information on the hydrologic 

conditions of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, this 

network is generally viewed as two independent networks, 

despite the degree of hydraulic connection between 

ground-water and surface-water resources. It has become 

increasingly apparent, however, that ground water and 

surface water need to be managed as a single resource; 

information about the interconnection of ground and 

surface water is fundamental for their effective 

management (Winter and others, 1998). To assist 

managers in meeting this need, the existing streamflow 

and ground-water-level data could be analyzed for 

interactions between ground water and surface water and 

the influences they exert on each other. The design of 

future enhancements to the network could be based upon 

the understanding that surface water and ground water 

represent a single resource so that all appropriate data are 

collected for use by water-resource managers. 

SUMMARY

 Streamflow and ground-water-level data are used 

for a variety of purposes for water-resources planning 

and design, hydrologic research, and operation of waterresources projects. This data is routinely collected by the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with 

other Federal, State and local government agencies 

through the operation of a network of 103 streamgage 

stations and 200 ground-water observation wells in 

Massachusetts and Rhode Island (active during the 2000 

water year). Since continuous streamflow gaging began 

nearly 100 years ago (1904) on the Connecticut River at 

Sunderland (moved to Montague City in 1929) in 

Massachusetts, increases in the number of stations in the 

network usually followed floods or droughts; these events 

made clear the importance of this hydrologic information.

The collection, processing, and dissemination of 

hydrologic data collected by the USGS have continually 

improved over the century. In the 2000 water year, about 

70 percent of streamgage stations and a few, but growing 

number of observation wells in Massachusetts and 

Rhode Island, have been equipped with digital collection High-water discharge measurement made from a boat on the Housatonic 

River at Great Barrington, Massachusetts (station number—01197500). 
34 The U.S. Geological Survey Streamflow and Observation-Well Network in Massachusetts and Rhode Island

platforms that transmit data by satellite every 4 hours. 

Twenty-one of the streamgage stations are also equipped 

with precipitation recorders. This near real-time data, 

along with most historical data collected at all stations, are 

available over the Internet at no charge. 

The streamflow-monitoring network was evaluated 

with respect to several metrics that affect potential uses of 

the data. These metrics include record length, effects of 

regulation, distribution by physiographic region, drainagebasin size, physical basin characteristics and combinations 

of these factors. Collectively, 71 percent of the active 

stations in Massachusetts and Rhode Island have 30 or 

more years of record and most of these have more 

than 50 years of record. Most stations are affected by 

regulation; although data from stations affected by 

regulation are useful for specific water management 

purposes, it diminishes the usefulness of data from these 

stations for many types of hydrologic analysis. Only 

26 of the 103 active streamgage stations operated by the 

USGS in Massachusetts and Rhode Island are in basins 

unaffected by regulation; of these, 17 are in Massachusetts 

and 9 are in Rhode Island. The paucity of stations in 

unregulated basins is particularly evident when distributed 

across five drainage-area ranges; there are no unregulated 

stations in about half of these ranges. This underscores the 

importance of establishing and maintaining stations that 

are unaffected by regulation. Streamgage stations in 

Massachusetts and Rhode Island are mostly in drainage 

basins in the Coastal Lowlands (48 and 77 percent, 

respectively); fewer are in drainage basins in the Central 

Uplands (35 and 23 percent, respectively) and 12 percent 

are in drainage basins in the Western Highlands (all in 

Massachusetts). Basin slopes are generally least for 

stations in the Coastal Lowlands and largest in the 

Western Highlands; slopes of stations in the Central 

Uplands are generally about half those of the stations in 

the Western Highlands and about twice those for stations 

in the Coastal Lowlands. Coastal Lowlands stations are in 

drainage basins that are generally more urbanized and 

underlain by a greater percentage of sand and gravel than 

stations in drainage basins in the Central Uplands or 

Western Highlands. Drainage-basin size is typically the 

single most important explanatory variable in streamflow 

estimation techniques. Drainage areas range from 0.39 to 

8,309 mi2, but most stations have drainage areas between 

10 and 100 mi2 (55 percent of the stations in 

Massachusetts and 68 percent of the stations in Rhode 

Island). 

The observation-well network comprises 200 

wells; 80 percent of these wells (3 wells) are in sand and 

gravel, 19 percent are in till, and 1 percent are in bedrock. 

About 6 percent of the wells are equipped with continuous 

data recorders and about half of these are capable of 

transmitting data in near real time. The record length for 

all observation wells ranged from 6 to 65 years; the 

median record length is 26 years for wells in mainland 

Massachusetts, 26 years for Cape Cod and Island wells, 

and 11 years for Rhode Island wells. The depth of all 

observation wells below land surface ranges from 10 to 

740 ft. The median depth of observation wells is 26 ft for 

wells finished in sand and gravel, 21 ft for wells finished 

in till, and 181 ft for wells finished in bedrock. Generally, 

observation wells on Cape Cod and the Islands are about 

twice as deep as wells in other areas of the State.

The goal of the USGS streamgage station and 

observation-well network is to provide relevant and timely 

hydrologic information to the Nation, its cooperators, and 

to the public. Cooperator needs evolve as development 

pressure puts greater strain on limited water resources. 

Although this often requires additional data in stressed 

basins caused in part by the effects of regulation, the 

continued operation and enhancement of stations that 

provide hydrologic information at unregulated sites is 

essential for regional hydrologic analysis. In an era of 

decreased financial resources and increasing demands for 

hydrologic information in stressed basins, the USGS and 

its cooperators in Massachusetts and Rhode Island will be 

challenged to maintain a balanced network that satisfies 

all needs.

REFERENCES CITED

Brooks, M.H., 2001, Cooperative water program—A 

partnership in the Nation’s water-resources program: U.S. 

Geological Survey Fact Sheet 128-01, 2 p.

Cunningham, W.L., 2001, Real-time ground-water data for the 

Nation: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 090-01, 2 p.

Denny, C.S. 1982, Geomorphology of New England: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 1208, 18 p.

DeSimone, L.A., Steeves, P.A., and Zimmerman, M.J., 2001, 

Statewide water-quality network for Massachusetts: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

01-4081, 76 p.

Frimpter, M.H., 1981, Probable high ground-water levels in 

Massachusetts: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 

80-1205, 19 p.
References Cited 35

Gadoury, R.A., Smath, J.A., and Fontaine, R.A, 1985, Costeffectiveness of the U.S. Geological Survey’s streamgaging programs in Massachusetts and Rhode Island: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

84-4097, 78 p.

Granato, G.E., and Smith, K.P., 2002, Robowell—Providing 

accurate and current water-level and water-quality data in 

real time for protecting ground-water resources: U.S. 

Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-053-02, 6 p.

Grannemann, N.E., 2001, U.S. Geological Survey ground-water 

resources program, 2001: U.S. Geological Survey Fact 

Sheet 056-01, 2 p.

Hirsch, R.M, and Norris, M.J., 2001, NSIP Implementation 

Plan and Progress Report: U.S. Geological Survey Fact 

Sheet 048-01, 6 p.

Massachusetts Geographic Information System (MassGIS): 

accessed July 17, 2002, at http://www.state.ma.us/mgis/.

Massachusetts Water Management Act, 1986, General Laws of 

Massachusetts, Chapter 21g: accessed July 17, 2002, at 

http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/gl-21G-toc.htm

Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Massachusetts 

Watershed Initiative, 1995, accessed July 17, 2002, at 

http://www.state.ma.us/envir/mwi/watersheds.htm

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 310 

CMR 15.000—The state environmental code, title 5—

standard requirements for the siting, construction, 

inspection, upgrade and expansion of on-site sewage 

treatment and disposal systems and for the transport and 

disposal of septage: accessed July 17, 2002, at 

http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/files/310cmr15.PDF

Morlock, S.E., Nguyen, H.T., and Ross, J.H., 2002, Feasibility 

of acoustic doppler velocity meters for the production 

of discharge records from U.S. Geological Survey 

streamflow-gaging stations: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4157, 59 p.

Rhode Island Geographic Information System (RIGIS): 

accessed July 17, 2002, at http://www.edc.uri.edu/rigis/.

Ries, K.G., III, Steeves, P.A., Freeman, Aleda, and Singh, Raj, 

2000, Obtaining streamflow statistics for Massachusetts 

streams on the World Wide Web: U.S. Geological Survey 

Fact Sheet 104-00, 4 p.

Slack, J.R., and Landwehr, J.M., 1992, HCDN—A U.S. 

Geological Survey streamflow data set for the United 

States for the study of climate variations, 1874–1988: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 92-129, 1 sheet.

Slack, J.R., Lumb, A.M., and Landwehr, J.M., 1994, HydroClimatic Data Network (HCDN)—Streamflow Data Set, 

1874–1988: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report, 93-4076, CD-ROM.

Socolow, R.S., Frimpter, M.H., Turtora, Michael, and Bell 

R.W., 1994, A technique for estimating ground-water 

levels at sites in Rhode Island from observation-well data: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report, 94-4138, 43 p.

Socolow, R.S., Leighton, C.R., Whitley, J.S., and Ventetuolo, 

D.J., 2001, Water Resources Data for Massachusetts and 

Rhode Island, Water Year 2001: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water Data Report MA-RI-01-1, 328 p.

Taylor, C.J., and Alley, W.M., 2002, Ground water-levelmonitoring and the importance of long-term water-level 

data: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1217, 68 p.

Thomas, W.O., Jr., and Wahl, K.L., 1993, Summary of the 

nationwide analysis of the cost effectiveness of the U.S. 

Geological Survey stream gaging program: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

93-4168, 28 p.

U.S. Geological Survey Collection of Basic Records (CBR): 

accessed July 17, 2002, at http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/ 

CBR/Guidelns.html

U.S. Geological Survey National Elevation Data: accessed July 

17, 2002, at http://gisdata.usgs.net/NED/default.asp

U.S. Geological Survey, 1999, Streamflow information for the 

next century—A plan for the National Streamflow 

Information Program of the U.S. Geological Survey: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-456, 12 p. 

Vogelmann, J.E., Howard, S., Yang, Lynn, Larson, C.R., Wylie, 

B.K., and Van Driel, Nick, 2001, Completion of the 1990s 

national land cover data set for the conterminous United 

States from Landsat thematic mapper data and ancillary 

data sources: Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote 

Sensing, p. 650–662.

Wahl, K.L., Thomas, W.O., Jr., and Hirsch, R.M., 1995, Streamgaging program of the U.S. Geological Survey: U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 1123, 22 p.

Wandle, S.W., Jr., 1983, Estimating peak discharge of small 

rural streams in Massachusetts: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 2214, 26 p.

Wandle, W.S., Jr., and Lautzenheiser, R.E., 1991, National 

water summary 1988–89—floods and droughts—

Massachusetts, in Paulson, R.W., Chase, E.B, Roberts, 

R.S., and Moody, D.W. (comps.), National Water 

Summary 1988–89, floods and droughts: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 2375, p 327–334.

Winter, T.C., Harvey, J.W., Franke, L.O., and Alley, W.M, 1998, 

Ground water and surface water a single resource: U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 1139, 79 p.

APPENDIX 1: Streamgage Stations, Observation Wells, and

Summary Tables by Major Basin in Massachusetts and

Rhode Island

Maps and tables of the streamgage stations and observation-wells are provided in this appendix for each of the 27 

Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) basins in Massachusetts and five major basins in Rhode Island. 

Basin maps are arranged in alphabetical order. Each map includes information on: (1) major basin boundaries, (2) town 

boundaries, (3) location of active continuous-record streamgage stations during the 2000 water year, (4) location of 

active observation wells during the 2000 water year, (5) location of discontinued continuous-record streamgage 

stations, and (6) stations where water-quality samples have been collected. Each map is accompanied by three tables for 

(1) active streamgage stations, (2) discontinued streamgage stations, and (3) active observation wells. Tables for active 

streamgage stations within each basin include the USGS station identification number and name, first year of record 

and total years of record, regulation code, drainage area at the station, physiographic region code, and physical 

characteristics of the gaged basin. Tables for discontinued streamgage stations include station number and name, first 

and last year of record and total years of record, regulation (if known), drainage area, and physiographic region. Tables 

for observation wells include local well number and town location, first year of record and number of years of record, 

well depth, the type of material geologic material the well is finished in, the frequency of water-level measurements, 

and remarks. 

Appendix 1 39

CAPE COD

BAY

A T L A N T I C

OCE A N

NANTUCKET

SOUND

HUDSON

page 68

HOUSATONIC

page 66

DEERFIELD

page 60

WESTFIELD

page 106

FARMINGTON

page 62

CONNECTICUT

page 58

MILLERS

page 76

CHICOPEE

page 54

QUINEBAUG

page 94

FRENCHpage 64

NASHUA

page 80

BLACKSTONE

page 40

MERRIMACK

page 74

SUASCO

page 100

SHAWSHEEN

page 96 PARKER page 84

IPSWICH

page 70

NORTHCOASTALpage 82

BOSTONHARBORpage 42 CHARLES

SOUTHCOASTALpage 98

CAPE CODpage 46

ISLANDSpage 72

BUZZARDS

BAY

TAUNTONpage 102

NARRAGANSETT

BAY

page 78

TENMILEpage 104

PAWTUXET

page 90

BLOCK

ISLAND BAY

HUNT

MOSHASSUCK

WOONASQUATUCKET

page 50

page 44

PAWCATUCK

page 86

D

N

AL

S

I

E

D

O

HR

CONNECTICUT

NEW YORK

VERMONT NEW HAMPSHIRE

0 25 50 MILES

50 KILOMETERS 0 25

42o00'

41o30'

73o00' 72o00' 71o00'

42o30'

70o00'

INDEX TO DETAILED BASIN MAPS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:25,000, 1991,Lambert conformal conic projection. NAD 83
40 The U.S. Geological Survey Streamflow and Observation-Well Network in Massachusetts and Rhode Island

Blackstone

River

MILFORD

HOPKINTON

WESTBOROUGH

FRENCH

SUASCO

NARRAGANSETT

CHARLES

TEN

MILE

TAUNTON

NASHUA

PAWTUXET

CHICOPEE

QUINEBA

WOONASQUATUCKET

UG

QUINEBAUG

MOSHASSUCK

LIW 84

01112500

01110500

01111300

01111500

01111200

01110000

NXW 54

LIW 84

XSW 274

BUW 187

CUW 265

NSW 21

01111000

01113695

01109500

01111402

01111400

01112700

Chepachet R

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

MASSACHUSETTS

RHODE ISLAND

CONNECTICUT

SUTTON

DOUGLAS

UPTON

WORCESTER

UXBRIDGE

GRAFTON

MENDON

AUBURN

WRENTHAM

SHREWSBURY

MILLBURY

BELLINGHAM

NORTHBRIDGE

BLACKSTONE

HOPEDALE

MILLVILLE

BURRILLVILLE

WOONSOCKET

NORTH

SMITHFIELD

GLOCESTER

SMITHFIELD

CUMBERLAND

LINCOLN

HOLDEN

WEST

 BOYLSTON BOYLSTON

PAXTON

LEICESTER

OXFORD

WEBSTER

Blackstone

River

Mill River West Ri ver Quinsigamond

River

Clear River

Branch R

Nipmuc R

Mumf ord River

*

*

*

*

*

EXPLANATION

*

#

0

0

5 MILES

5 KILOMETERS

NXW 54

MAJOR DRAINAGE BASIN 

BOUNDARY

ACTIVE STREAMGAGE 

AND NUMBER

DISCONTINUED STREAMGAGE AND NUMBER

USGS WELL AND NUMBER

01110500

01111000

CONNECTICUT RHODE

ISLAND

NEW YORK VERMONT

MASSACHUSETTS

NEW HAMPSHIRE

42°12'

71°48' 71°36' 71°24'

42°00'

BLACKSTONE RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:25,000, 1991,

Lambert conformal conic projection. NAD 83

Blackstone

River

MILFORD

HOPKINTON

WESTBOROUGH

FRENCH

SUASCO

NARRAGANSETT

CHARLES

TEN

MILE

TAUNTON

NASHUA

PAWTUXET

CHICOPEE

QUINEBA

WOONASQUATUCKET

UG

QUINEBAUG

MOSHASSUCK

LIW 84

01112500

01110500

01111300

01111500

01111200

01110000

NXW 54

LIW 84

XSW 274

BUW 187

CUW 265

NSW 21

01111000

01113695

01109500

01111402

01111400

01112700

Chepachet R

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

MASSACHUSETTS

RHODE ISLAND

CONNECTICUT

SUTTON

DOUGLAS

UPTON

WORCESTER

UXBRIDGE

GRAFTON

MENDON

AUBURN

WRENTHAM

SHREWSBURY

MILLBURY

BELLINGHAM

NORTHBRIDGE

BLACKSTONE

HOPEDALE

MILLVILLE

BURRILLVILLE

WOONSOCKET

NORTH

SMITHFIELD

GLOCESTER

SMITHFIELD

CUMBERLAND

LINCOLN

HOLDEN

WEST

 BOYLSTON BOYLSTON

PAXTON

LEICESTER

OXFORD

WEBSTER

Blackstone

River

Mill River West Ri ver Quinsigamond

River

Clear River

Branch R

Nipmuc R

Mumf ord River

*

*

*

*

*

EXPLANATION

*

#

0

0

5 MILES

5 KILOMETERS

NXW 54

MAJOR DRAINAGE BASIN 

BOUNDARY

ACTIVE STREAMGAGE 

AND NUMBER

DISCONTINUED STREAMGAGE AND NUMBER

USGS WELL AND NUMBER

01110500

01111000

CONNECTICUT RHODE

ISLAND

NEW YORK VERMONT

MASSACHUSETTS

NEW HAMPSHIRE

42°12'

71°48' 71°36' 71°24'

42°00'

BLACKSTONE RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:25,000, 1991,

Lambert conformal conic projection. NAD 83
Appendix 1 41

BLACKSTONE RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN

1Not published since 1990

Table 1.1A. Continuous streamgage stations active during the 2000 water year[Regulation code: 0, none; 1, low flow only; 3, all flows; 4 variable flows. Region code: CL, Coastal Lowlands; CU, Central Uplands. mi2, square miles]

Station 

number Station name

Record

Regulation

code

Drainage

area

(mi2)

Region 

code

Mean 

elevation 

(feet)

Mean 

slope 

(percent)

Basin characteristics, percent of basin area

Begin Years Water Wetland Forest Urban Agri- culture Other Sand and gravel

01110000 Quinsigamond River at North Grafton, MA 1939 62 1 25.6 CU 487 5.8 5.6 2.4 38 28 3.0 23 3901110500 Blackstone River at Northbridge, MA 1939 62 1 139 CU 589 6.5 4.1 1.8 46 22 6.1 20 2501111200 West River below West Hill Dam near 

Uxbridge, MA1

1962 29 3 27.9 CU 404 6.2 .9 6.3 72 1.3 8.6 11 25

01111300 Nipmuc River near Harrisville, RI 1964 37 4 16 CU 531 4.8 .5 3.6 83 1.4 3.9 7.6 .501111500 Branch River at Forrestdale, RI 1940 61 1 91.2 CL 495 5.8 5.8 4.6 67 4.1 4.5 14 5.801112500 Blackstone River at Woonsocket, RI 1929 72 3 416 CL 484 6.0 4.0 3.4 58 10 6.6 18 401113695 Catamint Brook at Cumberland, RI 2000 1 0 3.55 CL 296 7.3 2.4 3.3 53 4.6 8.7 28 2.4

Table 1.1B. Discontinued continuous streamgage stations[Regulation code: 0, none; 1, low flow only; 3, all flows. Region code: CU, Central Uplands. mi2, square miles]

Station 

number Station name

Record

Years Regulation code Drainage area (mi2) Region code Begin End

01109500 Kettle Brook at Worcester, MA 1923 1978 56 3 31.6 CU01111000 Mumford River at East Douglas, MA 1939 1951 13 unknown 29.1 CU01111400 Chepachet River at Chepachet, RI 1965 1973 9 1 17.4 CU01111402 Chepachet River at Gazzaville, RI 1973 1975 3 1 18.3 CU01112700 Blackstone River Tributary at Woonsocket, RI 1965 1974 10 0 2.31 CU

Table 1.1C. Observation wells active in the 2000 water year[Material: S&G, sand and gravel]

Local

well 

number

Town and State

Record Well depth 

(feet) Material Measurement frequency Remarks Start Years

BUW 187 Burrillville, RI 1968 33 20 S&G MonthlyCUW 265 Cumberland, RI 1946 55 20 S&G MonthlyLIW 84 Lincoln, RI 1946 55 107 S&G Monthly Affected by Blackstone River at high-water levelsNSW 21 North Smithfield, RI 1947 54 16 S&G Monthly Affected by pumping, 1947-80NXW 54 Northbridge, MA 1984 17 12 S&G MonthlyXSW 274 Worcester, MA 1965 36 55 S&G Monthly Affected by Lake Quinsigamond stage
42 The U.S. Geological Survey Streamflow and Observation-Well Network in Massachusetts and Rhode Island

Neponset River

Monatiquot River

WeirR iver

Abe rjona

R.

CHARLES

IPSWICH

NORTH COASTAL

SHAWSHEEN

SOUTH

COASTAL

TAUNTON

SUASCO

BOSTON

BAY

Mystic River

MILTON

RANDOLPH

BRAINTREE

HINGHAM

CANTON

NORWOOD

WALPOLE

SHARON

DEDHAM

DOVER

MEDFIELD

NORFOLK

FOXBOROUGH

AVON

COHASSET

BOSTON

QUINCY

WEYMOUTH

ABINGTON

ROCKLAND

NORWELL

BROCKTON

REVERE

WOBURN

LEXINGTON

WATERTOWN

BELMONT

CAMBRIDGE

SOMERVILLE

MEDFORD

WILMINGTON

WAKEFIELD

READING

MELROSE

MALDEN

EVERETT

CHELSEA

WINTHROP

WINCHESTER

STONEHAM

ARLINGTON

BURLINGTON

STOUGHTON

HOLBROOK

WESTWOOD

XOW 14

01102500

011055566 01104000

01105000

01105500

01105600

01104850

FXW3

DDW 231 XGW 3

XGW 2

XGW 4

01105557

01105585

Weymouth

River

*

* #

#

#

#

CONNECTICUT RHODE

ISLAND

NEW YORK VERMONT

MASSACHUSETTS

NEW HAMPSHIRE

BOSTON HARBOR DRAINAGE BASIN

0 5 MILES

0 5 KILOMETERS

01102500

01105585

EXPLANATION

MAJOR DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY

ACTIVE STREAMGAGE AND NUMBER

ACTIVE STREAMGAGE WITH WATERQUALITY DATA AND NUMBER

DISCONTINUED STREAMGAGE

AND NUMBER

USGS WELL AND NUMBER

*

#

01105500

DDW 231

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:25,000, 1991,

Lambert conformal conic projection. NAD 83
Appendix 1 43

BOSTON HARBOR DRAINAGE BASINTable 1.2A. Continuous streamgage stations active during the 2000 water year[Regulation code: 1, low flow only; 3, all flows; 4, variable flows. Region code: CL, Coastal Lowlands. mi2, square miles; --, not applicable]

Station

number Station name

Record

Regulation

code

Drainage

area

(mi2)

Region 

code

Mean 

elevation 

(feet)

Mean 

slope 

(percent)

Basin characteristics, percent of basin area

Begin Years Water Wetland Forest Urban Agri- culture Other Sand and gravel

01102500 Aberjona River (head of Mystic River) at 

Winchester, MA

1939 62 3 24.1 CL 118 4.9 2.1 1.9 18 24 2.0 52 44

01104000 Mother Brook at Dedham, MA 1931 70 3 diversion CL -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --01105000 Neponset River at Norwood, MA 1939 62 1 34.7 CL 215 4.1 4.0 6.5 43 8.2 4.3 34 5701105500 East Branch Neponset River at Canton, MA 1952 49 1 27.2 CL 214 3.4 5.1 6.3 38 11 1.6 38 61011055566 Neponset River at Milton Village, MA 1996 5 4 101 CL 177 3.8 3.7 6.6 35 16 2.7 36 5201105585 Town Brook at Diversion Tunnel at 

Quincy, MA

1999 2 2 4.11 CL 98 5.7 1.2 .6 19 67 .2 12 33

01105600 Old Swamp River near South Weymouth, MA 1966 35 1 4.5 CL 140 2.6 0 5.8 42 20 .4 32 27

Table 1.2B. Discontinued continuous streamgage stations[Regulation code: 0, none. Region code: CL, Coastal Lowlands. mi2, square miles]

Station

number Station name

Record

Years Regulation code Drainage area (mi2) Region code Begin End

01104850 Mine Brook at Walpole, MA 1967 1968 2 0 6.00 CL01105557 Furnace Brook at Quincy, MA 1973 1980 8 0 3.81 CL

Table 1.2C. Observation wells active in the 2000 water year[Material: S&G, sand and gravel]

Local

well

number

Town and State

Record Well depth 

(feet) Material Measurement frequency Remarks Start Years

DDW 231 Dedham, MA 1965 36 22 Till MonthlyFXW 3 Foxboro, MA 1965 36 32 S&G MonthlyXGW 2 Weymouth, MA 1965 36 30 Till MonthlyXGW 3 Weymouth, MA 1965 36 22 S&G Monthly Affected by pumpingXGW 4 Weymouth, MA 1965 36 23 S&G MonthlyXOW 14 Winchester, MA 1940 61 17 Till Monthly
44 The U.S. Geological Survey Streamflow and Observation-Well Network in Massachusetts and Rhode Island

East Br Westport River

Red

Brook

Adamsville Br

* *

*

01105895

01106000 01106000

WFW 51

01105933

PWW 22

WFW 51

PWW 494

NGW 116

TIW 274

01105885

TAUNTON

CAPE COD

SOUTH COASTAL TAUNTON

ISLANDS

NARRAGANSETT BAY

CARVER

MIDDLEBOROUGH

ROCHESTER

ACUSHNET MARION

KINGSTON

PLYMOUTH

WESTPORT

DARTMOUTH

FALL RIVER

TAUTON

TIVERTON

LITTLE

COMPTON

FREETOWN

LAKEVILLE

BERKLEY

NEW

BEDFORD

MATTAPOISETT

FAIRHAVEN

GOSNOLD

WAREHAM

Paskamansett River

Wew eantic River CONNECTICUT RHODE

ISLAND

NEW YORK VERMONT

MASSACHUSETTS

NEW HAMPSHIRE BUZZARDS

BAY

EXPLANATION

*

#

01106000

MAJOR DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY

ACTIVE STREAMGAGE AND NUMBER

DISCONTINUED STREAMGAGE

AND NUMBER

USGS WELL AND NUMBER

0

0

5 MILES

5 KILOMETERS

NGW 116

01105933

71°12' 71°00' 70°48' 70°36'

41°36'

41°48'

BUZZARDS BAY DRAINAGE BASIN

MASSACHUSETTS

RHODE ISLAND

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:25,000, 1991,

Lambert conformal conic projection. NAD 83
Appendix 1 45

BUZZARDS BAY DRAINAGE BASIN

1Restarted and ended in 1987

Table 1.3A. Continuous streamgage station active during the 2000 water year[Regulation code: 0, none. Region code: CL, Coastal Lowlands. mi2, square miles]

Station

number Station name

Record

Regulation

code

Drainage

area

(mi2)

Region 

code

Mean 

elevation 

(feet)

Mean 

slope 

(percent)

Basin characteristics, percent of basin area

Begin Years Water Wetland Forest Urban Agri- culture Other Sand and gravel

01105933 Paskamanset River near South 

Dartmouth, MA

1995 6 0 26.2 CL 96 2.3 0.8 21 60 12 6.2 0 41

Table 1.3B. Discontinued continuous streamgage stations[Regulation code: 0, none; 1, low flow only. Region code: CL, Coastal Lowlands. mi2, square miles]

Station

number Station name

Record

Years Regulation code Drainage area (mi2) Region code Begin End

01105885 Red Brook below Route 25 near Wareham, MA 1981 1986 6 0 9.14 CL01105895 Weweantic River at South Wareham, MA 1970 1971 2 1 56.1 CL01106000 Adamsville Brook at Adamsville, RI 1941 11978 39 0 8.01 CL

Table 1.3C. Observation wells active in the 2000 water year[Material: S&G, sand and gravel]

Local

well

number

Town and State

Record Well depth 

(feet) Material Measurement frequency Remarks Start Years

NGW 116 New Bedford, MA 1964 37 27 S&G MonthlyPWW 22 Plymouth, MA 1956 45 40 S&G MonthlyPWW 494 Plymouth, MA 1985 16 47 S&G MonthlyTIW 274 Tiverton, RI 1990 11 13 Till MonthlyWFW 51 Wareham, MA 1959 42 12 S&G Monthly
46 The U.S. Geological Survey Streamflow and Observation-Well Network in Massachusetts and Rhode Island

*

OSW 22

TSW 1

TSW 92 PZW 78

TSW 89

WNW 34 WNW 108

WNW 30

WNW 17

EGW 36

EGW 37

OSW 22

OSW 25

BMW 22

BMW 21 OSW 24

BMW 44

YAW 93

YAW 98

A1W 247

YAW 85

BHW 27 YAW 89

YAW 96

YAW 94

MIW 19

MIW 29

TSW 203

TSW 179

TSW 216

SDW 263 SDW 252

SDW 260

DGW 123

DGW 157

DGW 158

DGW 172, 173

SDW 261

SDW 253

BHW 215

HJW 141 HJW 145

A1W 294

A1W 314, 315

BHW 198 CGW 138

SDW 258 A1W 254

A1W 313

FSW 179

A1W 307

A1W 306

A1W 230

FSW 172

FSW 167

FSW 173

A1W 292

Quashnet R

011058837

01105880

CAPE COD BAY

Vineyard Sound

BUZZARDS BAY

SOUTH

COASTAL

PLYMOUTH

BARNSTABLE

FALMOUTH

SANDWICH BOURNE

WAREHAM

TRURO

DENNIS

MASHPEE

BREWSTER

HARWICH

DUXBURY

YARMOUTH

N

WELLFLEET

ORLEANS

EASTHAM

MARSHFIELD

CHATHAM

PROVINCETOWN

Herring R

EXPLANATION

*

#

011058837

SDW 263

01105880

MAJOR DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY

ACTIVE STREAMGAGE AND NUMBER

DISCONTINUED STREAMGAGE

AND NUMBER

USGS WELL AND NUMBER

0

0

5 MILES

5 KILOMETERS

CONNECTICUT RHODE

ISLAND

NEW

YORK

VERMONT

MASSACHUSETTS

NEW HAMPSHIRE

70°24' 70°00'

41°36'

42°00'

CAPE COD DRAINAGE BASIN

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:25,000, 1991,

Lambert conformal conic projection. NAD 83
Appendix 1 47

CAPE COD DRAINAGE BASIN

1Surface-water divide.2Ground-water divide (72 percent area in common with the surface-water divide).

Table 1.4A. Continuous streamgage station active during the 2000 water year[Regulation code: 4 variable flows. Region code: CL, Coastal Lowlands. mi2, square miles]

Station

number Station name

Record

Regulation

code

Drainage

area

(mi2)

Region 

code

Mean 

elevation 

(feet)

Mean 

slope 

(percent)

Basin characteristics, percent of basin area

Begin Years Water Wetland Forest Urban Agri- culture Other Sand and gravel

011058837 Quashnet River at Waquoit Village, MA 1988 13 4 15.64

24.20

CL 68

69

2.93.2

10

.3

3.9

.5

5468

10

8.2

1.61.8

20.521.2

100100

Table 1.4B. Discontinued continuous streamgage station[Regulation code: 1, low flow only. Region code: CL, Coastal Lowlands. mi2, square miles]

Station

number Station name

Record

Years Regulation code Drainage area (mi2) Region code Begin End

01105880 Herring River at North Harwich, MA 1966 1988 23 1 9.4 CL

Table 1.4C. Observation wells active in the 2000 water year[Material: S&G, sand and gravel. NWIS, National Water Information System]

Local well

number Town and State

Record Well depth 

(feet) Material Measurement frequency Remarks Start Years

A1W 230 Barnstable, MA 1958 43 36 S&G Monthly Published in monthly and annual reportsA1W 247 Barnstable, MA 1962 39 52 S&G Monthly Published in monthly and annual reportsA1W 2541 Barnstable, MA 1975 26 40 S&G BimonthlyA1W 2921 Barnstable, MA 1975 26 51 S&G BimonthlyA1W 2941 Barnstable, MA 1975 26 60 S&G BimonthlyA1W 3061 Barnstable, MA 1975 26 33 S&G MonthlyA1W 3071 Barnstable, MA 1975 26 36 S&G BimonthlyA1W 3131 Barnstable, MA 1975 26 63 S&G BimonthlyA1W 3141 Barnstable, MA 1976 25 192 S&G BimonthlyA1W 3151 Barnstable, MA 1976 25 75 S&G Bimonthly
48 The U.S. Geological Survey Streamflow and Observation-Well Network in Massachusetts and Rhode Island Table 1.4C. Observation wells active in the 2000 water year—Coantinued Local well number Town and State Record Well depth (feet) Material Measurement frequency Remarks Start Years BHW 271 Bourne, MA 1976 25 100 S&G Bimonthly BHW 198 Bourne, MA 1962 39 50 S&G Monthly Published in monthly and annual reports BHW 2151 Bourne, MA 1975 26 83 S&G Bimonthly BMW 21 Brewster, MA 1962 39 25 S&G Monthly Published in monthly and annual reports BMW 22 Brewster, MA 1962 39 52 S&G Hourly Telemetered; published in monthly and annual reports BMW 441 Brewster, MA 1975 26 73 S&G Bimonthly CGW 138 Chatham, MA 1962 39 44 S&G Monthly Published in monthly and annual reports DGW 1231 Dennis, MA 1975 26 58 S&G Monthly DGW 1571 Dennis, MA 1975 26 48 S&G Bimonthly DGW 1581 Dennis, MA 1975 26 58 S&G Bimonthly DGW 1721 Dennis, MA 1976 25 294 S&G Bimonthly DGW 1731 Dennis, MA 1976 25 172 S&G Bimonthly EGW 361 Eastham, MA 1975 26 62 S&G Monthly EGW 371 Eastham, MA 1975 26 27 S&G Bimonthly FSW 1671 Falmouth, MA 1975 26 55 S&G Monthly FSW 1721 Falmouth, MA 1975 26 73 S&G Bimonthly FSW 1731 Falmouth, MA 1975 26 69 S&G Bimonthly FSW 1791 Falmouth, MA 1975 26 52 S&G Bimonthly HJW 1411 Harwich, MA 1975 26 75 S&G Bimonthly HJW 1451 Harwich, MA 1975 26 45 S&G Monthly MIW 191 Mashpee, MA 1975 26 46 S&G Bimonthly MIW 29 Mashpee, MA 1976 25 40 S&G Monthly Published in monthly and annual reports OSW 221 Orleans, MA 1975 26 52 S&G Bimonthly OSW 241 Orleans, MA 1975 26 68 S&G Bimonthly

OSW 251 Orleans, MA 1975 26 78 S&G BimonthlyPZW 781 Provincetown, MA 1975 26 40 S&G BimonthlySDW 252 Sandwich, MA 1962 39 57 S&G Monthly Published in monthly and annual reportsSDW 253 Sandwich, MA 1962 39 70 S&G Monthly Published in monthly and annual reportsSDW 2581 Sandwich, MA 1975 26 84 S&G BimonthlySDW 2601 Sandwich, MA 1975 26 90 S&G Bimonthly
Appendix 1 49

1Water-level measurements are stored in the NWIS database, but are not published in the annual data reports.

SDW1611 Sandwich MA 1975 26 160 S&G BimonthlySDW 2631 Sandwich, MA 1975 26 111 S&G MonthlyTSW 1 Truro, MA 1950 51 68 S&G Monthly Affected by pumping, published in monthly and annual reportsTSW 89 Truro, MA 1962 39 22 S&G Monthly Published in monthly and annual reportsTSW 921 Truro, MA 1972 29 64 S&G BimonthlyTSW 1791 Truro, MA 1973 28 10 S&G BimonthlyTSW 2031 Truro, MA 1973 28 35 S&G BimonthlyTSW 2161 Truro, MA 1975 26 101 S&G BimonthlyWNW 17 Wellfleet, MA 1962 39 42 S&G Monthly Published in monthly and annual reportsWNW 301 Wellfleet, MA 1975 26 83 S&G BimonthlyWNW 341 Wellfleet, MA 1975 26 55 S&G MonthlyWNW 1081 Wellfleet, MA 1978 23 37 S&G MonthlyYAW 851 Yarmouth, MA 1975 26 60 S&G BimonthlyYAW 891 Yarmouth, MA 1975 26 24 S&G MonthlyYAW 931 Yarmouth, MA 1975 26 52 S&G BimonthlyYAW 941 Yarmouth, MA 1975 26 26 S&G BimonthlyYAW 961 Yarmouth, MA 1975 26 27 S&G BimonthlyYAW 981 Yarmouth, MA 1975 26 85 S&G Bimonthly

Table 1.4C. Observation wells active in the 2000 water year—Coantinued

Local well

number Town and State

Record Well depth 

(feet) Material Measurement frequency Remarks Start Years
50 The U.S. Geological Survey Streamflow and Observation-Well Network in Massachusetts and Rhode Island

DVW 10

LTW 104

NNW 27

01104500

01104480

01104200

01103500

01104460 01104460

01104430

01104420

01104415

01104405

01104410

01103280

01104455

01104440

01104615

BOSTON

FRANKLIN

SUDBURY

DOVER

WALPOLE

NATICK

NEWTON

WESTON

HOPKINTON

WRENTHAM

FRAMINGHAM

MILLIS

MILTON

HOLLISTON

LINCOLN

MILFORD

NORFOLK

MENDON

WAYLAND

SHERBORN

MEDFIELD

BELLINGHAM

ASHLAND

WALTHAM

NEEDHAM

MEDWAY

CONCORD

DEDHAM

LEXINGTON

NORWOOD

WESTWOOD

WELLESLEY

MEDFORD

CAMBRIDGE

BROOKLINE

HOPEDALE

BELMONT

ARLINGTON

SOMERVILLE

WATERTOWN

W

SUASCO

BOSTON HARBOR

BLACKSTONE

TEN MILE

TAUNTON

NORTH

COASTAL

BOSTON

HARBOR

SHAWSHEEN

TAUNTON

Charles River

 Charles

River

Mill River

*

*

*

***

DDW231

MAJOR DRAINAGE BASIN 

BOUNDARY

ACTIVE STREAMGAGE AND

NUMBER

ACTIVE STREAMGAGE WITH 

WATER-QUALITY DATA

AND NUMBER

DISCONTINUED STREAMGAGE 

AND NUMBER

USGS WELL AND NUMBER

EXPLANATION

*

01104430

DVW 10

0

0

5 MILES

5 KILOMETERS

01104455

* 01103305

01104480

CONNECTICUT RHODE

ISLAND

NEW

YORKVERMONT

MASSACHUSETTS

NEW HAMPSHIRE

71°24' 71°12'

42°12'

42°24'

CHARLES RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:25,000, 1991,

Lambert conformal conic projection. NAD 83
Appendix 1 51

CHARLES RIVER DRAINAGE BASINTable 1.5A. Continuous streamgage stations active during the 2000 water year[Regulation code: 0, none; 3, all flows. Region code: CL, Coastal Lowlands. mi2, square miles]

Station

number Station name

Record

Regulation

code

Drainage

area

(mi2)

Region 

code

Mean 

elevation 

(feet)

Mean 

slope 

(percent)

Basin characteristics, percent of basin area

Begin Years Water Wetland Forest Urban Agri- culture Other Sand and gravel

01103280 Charles River at Medway, MA 1997 4 0 65.7 CL 287 4.1 1.5 5.1 51 9.6 4.8 28 3701103500 Charles River at Dover, MA 1937 64 0 183 CL 225 4.4 2.3 7.1 47 6.4 6.2 31 4601104200 Charles River at Wellesley, MA 1959 42 3 211 CL 215 4.4 2.5 7.0 45 10 5.5 30 4701104430 Hobbs Brook below Cambridge 

Reservoir near Kendall Green, MA

1997 4 3 6.86 CL 214 4.9 14 4.9 42 18 3.2 18 31

01104480 Stony Brook Reservoir at Dam near 

Waltham, MA

1999 2 3 23.7 CL 198 5.5 6.6 4.9 40 10 5.5 33 45

01104500 Charles River at Waltham, MA 1931 70 3 227 CL 208 4.5 3.2 6.5 43 11 5.3 31 4801104615 Charles River above Watertown Dam at 

Watertown, MA

1999 2 3 271 CL 204 4.6 2.9 6.1 41 14 5.0 31 47

Table 1.5B. Discontinued continuous streamgage stations[Regulation code: 0, none; 3, all flows. Region code: CL, Coastal Lowlands. mi2, square miles]

Station

number Station name

Record

Years Regulation code Drainage area (mi2) Region code Begin End

01103305 Charles River near Millis, MA 1974 1980 7 0 84 CL01104405 Hobbs Brook at Mill Steet near Lincoln, MA 1998 1999 2 0 2.16 CL01104410 Cambridge Reservoir, Unnamed Tributary 1, near Lexington, MA 1998 1999 2 0 .35 CL01104415 Cambridge Reservoir, Unnamed Tributary 2, near Lexington, MA 1998 1999 2 0 .41 CL01104420 Cambridge Reservoir, Unnamed Tributary 3, near Lexington, MA 1998 1999 2 0 .73 CL01104440 Hobbs Brook at Kendal Green, MA 1998 1999 2 3 8.47 CL01104455 Stony Brook, Unnamed Tributary 1, near Waltham, MA 1998 1999 2 0 .48 CL01104460 Stony Brook at Route 20 at Waltham, MA 1998 1999 2 0 22 CL
52 The U.S. Geological Survey Streamflow and Observation-Well Network in Massachusetts and Rhode Island Table 1.5C. Observation wells active in the 2000 water year

[Material: S&G, sand and gravel]

Local

well

number

Town and State

Record Well depth 

(feet) Material Measurement frequency Remarks Start Years

DVW 10 Dover, MA 1965 36 54 S&G MonthlyLTW 104 Lexington, MA 1965 36 21 S&G MonthlyNNW 27 Norfolk, MA 1965 36 18 S&G Hourly Telemetered

54 The U.S. Geological Survey Streamflow and Observation-Well Network in Massachusetts and Rhode Island

01175670

01174500

01174600

01174900

01177000

01176000

01173500

01175500

01172500

01172680

01174050

01172800

01173260

01175670

01173000

01174565

01174575

01174570

01174600

01174900

01174000

01174500

HHW 31

PDW 24

XJW 55

HHW 1

WUW 2

PHW 16

PDW 24

PDW 23 HHW 31

WEW 43

WUW 10

CMW 95

XJW 55

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

WARE

BARRE

PETERSHAM

MONSON

NEW

SALEM

CHARLTON

PALMER

SPENCER

RUTLAND

HARDWICK

BELCHERTOWN

GRANBY

LUDLOW

BRIMFIELD

PELHAM

WENDELL

PRINCETON

WARREN

ATHOL

STURBRIDGE

AMHERST

HUBBARDSTON

DUDLEY

SPRINGFIELD

CHICOPEE

OAKHAM

WESTMINSTER

LEICESTER

WALES

LEVERETT

TEMPLETON

SHUTESBURY

HAMPTON

PAXTON

WILBRAHAM

ORANGE

PHILLIPSTON

GARDNER

BROOKFIELD

NEW BRAINTREE

WEST

BROOKFIELD

NORTH

BROOKFIELD

EAST

BROOKFIELD

MASSACHUSETTS

CONNECTICUT

CONNECTICUT

CONNECTICUT

BLACKSTONE

MILLERS

QUINEBAUG

FRENCH

NASHUA

DEERFIELD

WESTFIELD

QUABBIN

RESERVOIR

Ware

Quaboag River

Seven

Mile River

Swift River

River

W

Br Swift R

 River

E Br Ware River

W

Br Ware R iver

Chicopee

72°36' 72°24' 72°12' 72°00'

42°00'

42°12'

42°24'

CHICOPEE RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN

EXPLANATION

*

#

0

0

5 MILES

5 KILOMETERS

CMW 95

MAJOR DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY

ACTIVE STREAMGAGE AND NUMBER

DISCONTINUED STREAMGAGE

AND NUMBER

USGS WELL AND NUMBER

01176000

01172800

CONNECTICUT RHODE

ISLAND

NEW YORK VERMONT

MASSACHUSETTS

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:25,000, 1991,

Lambert conformal conic projection. NAD 83
Appendix 1 55

CHICOPEE RIVER DRAINAGE BASINTable 1.6A. Continuous streamgage stations active during the 2000 water year[Regulation code: 0, none; 1, low flow only; 3, all flows. Region code: CU, Central Uplands. mi2, square miles]

Station

number Station name

Record

Regulation

code

Drainage

area

(mi2)

Region 

code

Mean 

elevation 

(feet)

Mean 

slope 

(percent)

Basin characteristics, percent of basin area

Begin Years Water Wetland Forest Urban Agri- culture Other Sand and gravel

01172500 Ware River near Barre, MA 1946 55 3 55.1 CU 999 6.2 4.4 5.7 81 0.4 5.1 3.4 1501173000 Ware River at Intake Works near 

Barre, MA

1928 73 3 96.3 CU 977 6.5 3.1 5.3 84 .3 5.2 2.1 18

01173500 Ware River at Gibbs Crossing, MA 1912 89 3 197 CU 885 7.4 2.1 4.7 77 .9 11 4.3 1901174500 East Branch Swift River near 

Hardwick, MA

1937 64 0 43.7 CU 926 8.0 3.0 3.6 85 .3 5.7 2.4 14

01174565 West Branch Swift River near 

Shutesbury, MA

1983 18 0 12.6 CU 947 11 .7 .4 96 0 1.1 1.8 16

01175500 Swift River at West Ware, MA 1940 61 3 189 CU 776 8.3 21 1.6 73 .1 2.1 2.2 1101175670 Sevenmile River near Spencer, MA 1960 41 1 8.81 CU 871 7.4 2.3 3.7 73 .2 14 6.8 13 01176000 Quaboag River at West Brimfield, MA 1912 89 1 150 CU 808 7.5 3.3 5.5 67 1.8 15 7.4 2101177000 Chicopee River at Indian Orchard, MA 1928 73 3 689 CU 770 7.8 7.5 3.6 73 1.4 9.2 5.3 21

Table 1.6B. Discontinued continuous streamgage stations[Regulation code: 0, none. Region code: CU, Central Uplands. mi2, square miles]

Station

number Station name

Record

Years Regulation code Drainage area (mi2) Region code Begin End

01172680 Natty Pond Brook at Templeton Rd near Hubbardston, MA 1985 1988 4 0 1.63 CU01172800 Natty Pond Brook near Hubbardston, MA 1985 1988 4 0 5.48 CU01173260 Moose Brook near Barre, MA 1963 1974 12 0 4.63 CU01174000 Hop Brook near New Salem, MA 1947 1982 36 0 3.39 CU01174050 East Branch Fever Brook near Petersham, MA 1984 1985 2 0 4.85 CU01174570 Dickey Brook near Cooleyville, MA 1985 1989 5 0 1.19 CU01174575 Dickey Brook Tributary near Cooleyville, MA 1985 1989 5 0 1.06 CU01174600 Cadwell Creek near Pelham, MA 1962 1994 33 0 .6 CU01174900 Cadwell Creek near Belchertown, MA 1961 1997 37 0 2.55 CU
56 The U.S. Geological Survey Streamflow and Observation-Well Network in Massachusetts and Rhode Island Table 1.6C. Observation wells active in the 2000 water year

[Material: S&G, sand and gravel]

Local

well

number

Town and State

Record Well depth 

(feet) Material Measurement frequency Remarks Start Years

CMW 95 Chicopee, MA 1984 17 34 S&G MonthlyHHW 1 Hardwick, MA 1965 36 33 S&G MonthlyHHW 31 Hardwick, MA 1984 17 71 S&G MonthlyPDW 23 Pelham, MA 1982 19 740 Bedrock Hourly Telemetered; Affected by earth, tide, and pumpingPDW 24 Pelham, MA 1984 17 25 S&G MonthlyPHW 16 Petersham, MA 1984 17 39 Till MonthlyWEW 43 Ware, MA 1965 36 27 S&G Monthly Affected by Swift River stageWUW 2 West Brookfield, MA 1959 42 43 S&G MonthlyWUW 10 West Brookfield, MA 1970 31 64 Bedrock MonthlyXJW 55 Wilbraham, MA 1965 36 62 S&G Monthly

58 The U.S. Geological Survey Streamflow and Observation-Well Network in Massachusetts and Rhode Island