In cooperation with the

NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Effectiveness of the New Hampshire

Stream-Gaging Network in Providing Regional

Streamflow Information

Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4041

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Effectiveness of the New Hampshire 

Stream-Gaging Network in Providing Regional 

Streamflow Information

By Scott A. Olson

In cooperation with the

NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Pembroke, New Hampshire

2003

Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4041

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
For additional information write to:

District Chief

U.S. Geological Survey

New Hampshire/Vermont District

361 Commerce Way

Pembroke, NH 03275-3718

http://nh.water.usgs.gov

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.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

GALE A. NORTON, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Charles G. Groat, Director
Contents iii

CONTENTS

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

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

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

Previous Studies ......................................................................................................................................... 2

Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................................... 3

Description of the Stream-gaging Network in New Hampshire ......................................................................... 3

Network Analysis ................................................................................................................................................ 5

Description of Technique ........................................................................................................................... 5

Application and Limitations of Results ............................................................................................................... 15

Summary and Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 19

Selected References ............................................................................................................................................. 19

Appendix 1. Basin Characteristics of Stream-gaging Stations in the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network 43

Appendix 1. References ...................................................................................................................................... 64
iv Figures

FIGURES

Figure 1. Diagram showing distribution of stream-gaging station characteristics in New Hampshire ............ 4

Figure 2. Map showing active stream-gaging stations in, and adjacent to, New Hampshire, used in the

network analysis ............................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 3. Map showing discontinued stream-gaging stations in, and adjacent to, New Hampshire, used in the 

network analysis ............................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 4. Map showing location of proposed and new stream-gaging stations used in the New Hampshire

network analysis ............................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 5. Graph showing average sampling error for the 100-year peak-flow characteristic as a function

of the number of stations operated for selected strategies in the analysis of the New Hampshire

stream-gaging network ..................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 6. Graph showing average sampling error for the mean-flow characteristic as a function of the

number of stations operated for selected strategies in the analysis of the New Hampshire

stream-gaging network ..................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 7. Graph showing average sampling error for the low-flow (7Q10) characteristic as a function of

the number of stations operated for selected strategies in the analysis of the New Hampshire streamgaging network ................................................................................................................................. 15

Figure 8. Map showing location of stream-gaging stations and identifying numbers providing data used

for flood-hazard mitigation................................................................................................................ 17
Tables v

TABLES

Table 1. Selected information on stream-gaging stations having 10 years of record or more in or

adjacent to New Hampshire as of the 2000 water year ..................................................................... 20

Table 2. Regression equations for estimating flow frequency on New Hampshire streams .......................... 9

Table 3. Selected information on the proposed and new and stream-gaging stations used in the

New Hampshire network analysis .................................................................................................... 9

Table 4. Average sampling error for selected network strategies ................................................................... 12

Table 5. Station ranking in order of importance for providing regional streamflow information for

selected peak-, mean-, and low-flow characteristics and planning horizons, by station number ..... 26

Table 6. Station ranking in order of importance for providing regional streamflow information for

selected peak-, mean-, and low-flow characteristics and planning horizons, by rank order ............ 34

Table 7. Active and proposed stream-gaging stations providing the greatest enhancements to regional

streamflow information ..................................................................................................................... 16
vi Conversion Factors and Vertical Datum

CONVERSION FACTORS AND VERTICAL DATUM

CONVERSION FACTORS

VERTICAL DATUM

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 

(NGVD of 1929).

Multiply By To obtain

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

square mile (mi2) 2.589 square kilometer (km2)

cubic foot (ft3) 0.09290 square meter (m2)

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)
Introduction 1

Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging 

Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information

By Scott A. Olson

ABSTRACT

The stream-gaging network in New 

Hampshire was analyzed for its effectiveness in 

providing regional information on peak-flood 

flow, mean-flow, and low-flow frequency. The 

data available for analysis were from streamgaging stations in New Hampshire and selected 

stations in adjacent States. The principles of 

generalized-least-squares regression analysis were 

applied to develop regional regression equations 

that relate streamflow-frequency characteristics to 

watershed characteristics. Regression equations 

were developed for (1) the instantaneous peak 

flow with a 100-year recurrence interval, (2) the 

mean-annual flow, and (3) the 7-day, 10-year low 

flow. Active and discontinued stream-gaging 

stations with 10 or more years of flow data were 

used to develop the regression equations.

Each stream-gaging station in the network 

was evaluated and ranked on the basis of how 

much the data from that station contributed to the 

cost-weighted sampling-error component of the 

regression equation. The potential effect of data 

from proposed and new stream-gaging stations on 

the sampling error also was evaluated. The streamgaging network was evaluated for conditions in 

water year 2000 and for estimated conditions 

under various network strategies if an additional

5 years and 20 years of streamflow data were 

collected.

The effectiveness of the stream-gaging 

network in providing regional streamflow 

information could be improved for all three flow 

characteristics with the collection of additional 

flow data, both temporally and spatially. With 

additional years of data collection, the greatest 

reduction in the average sampling error of the 

regional regression equations was found for the 

peak- and low-flow characteristics. In general, 

additional data collection at stream-gaging stations 

with unregulated flow, relatively short-term record 

(less than 20 years), and drainage areas smaller 

than 45 square miles contributed the largest costweighted reduction to the average sampling error 

of the regional estimating equations. The results of 

the network analyses can be used to prioritize the 

continued operation of active stations, the 

reactivation of discontinued stations, or the 

activation of new stations to maximize the regional 

information content provided by the streamgaging network. Final decisions regarding altering 

the New Hampshire stream-gaging network would 

require the consideration of the many uses of the 

streamflow data serving local, State, and Federal 

interests.

INTRODUCTION

The earliest known systematic record collection 

of surface-water data in New Hampshire began in 1886 

on the Pemigewasset River at Plymouth, N.H., by the 

Proprietors of Locks and Canals at Lowell. By 1900, 

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began operating 

stream-gaging stations in the State of New Hampshire. 

Through the years, the stream-gaging program has 

evolved as Federal and State interests in surface-water 

resources have increased and as funds for operating the 

stream-gaging network have become available. Today, 

more than 45 stations are operated as a multi-purpose 

network funded by USGS and other Federal, State and 

local agencies.
2 Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information

The USGS has operated most of the streamgaging network in New Hampshire on behalf of 

multiple cooperators to achieve consistency of data 

collection and analysis, quality control, and wide 

availability of resultant databases, and economies of 

scale. Funding for a station typically is shared in 

proportion to the extent of Federal interests relative to 

those of the cooperating agencies, and ranges from full 

USGS funding to full funding by the cooperator. 

Because the streamflow data-collection networks in 

New Hampshire have evolved in response to a diverse 

range of needs during the past 100 years, it is important 

to periodically examine these networks relative to their 

effectiveness in meeting current and anticipated data 

needs.

Individual stream-gaging stations in the network 

typically have been installed and funded for specific 

purposes, such as flood forecasting and warnings, 

flood-control operations, operation of lakes and 

reservoirs, water allocation, monitoring of streamflow 

withdrawals, and water-quality management, including 

the maintenance of instream flows. Long-term flow 

records are necessary to assess water resources, the 

flow-frequency characteristics of streams, and trends in 

basin yield. 

Streamflow characteristics often are needed at a 

site where no data have been collected. In this situation, 

estimating techniques, usually based on regional 

regression equations of selected streamflow and basin 

characteristics, are used to estimate the desired 

streamflow characteristic. Although stations rarely are 

established exclusively to provide information for these 

estimation techniques, it is important that the streamgaging network as a whole is effective in providing 

regional streamflow coverage. A stream-gaging 

network that is effective in providing regional 

streamflow information will result in accurate regional 

regression equations for estimating streamflow 

characteristics at ungaged locations. In 2002, the 

USGS and the New Hampshire Department of 

Environmental Services (NHDES) began a cooperative 

study to evaluate if the current (2000) stream-gaging 

network is effective in providing regional streamflow 

information.

Purpose and Scope

This report presents an analysis of the streamgaging network in New Hampshire. The network 

analysis conducted for this investigation identifies the 

contribution of each stream-gaging station in New 

Hampshire to regional streamflow information. This 

contribution is expressed in terms of a cost-weighted 

reduction in the average sampling error associated with 

a regional regression equation. The stream-gaging 

network was analyzed for the 2000 water year (ending 

September 30, 2000) and for the 5- and 20-year 

planning horizons.

Specifically, this report (1) identifies the value 

and uses of the New Hampshire stream-gaging 

network; (2) identifies the stations in New Hampshire 

and adjacent areas for which 10 or more years of record 

are available; (3) describes the development of regional 

regression equations for estimating selected peak-flow, 

mean-flow, and low-flow characteristics; (4) ranks the 

stations in terms of their contribution in reducing the 

average sampling error of the regional regression 

equations; and (5) proposes the activation of new 

stations in underrepresented basins where additional 

streamflow data would improve regional streamflow 

information.

Previous Studies

Two earlier evaluations of the stream-gaging 

network applicable to New Hampshire have been 

published. Johnson (1970) evaluated the stream-gaging 

network of central New England. One of the major 

findings of this study was the lack of representation of 

drainage basins smaller than 15 mi2. Smath and 

Blackey (1985) evaluated the combined New 

Hampshire and Vermont stream-gaging networks. This 

study showed areas of poor hydrologic data coverage 

and recommended the establishment of a station on the 

Ossipee River and a station in the White Mountains. 

Neither study, however, used the technique of 

generalized-least-squares (GLS) regression to ascertain 

which stations were most effective in minimizing the 

error of regional regression equations.
Description of the Stream-gaging Network in New Hampshire 3

Acknowledgments

The streamflow data at stream-gaging stations in 

New Hampshire have been collected largely through 

the cooperation of the USGS with many other agencies. 

The USGS wishes to thank all the Federal, State, and 

local cooperators who assist or have assisted in funding 

the stream-gaging network. In particular, the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the New Hampshire 

Department of Environmental Services have made 

substantial, long-term contributions to the operation of 

the network.

DESCRIPTION OF THE STREAM-GAGING 

NETWORK IN NEW HAMPSHIRE

In August 1900, the USGS began collecting 

streamflow data on the Connecticut River at

Orford, N.H. By 1903, stations were added on the 

Merrimack River at Franklin Junction, N.H., and the 

Contoocook River at West Hopkinton, N.H. Flooding 

in 1927, 1936, and 1938, along with interest in 

developing reservoir sites, led to the expansion of the 

stream-gaging program to 32 stations by 1939. Interest 

in the streamflow characteristics of small drainage 

basin (less than 10 square miles [mi2]) prompted the 

establishment of many new stream-gaging stations in 

the 1960s. The number of continuous recording 

stations on New Hampshire’s waterways peaked at 64 

in 1970.

Currently (2002 water year), 45 continuous 

recording stations, 1 lake station, and 6 peak-flow 

stations are operated on New Hampshire waterways as 

a multi-purpose network funded by USGS and other 

Federal, State and local agencies. Near real-time data 

from nearly all the stations are made available to the 

public by satellite and the World Wide Web 

(http://nh.water.usgs.gov/) updated every 4 hours, and 

more frequently in times of flooding. More than

13,000 pages of New Hampshire real-time streamgaging data are requested over the Web site each 

month. This availability of near real-time streamgaging data has improved the ways and timeliness with 

which water-resource managers can respond to floods 

and droughts. The existing stream-gaging network 

provides vital information that safeguards lives, 

property, and water resources; however, the increasing 

costs of stream-gaging operations and the constraints 

on funds and manpower limit the number of stations 

serving local, State, and Federal interests.

Funding for a station often is shared in 

proportion to the extent of Federal interests relative to 

those of the cooperating agencies, and ranges from full 

USGS funding to full funding by the cooperator. This 

funding scheme has led to instability in the number of 

stations in the network. The National Streamflow 

Information Program (NSIP) was created to reverse the 

loss of stations nationwide and to provide a more stable 

network of stations that address Federal interests 

through direct allocation of Federal funds to the USGS. 

The NSIP was designed to meet five Federal 

objectives, including the collection of (1) critical 

streamflow information, in real time, for flood 

forecasting; (2) long-term streamflow information, 

unaffected by regulation or diversion, for improving 

techniques for estimating streamflow characteristics at 

ungaged locations and for assessing the response of 

streamflow to changes in climate and land use;

(3) accurate and impartial streamflow data at State and 

International boundaries; (4) streamflow information 

for supporting USGS water-quality networks; and

(5) streamflow information needed by resource 

managers to track and quantify water budgets (Hirsch 

and Norris, 2001). In New Hampshire, 45 streamgaging stations meet at least one of the Federal 

objectives. Of these 45 stations, 39 are active stations 

operated by the USGS, 2 are partial-record stations, 2 

are discontinued stations, 1 is a proposed station, and 1 

is operated by an agency other than the USGS 

(http://water.usgs.gov/nsip/). Maintaining or reestablishing data collection at Federal-interest sites is a 

priority of NSIP; however, budgetary constraints 

limited the number of New Hampshire stations 

receiving NSIP funding, or partial funding, to 14 

stations.

The New Hampshire stream-gaging network 

serves State and local interests in addition to Federal 

interests. In fact, the network has evolved in response 

to specific data needs rather than a planned 

information-collection system. Of the stations, 25 are 

used for flood control operations, 18 are used in flood 

forecasting, 10 are used for the management of water 

resources and water quality, and 7 are used to manage 

hydropower generation. Many stations have more than 

one use (table 1, back of report). Streamflow data also 

are valuable for assessing flood and drought 

conditions, defining long-term hydrologic trends 
4 Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information

related to changes in land use or climate, evaluating 

riverine habitat required of fish and bird populations, 

assessing flood risks and developing accurate flood 

insurance rate and zoning maps, and designing bridges, 

culverts, dams, and wastewater-treatment facilities. The 

ski industry relies on data from stream-gaging stations 

to manage snowmaking operations. Outdoor 

enthusiasts, from canoeists to fishermen, benefit from 

streamflow data as well.

With the current stream-gaging network, most 

major waterways in New Hampshire are gaged. Several 

significant drainages are not gaged, however, including 

the Swift River in the Saco River Basin; Israel River, 

Nash Stream, Wild Ammonoosuc River, and

Gale River in the Upper Connecticut River Basin;

Cold River in the Upper Connecticut-Mascoma

River Basin; Peabody River in the Upper Androscoggin 

River Basin; and Suncook River in the Merrimack 

River Basin.

A stream-gaging network that is effective in 

providing regional information must have stations with 

basin characteristics representing the range of those 

characteristics that will be encountered throughout the 

region. The range of a selected basin characteristic 

provided by the stream-gaging network and how well 

the range is covered by active stream-gaging stations in 

New Hampshire are shown in figures 1a-e. Each line in 

a graph represents a station.

A review of the graphs indicates that there is a 

gap in the network of stations representing sites having 

a drainage area of 15-35 mi2 (fig. 1a), and a lack of 

stations that have most of their drainage in an urban 

land-use area (fig. 1b). Mean stream slope (fig. 1c) and 

mean basin elevation (fig. 1d) are well represented, 

considering the ranges of these characteristics 

applicable to New Hampshire. There seems to be a lack 

of sites representing mean annual precipitation greater 

than 50 in. (fig. 1e). Considering that the land area of 

New Hampshire having mean annual precipitation 

greater than 50 in. is relatively small, however, this gap 

is considered inconsequential.

Figure 1. Distribution of stream-gaging station characteristics in New Hampshire.

EXPLANATION

One stream-gaging station

36 38 42 46 50 52 58 60

MEAN ANNUAL BASIN PRECIPITATION, IN INCHES

40 44 48 54 56

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

PERCENTAGE OF BASIN AREA IN URBAN LAND USE

100 101 102 103 104

DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES

2 3 4 5 678 2 3 4 5 678 2 3 4 5 678 2 3 4 5 678

10-3.000 10-2.000 10-1.000

MEAN BASIN STREAM SLOPE, IN FEET PER FOOT

2 3 4 5 67 2 3 4 5 67 2 3 4 5

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000

MEAN BASIN ELEVATION, IN FEET

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.
Network Analysis 5

NETWORK ANALYSIS

Network analysis is used to maximize the 

amount of regional streamflow information obtainable 

under specified time and budget restraints. The 

network-analysis methods used in this study are based 

on GLS regression (Tasker and Stedinger, 1989). 

Tasker (1986) describes the mathematical formulation 

of the network-analysis methods used in this study. 

These methods have been refined and incorporated into 

the software generalized-least-squares and NETwork 

analysis (GLSNET) (Tasker, G.D., Flynn, K.M.,

Lumb, A.M., and Thomas, Jr., W.O., U.S. Geological 

Survey, written commun., 1995).

Description of Technique

The network analysis done in this study is based 

upon reducing the error associated with regional 

regression equations used for estimating flow 

characteristics at ungaged stream locations. The 

equations are developed from streamflow and basin 

characteristics at gaged locations. For regionalization 

to be effective, the range of basin characteristics of the 

stream-gaging stations in a network must represent the 

range of basin characteristics that will be encountered 

throughout the region. An optimum regional network 

would include flow data from stream-gaging stations 

that spatially cover the region of interest, have an 

adequate length of record, and provide a complete 

range of basin and streamflow characteristics (Straub, 

1998). The results of this network evaluation allow the 

ranking of stream-gaging stations in order of their 

contribution to regional streamflow information. The 

application of this ranking, along with other means of 

identifying the usefulness of a station, is an integral 

part of determining how to apply funds and manpower 

in order to best meet all hydrologic data needs.

Generalized-least-squares regression is used to 

develop regional regression equations that would be 

used to estimate streamflow characteristics at ungaged 

sites. The principles of GLS are then utilized to 

estimate the prediction mean-square error at each 

stream-gaging station for a flow characteristic being 

estimated by a regional regression equation. The 

prediction mean-square error for a given site consists of 

a sampling error and a model error. The sampling error 

is a measure of the error in the regression prediction as 

a result of the regression equation being developed 

with observed (sampled) streamflow characteristics 

instead of true streamflow characteristics. It is a 

function of record length, basin characteristics, and the 

location of the site in relation to other stations. 

Sampling error can be reduced by collecting additional 

streamflow data at new or existing sites. The model 

error can be reduced only by choosing a better form of 

the model. Tasker (1986) describes the mathematical 

formulation for computing the sampling error, Esamp, 

of a flow-frequency estimate as

, (1)

where

Because xi is not required to be a row of X, 

sampling error at an ungaged location also can be 

estimated with equation 1. If the model error is 

assumed to be constant, then a network analysis can be 

performed by investigating the effect of data from each 

existing or proposed stream-gaging station on the 

sampling error, averaged over all stations in the 

analysis.

The GLSNET software uses these concepts to 

determine the relative contribution of each station in 

providing regional streamflow information. The 

program determines which station provides the 

smallest cost-weighted reduction in the average 

sampling error and selects this station to be removed 

from the analysis. Each station is incrementally 

xi is a row vector of the logarithms of 

the basin characteristics for the 

study site i, augmented by a 1 as 

the first element;

T is the matrix algebra symbol for 

transposing the matrix; and

(XTΛ−1X)-1 is the (p x p) matrix with X being a 

(n x p) matrix that has a row of 

logarithmically transformed basin 

characteristics augmented by a 

leading 1 and Λ being the (n x n) 

covariance matrix used for 

weighting sample data in the GLS 

regression; n is the number of 

stream-gaging stations used in the 

regression analysis and p is the 

number of basin characteristics, 

plus 1.

Esamp xi XTΛ–1 ( ) X –1xi

T [ ]

1 2⁄

=
6 Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information

removed from the network until no stations remain. 

The last station that is removed from the network 

contributes the largest cost-weighted reduction in the 

average sampling error. Reversing the order in which 

GLSNET removes stations from the network provides 

a ranking for the stream-gaging stations in order of 

their value in providing regional streamflow 

information. A proposed station can be included in the 

network analysis because sampling error is a function 

of basin characteristics and the station location in 

relation to other stations in the network. 

Application of the Network Analysis Technique

Network analyses were done for three flow 

characteristics selected to represent peak-flood flow, 

mean flow, and low flow—the instantaneous peak 

discharge with a 100-year recurrence interval, the mean 

annual discharge, and the 7-day, 10-year low flow, 

respectively. Stream-gaging stations selected for the 

network analysis were screened to ensure that their 

record was suitable for the respective flow 

characteristic being assessed. For example, data from 

stations with no flow diversion and minimal or no 

regulation at high flows were used in the network 

analysis for the 100-year peak discharge. It was 

assumed that regulation with less than 4.5 million cubic 

feet (ft3) of usable capacity per square mile of drainage 

area would have minimal effect on peak discharges 

(Benson, 1962). Data from stations with no flow 

diversion and no regulation other than diurnal 

regulation were used in the network analysis for the 

low-flow characteristic. Data from sites with no flow 

diversion were used in the network analysis for the 

mean annual flow characteristic.

Separate regression models were developed for 

each of the three flow characteristics using GLS. 

Discontinued and active stations with greater than

10 years of record (table 1 in back of report; figs. 2 and 

3) for the respective flow characteristics were included 

in the regression analyses. The use of GLS regression 

allows for weighting of the station data to compensate 

for the differences in record length and the crosscorrelation of concurrent record among stations. The 

regression analyses for the 100-year peak discharge 

and the mean annual discharge tested 32 different basin 

characteristics as potential independent variables (see 

Appendix 1). A stepwise, ordinary-least-squares (OLS) 

regression analysis was used as a preliminary screening 

of physical and climatic characteristics to determine 

those that were most significant in estimating 

streamflow characteristics. The basin and climatic 

characteristics used in the final regressions for the

100-year peak discharge were drainage area, the 

average basin slope, and the 24-hour rainfall expected, 

on average, once each 100 years. The basin and 

climatic characteristics used in the final regressions for 

the mean annual discharge were drainage area, the 

average basin slope, and the basinwide averaged mean 

annual precipitation. 

The basin characteristics used in the annual

7-day, 10-year low-flow regression were taken from a 

study recently completed by Flynn (2003). In that 

study, the basin and climatic characteristics that were 

determined to be most significant in estimating the 

low-flow characteristics were drainage area, the basinwide averaged mean annual temperature, and the mean 

precipitation during the months June through October 

at the station location. The regression equation for the 

annual 7-day, 10-year low flow was re-determined 

using an additional year of streamflow data than was 

available for the study by Flynn (2003). The regression 

equations are shown in table 2.

All stream-gaging stations used in the regression 

analyses, as well as proposed and new stations

(table 3), were included in the network analyses. Three 

planning horizons for the collection of streamflow data 

were considered in this study. The 0-year planning 

horizon represents current conditions (2000) and 

includes no additional data collection. The 5-year 

planning horizon represents the short-term period, and 

the 20-year planning horizon represents the long-term 

period of additional data collection. Ten active or 

discontinued stations with less than 10 years of 

unregulated data were included as new station locations 

in the 5- and 20-year planning horizons (table 3). An 

additional 19 proposed stations were included in the 

network analysis for the 5- and 20-year planning 

horizons. The proposed stations were selected to 

represent drainage basins with locations in New 

Hampshire that had inadequate streamflow data, or 

basin characteristics that were underrepresented in the 

development of regression equations. Eight of these 

station sites were proposed in a report by Flynn (2003), 

which investigated low-flow characteristics in New 

Hampshire. Another eight station sites correspond to 

those proposed in an investigation on the sustainability 

of water resources in the rapidly growing coastal area 

of New Hampshire. Three additional proposed 

locations were selected solely for this study. The 

proposed and new station sites are identified in table 3

and shown in figure 4.
Network Analysis 7

Kirby Brk.

Kent Brk.

Saxtons R.

Sacketts Brk.

Wild R. Swift R.

Ellis R.

Parker R.

Nashoba Brk.

Millers R.

Saco R.

South Branch

Manchester

Concord

Ayers Brk.

Beaver Brk.

Base from U.S. Geological Survey

Digital line graphs, 1:24,000 or

1:25,000 scale, 1983

73° 72° 71°

45°

44°

43°

Atlantic

Ocean

MAINE

VERMONT

MASSACHUSETTS

CANADA

NEW HAMPSHIRE

0 20 40 MILES

0 20 40 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Stream-gaging station

and identifying number

1129440

Paul S.

Quimby Brk.

Pope Brk.

Sleepers R.

E. Orange Branch

Third Branch

Middle

Branch

Whetstone Brk.

Otter Brk.

Otter R.

N. Nashua R.

Nashua R.

Squannacook R.

Spicket R.

Stony Brk.

Lamprey R.

Salmon Falls R.

Shannon Brk.

Winnipesaukee R.

Poorfarm Brk.

Ossipee R.

West Branch

Sugar R.

Mascoma R.

Swift R.

Nash S.

Israel R.

Peabody R.

Gale R.

Suncook R.

Cold R .

NEW

YORK

1129200

1129440

1052500

1053500

1129500

1055000

1054500

1057000

1066000

1129700

1130000

1133000

1133200

1134500

1135150

1135300 1131500

1134800

1135500

1054000

1054200

1137500 1064300

1138500 1139700

1139800

1139000

1074520

1064500

1064801

1079900

1076500

1078000 1079602

1080000

1081000 1072100

1072800

1073000

1073500

1073587

1142400 1142500

1144000

1150800

1150900

1150500

1144500

1151500

1152500

1085800 1153300

1153550

1154000 1154500

1158000

1158600

1093800

1160350 1156300

1161000

1156450

1166500

1162500 1162000

1163200

1092000

1100505

1100561

10965852

1097300 1094500

1094400

1096000

1101000

1089100

1155500

1155350

1151200

Wild Ammonoosuc R.

Little Androscoggin R.

Figure 2. Active stream-gaging stations in, and adjacent to, New Hampshire, used in the network analysis.
8 Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information

Saxtons R.

Sacketts Brk.

Wild R. Swift R.

Ellis R.

Parker R.

Nashoba Brk.

Millers R.

Saco R.

Manchester

Concord

Beaver Brk.

Base from U.S. Geological Survey

Digital line graphs, 1:24,000 or

1:25,000 scale, 1983

0 20 40 MILES

0 20 40 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Stream-gaging station

and identifying number

1129210

MAINE

VERMONT

MASSACHUSETTS

CANADA

NEW HAMPSHIRE

East Branch

Connecticut River

Merrimack River

1164000

1165000

73° 72° 71°

45°

44°

43°

Atlantic

Ocean

Halls S.

Black Brk.

Four Ponds Brk.

Patte Brk.

Bog Brk.

E. Branch Saco

Lucy Brk.

Cold Hill Brk.

Ompompano osuc R.

Black R.

Flood Brk.

Beaver Brk.

Millers B.

1127880

1128500

1129300

1129400

1050900

1054300

1062700

1055300

1066500

1066100

1065500

1133300

1135000

1135700

1138800

1140100

1140000

1139500

1064380

1064400

1074500

1075000

1142000

1140800

1141500

1140500

1145000

1081500

1075800

1076000 1064800

1065000

1072500

1072880

1072850 1089500

1088500

1087000

1086000

1085000

1090800

1073600

1100800

1100700

1100900

1094000

1090500

1095800

1163100

1161300 1161500

1156500

1167800

1158500 1083500

1082000

1084500

1084000

1155000

1157000 11156000

1155200

1155300 1153500

1153000

1138000

1089000

1088000

1085500

1093000

1091500

1165500

Joes Brk.

Keenan Brk.

S. Branch

W. Branch

Moss B.

E. Br. Tully R.

Wilder Brk.

Easter Brk.

E. Meadow R. Cobbler Brk.

Salmon Falls R.

Dudley Brk.

Sucker Brk.

Nubanusit Brk.

Otter Brk.

N. Branch

Lake

Opechee

Blackwater R.

Mascoma R.

Mink Brk.

Squam R.

Cold Brk.

Ossipee R.

Pease Brk.

Little Ossipee R

Stevens Brk.

Big Brk.

NEW

YORK

1083000 1160000

S. B ra nch

1091000

Cold R .

S. Branch

Beards Brk. Mohawk Brk.

Suncook R.

1080500

1141800 1077000

1075500

Little Androscoggin R.

Figure 3. Discontinued stream-gaging stations in, and adjacent to, New Hampshire, used in the network analysis.
Network Analysis 9

Table 2. Regression equations for estimating flow frequency on New Hampshire streams

[A, Drainage area, in square miles; I, 24-hour rainfall with a 100-year recurrence interval, in inches; BS, average basin slope, in degrees, determined using the 

ARC/INFO SLOPE command (Environmental Systems Research Institute, 1994) with a Z-factor of 10; P, basinwide averaged mean annual precipitation, in 

inches; SGP, average precipitation at the stream-gaging station location for the months June through October, in inches; T, basinwide averaged mean annual 

temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit]

Flow frequency Regression equation

Peak flood flow with a 100-year recurrence interval, Q100, in cubic foot per second Q100 = 10-2.05A0.793I1.82BS1.85

Mean annual flow, Qa, in cubic foot per second Qa = 10-2.14A1.01BS0.132P1.30

7-day low flow with a 10-year recurrence interval, 7Q10, in cubic foot per second 7Q10 = 104.62A1.39SGP3.75T-6.90

Table 3. Selected information on the proposed and new and stream-gaging stations used in the New Hampshire network analysis

[No., number; fig., figure; mi2, square mile; Stations are in order of station number. Current refers to the 2002 water year. A, active; D, discontinued;

DIV, diversion; F, flood control; H, hydrologic forecasting; M, management of water resources; NSIP, Federal interest stream-gaging station according to the 

National Streamflow Information Program criteria; P, proposed station; Q, ensuring adequate discharge for diluting influent; R, regulated; RL, regulated with 

respect to the low-flow characteristic; U, unregulated; na, station not used for specific flow characteristic]

Stream-gaging 

station No. 

(fig. 4)

Stream-gaging station name Status Uses Period of 

record

Drainage area 

(mi2)

101 Isinglass River near Barrington, N.H. U, P na na 73.2

102 Bellamy River near Madbury, N.H. U, P na na 10.3

103 Picassic River near Newfields, N.H. U, P na na 22.9

104 Winnicut River near Greenland, N.H. U, P na na 14.3

105 Taylor River near Hampton, N.H. U, P na na 10.4

106 Salmon Falls River near Somersworth, N.H. R, P na na 222

107 Jones Brook, near Route 153, near Middleton, N.H. U, P na na 5.6

108 Cockermouth River at Groton, N.H. U, P na na 21.7

109 Mad River near Campton, N.H. U, P na na 49

110 Big River near Center Barnstead, N.H. U, P na na 18.8

111 Hubbard Brook at West Thornton, N.H. U, P na na 13.2

112 North Branch Contoocook River near Stoddard, N.H. R, P na na 46.8

114 Clear Stream near Errol, N.H. U, P na na 42.9

115 Stony Brook near Gorham, N.H. U, P na na 40.7

116 Saco River near Glen, N.H. U, P na na 132.4

117 Swift River at Conway, N.H. U, P na na 86

120 South Branch Israel River near Jefferson, N.H. U, P na na 24.6

122 Perry Stream near Pittsburg, N.H. U, P na na 26.1

125 South Branch Gale River near Franconia, N.H. U, P na na 16.7

01064801 Bearcamp River at South Tamworth, N.H. U, A NSIP, M 1994-current 66.9

01072800 Cocheco River near Rochester, N.H. RL, A Q 1996-current 85.7

01072880 Cocheco River, at Spaulding Turnpike, at Dover, N.H. RL, DIV, D na 1992-96 173

01073587 Exeter River, at Haigh Road, near Brentwood, N.H. RL, A Q 1997-current 62.9

01074520 East Branch Pemigewasset River at Lincoln, N.H. U, A NSIP, F, Q 1994-current 115

01079602 Poorfarm Brook at Ellacoya State Park near Gilford, N.H. U, A M 1999-current 6.4

01079900 Shannon Brook near Moultonborough, N.H. U, A M 1999-current 7

01083500 Contoocook River near Elmwood, N.H. RL, D na 1917-24 166

01100505 Spicket River, at Island Pond Road, at North Salem, N.H. R, A F 2001-current 16.5

01160350 Ashuelot River at West Swanzey, N.H. R, A Q 1995-current 316
10 Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information

Upper

Androscoggin

River Basin

Lower

Androsoggin

River Basin

Upper

Connecticut

River Basin

Saco River Basin

Pemigewasset

River Basin

Upper

ConnecticutMascoma

River Basin

Contoocook

River Basin

Middle

Connecticut

River Basin

Millers

River Basin Nashua

River Basin

Merrimack

River Basin

PiscataquaSalmon Falls

River Basin

Swift R.

Israel R. S. Branch

Perry Str.

S. Branch

Spicket R.

Shannon B.

Poorfarm Brk.

Kirby Brk.

Saxtons R.

Cold Brk.

Saco R.

Manchester

Concord

Beaver Brk.

Base from U.S. Geological Survey

Digital line graphs, 1:24,000 or

1:25,000 scale, 1983

73° 72° 71°

45°

44°

43°

Atlantic

Ocean

MAINE

VERMONT

MASSACHUSETTS

CANADA

0 20 40 MILES

0 20 40 KILOMETERS

1160350

EXPLANATION

Stream-gaging station

and identifying number

River basin boundary

Little Androscoggin R.

Picassic R.

Salmon Falls R.

Taylor R.

Bellamy R. Isinglass R.

Jones Brk.

Cockermouth R.

Mad R.

N. Branch

Contoocook R.

Clear Str.

Suncook R. Big R.

Gale R.

NEW

YORK

114

125

116

117

109 1064801

111

1074520

1079900

108

107

1079602

110 106

1072880

1072800101

102

105

104

103

1073587

1160350 1100505 1083500

112

NEW HAMPSHIRE

122

120 115

Winnicut R.

Hubbard B.

Stony Brk.

Figure 4. Location of proposed and new stream-gaging stations used in the New Hampshire network analysis.
Network Analysis 11

GLSNET cost-weights the sampling error for 

each station in the network analysis. Thus, operation 

costs must be assigned to all stations in the network. 

Because costs for operation of existing stream-gaging 

stations are uniform in New Hampshire, a cost equal to 

one unit was assigned to each active station, including 

several sites that were re-established while this study 

was being completed. For proposed stations, 

installation costs were amortized over the length of the 

planning horizon and added to the operation costs. 

There were two exceptions. The first exception was for 

the low-flow and peak-flow networks, which had 

unregulated streamflow data from as many as five sites 

that are now regulated. Future streamflow data from 

these regulated active sites would be of no use to the 

low- or peak-flow regionalization efforts; therefore, 

these sites were assigned a cost twice that of other 

active stations to ensure that these regulated stations 

would be removed in the early stages of the low-flow 

and peak-flow network analyses. The second exception 

was for active partial-record stations in the peak-flow 

network. These stations were assigned a cost unit equal 

to 0.1 if peak flows were determined from indirect 

measurement or 0.3 if peak flows were currently 

determined from a maintained rating curve. These costs 

represent the true fractional cost of a partial-record 

station compared to a full-record active station.

Discontinued stations had their own cost 

structure. For the 0-year planning horizon, 

discontinued stations were given a cost twice that of a 

continuously recording active site. This assured that 

discontinued sites would be eliminated before active 

sites. For the 5- and 20-year planning horizon, 

discontinued stations were assigned the cost of a 

comparable active site—continuous or partial—plus 

the cost to re-establish the station amortized over the 

planning horizon. The exception was for stations where 

additional streamflow data would be of no use because 

of regulation or diversion. A cost equal to twice that of 

a continuously recording active site was given to these 

sites.

For each planning horizon and flow 

characteristic, stream-gaging stations were ranked in 

reverse order from the order in which the GLSNET 

model removed them from the network. Therefore, the 

station that was assigned a rank of 1 was the station 

whose data provided the largest cost-weighted 

reduction in the average sampling error of the 

regression equation. A composite ranking also was 

determined for each planning horizon by summing the 

individual ranks for the high-, mean-, and low-flow 

characteristic for each station and re-ranking the 

stations in ascending order based on this summed rank. 

In the composite ranking, all stations whose continued 

data collection could not contribute to a flow 

characteristic because of regulation or diversion were 

given a rank of N+1 in that flow characteristic, where N

equals the total number of stations that can contribute 

to the given flow characteristic and planning horizon. 

Furthermore, stations where only peak flows were 

determined (crest-stage gage) were given a rank of N+1 

in the mean- and low-flow characteristic ranking when 

summing for the composite rank. Hence, stations with 

a composite ranking closest to 1 (high priority) 

represent stations that contribute the most information 

to all three flow characteristics. The reader should keep 

in mind, when reviewing these results, that a station 

assigned a relatively high composite rank (low priority) 

under this approach may still provide important 

regional information with respect to one or two of the 

individual flow characteristics.

Effectiveness of the Stream-gaging Network

Network-analysis results help determine whether 

to spend available resources collecting additional data 

at active stations, adding new stations, or both. The 

continued operation of active stations, addition of new 

stations, or the re-establishment of discontinued 

stations to the network will enhance the predictive 

ability of the regression model by increasing the 

number of observation points and reducing the 

sampling error of the regression. The network analysis 

herein is based on the effect that a station has on 

reducing the average sampling error associated with a 

regional regression equation. GLS regression was used 

to develop the estimating equations for the 100-year 

flood, the mean annual discharge, and the 7-day, 10-

year low flow shown in table 2. GLSNET was used to 

determine the average sampling error of each 

regression equation for the 2000 water-year network 

and for the 5- and 20-year planning horizons with and 

without the addition of new stream-gaging stations.

The average sampling error of the regression equation 

for each selected flow characteristic over each planning 

horizon is shown in table 4. The average sampling 

errors are the results of the network analysis in which 

all available stations, active and discontinued, 

contribute to regional information. Results indicate that 

continued operation of the network will result in a 

decrease in the average sampling error, and a larger 

decrease is expected if the network is expanded 

through the addition of new stations.
12 Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information

A review of table 4 in detail shows that if no new 

stations are added to the network, the average sampling 

error of the 100-year peak discharge regression 

equation is reduced from the conditions in the 2000 

water year by 2.5 percent and 9.4 percent for the 5- and 

20-year planning horizons, respectively. If the 

proposed and new stations (table 3) are added to the 

network, the average sampling error of the 100-year 

peak discharge regression equation is reduced by

4.0 percent and 13.1 percent for the 5- and 20-year 

planning horizons, respectively. Substantial reductions 

in the average sampling error of the 7-day, 10-year lowflow regression equations are also predicted in the 

network analysis. If no new stations are added to the 

network, the average sampling error of this low-flow 

regression equation is reduced from the conditions in 

the 2000 water year by 0.8 percent and 2.6 percent for 

the 5- and 20-year planning horizons, respectively. If 

the proposed and new stations are added to the 

network, the average sampling error of the low-flow 

regression equation is reduced by 7.6 percent and

12.0 percent for the 5- and 20-year planning horizons, 

respectively.

 Although considerable improvements to the 

peak-flow and low-flow regional information are 

predicted with additional data or the addition of new 

stream-gaging stations, improvement to the mean-flow 

regression equation average sampling error—which is 

already relatively small—is insignificant. The 

relatively small sampling error of the mean-flow 

regression equation is because more stations were 

available to develop the equation and because better 

estimates of mean annual flows can be obtained from 

shorter periods of record than for flow statistics with 

less frequent recurrence intervals. If no new stations are 

added to the network, the average sampling error for 

the mean-flow regression equation is reduced from the 

conditions in the 2000 water year by 0 percent and

5.0 percent for the 5- and 20-year planning horizons, 

respectively. If the proposed and new stations (table 3)

are added to the network, the average sampling error of 

the mean-flow regression equation also is decreased

0 percent and 5.0 percent for the 5- and 20-year 

planning horizons, respectively.

The decrease in the average sampling error as a 

function of the number of stations being operated is 

presented in figures 5, 6, and 7. In these figures, the 

average sampling error is expressed in base-10 

logarithmic units, and each point on the graphs 

represents the sampling error associated with a network 

that would result if it, plus all the stations plotted to the 

left of it, were operated over the planning horizon. 

Thus, the stations where additional data would be most 

effective in reducing the average sampling error are at 

the left end of the curves. As a reference point, the 

square represents the network conditions in the 2000 

water year with no additional years of data and no 

additional stream-gaging stations added to the network 

and is the average sampling error associated with the 

regression equation.

The curves associated with the scenarios of 

including or excluding new stations have different 

starting points (left end of the curve) because the 

average sampling errors are computed over different 

stream-gaging networks. Sometimes, the starting point 

of a curve that includes new stations has a larger 

sampling error than the starting point of a curve that 

excludes new stations or the current conditions (0-year 

planning horizon) point. This is because the starting 

point of any of the curves is the sampling error for the 

0-year planning horizon for the entire network being 

analyzed, which can include proposed stations.

Table 4. Average sampling error for selected network strategies

[Sampling error can be converted to percent units using SE% = 100 (e5.302SE^2-1)0.5, where SE% is the sampling error in percent and SE is the sampling error in 

logarithmic units]

Streamflow characteristic

Average sampling error in log units

0-year 5-year planning horizon 20-year planning horizon

Excluding new stations Including new stations Excluding new stations Including new stations

100-year peak discharge 0.0605 0.0590 0.0581 0.0548 0.0526 

Annual mean discharge .0120 .0120 .0120 .0114 .0114 

7-day, 10-year low flow .0833 .0826 .0770 .0811 .0733
Network Analysis 13

Considering that new sites were selected to fill gaps in 

underrepresented ranges of the basin characteristics, 

and the underrepresented ranges of basin 

characteristics were commonly near the extremes of the 

entire range of basin characteristics, the computed 

sampling error for the 0-year planning horizon of an 

entire network was likely to be higher with proposed 

stations than without proposed stations. As the curves 

indicate, however, several stations operating over the 

selected planning horizon quickly decrease the 

sampling error.

The reduction in sampling error is greater for a 

20-year planning horizon than for a 5-year planning 

horizon (figs. 5-7). This reduction in error is related to 

increased record length. These graphs also show that 

the operation of the first group of stream-gaging 

stations, which are represented by the steep part of each 

curve, accounts for the largest percentage of the total 

reduction in the average sampling error. The stations 

along the flat part of the curve are those stations whose 

future operation is not statistically expected to improve 

the regional regression sampling errors. According to 

this network analysis, these stations could be 

considered for removal from the network. If, however, 

these stream-gaging stations have a purpose in the 

network that is other than regional flow-characteristic 

estimation, they may need to be retained for those 

purposes. Also, the amount of regional information 

provided depends on the variability of streamflow and 

the combination of physical and climatic 

characteristics. It should be noted that the network 

analysis assumes that the regression model does not 

change. Using an alternative regression model with 

alternative basin characteristics could produce 

somewhat different results.

80 100 120 140

NUMBER OF STATIONS OPERATED, OR RANK

AVERAGE SAMPLING ERROR, IN LOGARITHMIC UNITS

0 20 40 60

0-year planning horizon

5-year planning horizon, excluding new stations

5-year planning horizon, including new stations

20-year planning horizon, excluding new stations

20-year planning horizon, including new stations

0.050

0.053

0.056

0.059

0.062

0.065

Figure 5. Average sampling error for the 100-year peak-flow characteristic as a function of the number of stations operated for selected 

strategies in the analysis of the New Hampshire stream-gaging network.
14 Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information

Tallies were made of the basin characteristics 

and years of record of the first 30 rank-ordered streamgaging stations in each of the network strategies. The 

composition of the first 30 stations changes as a 

function of planning horizon and streamflow 

characteristic, making it difficult to define the 

characteristics of the stations that will provide the 

greatest improvement in regional streamflow 

information. The tallies indicate, however, that 

additional data collection at stations with unregulated 

streamflow, relatively short-term record (less than

20 years), and drainage areas smaller than 45 mi2 are 

expected to contribute the largest cost-weighted 

reduction to the average sampling error of the regional 

estimating equations. 

Information on the rank order of all streamgaging stations for each flow characteristic and the 

composite ranks for the 0-, 5-, and 20-year planning 

horizons is given in tables 5 (station number order) and 

6 (rank order) in the back of this report. The ranks for 

the 5- and 20-year planning horizons in each table are 

those for the network strategy with the addition of new 

stations.

APPLICATION AND LIMITATIONS OF 

RESULTS

By use of the results from GLSNET, a streamgaging station can be ranked in order of its contribution 

to regional flow information. The ranking can be used

100 120 140 160

NUMBER OF STATIONS OPERATED, OR RANK

AVERAGE SAMPLING ERROR, IN LOGARITHMIC UNITS

0 20 40 60 80

0-year planning horizon

5-year planning horizon, excluding new stations

5-year planning horizon, including new stations

20-year planning horizon, excluding new stations

20-year planning horizon, including new stations

0.0110

0.0114

0.0118

0.0122

0.0126

0.0130

Figure 6. Average sampling error for the mean-flow characteristic as a function of the number of stations operated for selected strategies in 

the analysis of the New Hampshire stream-gaging network.
Application and Limitations of Results 15

to specify stations where additional data are needed, 

specify sites where new stations are needed, or indicate 

which stations are providing little new regional 

information and could be considered for 

discontinuation. The reader should note that not all the 

proposed and new stations used in the network-analysis 

strategies would be ideal locations for a station. 

Because the streamflow of some of these locations is 

regulated (see table 3), their true usefulness in 

providing regional streamflow data is limited; however, 

the basin characteristics of these sites would better 

represent the basin characteristics of the network.

Furthermore, the largest relative decrease in 

average sampling error typically corresponds to the 

stations with the fewest years of record. Thus, a 

network analysis that includes new stations will tend to 

rank new stations among stations that are contributing 

the most to regional streamflow information. This is 

because the marginal worth of new data at a site with 

no or little data is greater than the marginal worth of 

additional data at a site that already has several years of 

record (G.D. Tasker, U.S. Geological Survey, written 

commun., March 26, 2002).

Stream-gaging stations in tables 5 and 6 (back of 

report) that are ranked closest to 1 should be given first 

consideration for future data collection. Stations with a 

low priority (high rank) could be considered for 

removal from the stream-gaging network if budgetary 

conditions require such action. Such considerations 

would apply only in the context of improving the 

regional streamflow information. The composite ranks 

determined for the network analysis on the high-, 

0.074

0.078

0.082

0.086

0.090

0.070

100

NUMBER OF STATIONS OPERATED, OR RANK

AVERAGE SAMPLING ERROR, IN LOGARITHMIC UNITS

0 20 40 60 80

0-year planning horizon

5-year planning horizon, excluding new stations

5-year planning horizon, including new stations

20-year planning horizon, excluding new stations

20-year planning horizon, including new stations

Figure 7. Average sampling error for the low-flow (7Q10) characteristic as a function of the number of stations operated for selected strategies 

in the analysis of the New Hampshire stream-gaging network.
16 Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information

mean-, and low-flow characteristics are an indicator of 

the overall contribution of the data from a station to 

regional streamflow information; however, caution is 

warranted when interpreting the results. A station that 

provides a significant reduction in the average 

sampling error of the regression equation used to 

estimate a particular streamflow characteristic might 

have a low-priority ranking if the station cannot 

provide flow information for another streamflow 

characteristic. For example, many crest-stage stations 

that collect only peak-flow data have a high-priority 

ranking (close to 1) for the high-flow characteristic, 

indicating that they provide important information. In 

the composite ranking, however, the same station will 

have a low-priority rank because it cannot provide 

information on mean flows or low flows.

An overview of the network-analysis results 

indicates that the Piscataqua-Salmon Falls Basin, the 

Upper Connecticut Basin, and the Lake Winnipesaukee 

region in the Merrimack Basin are three areas in 

particular that could benefit from additional streamflow 

data. Three stream-gaging stations in the PiscataquaSalmon Falls Basin, including the recently established 

station, Winnicut River at Greenland, N.H. (01073785 

or 104 in the network analysis), were identified as sites 

that could improve regional information, especially the 

peak flood-flow information. In the Upper Connecticut 

Basin, the South Branch Israel River (120) and South 

Branch Gale River (125) could provide valuable 

information, particularly for the underrepresented 

drainage area ranges between 15 and 45 mi2. The 

network analysis also indicates that both recently 

established stations at Poorfarm Brook at Ellacoya 

State Park near Gilford, N.H. (01079602), and at 

Shannon Brook near Moultonborough, N.H. 

(01079900), can provide valuable regional information 

for both peak-flood flows and low flows. The top 20 

active and proposed stations providing the greatest 

enhancements to regional streamflow information were 

identified using the network-analysis results, basin 

characteristics, and plots describing areal coverage and 

are listed in table 7.

Other factors should also be taken into 

consideration when making decisions regarding the 

New Hampshire stream-gaging network. In addition to 

providing regional information on streamflow 

characteristics, data from a stream-gaging station may 

be used for a variety of purposes to serve local, State, 

and Federal interests. Of the stations in New 

Hampshire, streamflow data from 25 stations are used 

for flood control operations, 18 are used for flood 

forecasting (fig. 8), 7 are used for managing

Table 7. Active and proposed stream-gaging stations providing the 

greatest enhancements to regional streamflow information

[No., number; A, active; D, discontinued; P, proposed]

Streamgaging 

station No.

Stream-gaging station name Status

01064300 Ellis River near Jackson, N.H. A

01064801 Bearcamp River at South Tamworth, N.H. A

01073587 Exeter River, at Haigh Road, near

Brentwood, N.H.

A

01079602 Poorfarm Brook at Ellacoya State Park near 

Gilford, N.H.

A

01079900 Shannon Brook near Moultonborough, N.H. A

01089100 Soucook River, at Pembroke Road, near 

Concord, N.H.

A

01093800 Stony Brook Tributary near Temple, N.H. A

010965852 Beaver Brook at North Pelham, N.H. A

01127880 Big Brook near Pittsburg, N.H. D, P

01129440 Mohawk River near Colebrook, N.H. A

102 Bellamy River near Madbury, N.H. P

103 Picassic River near Newfields, N.H. P

104 Winnicut River at Greenland, near 

Portsmouth, N.H.

A

105 Taylor River near Hampton, N.H. P

107 Jones Brook, near Route 153, near

Middleton, N.H.

P

110 Big River near Center Barnstead, N.H. P

111 Hubbard Brook at West Thornton, N.H. P

115 Stony Brook near Gorham, N.H. P

120 South Branch Israel River near

Jefferson, N.H.

P

125 South Branch Gale River near

Franconia, N.H.

P
Application and Limitations of Results 17

Saxtons R.

Saco R.

Manchester

Concord

Base from U.S. Geological Survey

Digital line graphs, 1:24,000 or

1:25,000 scale, 1983

73° 72° 71°

45°

44°

43°

Atlantic

Ocean

MAINE

VERMONT

MASSACHUSETTS

CANADA

0 20 40 MILES

0 20 40 KILOMETERS

Little Androscoggin R.

1129500

1131500

1135500

1138500

1088400

1087000

1086000

1085500

1085000

Nashua R.

Spicket R.

Ompompano osuc R.

Blackwater R.

Otter Brk.

NEW

YORK

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Stream-gaging station

used for flood forecasting

Stream-gaging station

used for flood control

Stream-gaging station

used for both flood

forecasting and control

Red identifying number

indicates station not

used in network analysis

EXPLANATION

1074520

1075000

01141500

1144000

1144500

1076000 1076500

1078000

1081000

1081500

1087850

1154500

1158000

1158600 1158110

1083000

1082000

1090800

1091500

1092000

1094000 1100505

1096500

1158110

Figure 8. Location of stream-gaging stations and identifying numbers providing data used for flood-hazard mitigation.
18 Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information

hydropower, and 10 are used for management of water 

resources for regulatory purposes. It would be remiss to 

discontinue or disregard activation of a stream-gaging 

station with important functions such as flood hazard 

mitigation. Because many stations have more than one 

category of use, it is not practical to rely solely on a 

network analysis using GLSNET results for decisions 

regarding the alteration of a stream-gaging network.

Also, the network analysis cannot be used to 

identify stream-gaging stations that should be 

reactivated or added to the network to improve flood 

forecasting or other functions unrelated to 

regionalization. For example, the network analysis 

gave discontinued stream-gaging stations, 

Ammonoosuc River near Bath, N.H. (01138000), and 

Suncook River at North Chichester, N.H. (01089500), a 

low-priority ranking, presumably because of the large 

amount of data already collected at these stations, 41 

and 52 years, respectively. Yet, the Northeast River 

Forecast Center of the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has identified 

both stations as important to improving flood 

forecasting if reactivated. The Northeast River Forecast 

Center also indicated that a station on the Merrimack 

River in Concord, N.H., would improve hydrologic 

forecasting (Ronald Martin, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, written commun., 2002).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of the New Hampshire streamgaging network in providing regional streamflow 

information was evaluated by the use of generalizedleast-squares NETwork (GLSNET) software. Stations 

with 10 or more years of data were used to develop 

estimating equations for the 100-year peak flood 

discharge, the mean annual discharge, and the

7-day, 10-year low flow by generalized-least-squares 

regression. Each station used in the development of a 

regression equation was then evaluated for its costweighted contribution to reduce the average sampling 

error of the regression equation for conditions existing 

in the 2000 water year and for hypothetical periods of 

additional data collection for 5 years and 20 years. 

Additionally, new stream-gaging stations with less than 

10 years of record and proposed stream-gaging stations 

with underrepresented values of the basin 

characteristics were evaluated in the network analysis. 

All stations were ranked on the basis of their 

contribution to the reduction of the average sampling 

error of the regression equations.

The network analysis showed that the 

effectiveness of the stream-gaging network in 

providing regional streamflow information could be 

improved for all three flow characteristics with the 

collection of additional streamflow data. The addition 

of new stations to the network would result in an 

increase in regional streamflow information. With 

continued data collection, the greatest reduction in the 

average sampling error of the regional regression 

equations was found for the peak- and low-flow 

characteristics. In general, additional data collection at 

stations with unregulated streamflow, relatively shortterm (less than 20 years) records, and drainage areas 

less than 45 mi2 are expected to contribute the largest 

cost-weighted reduction to the average sampling error 

of the regional estimating equations. In New 

Hampshire, drainage basins between 15 and 35 mi2 are 

not represented in the network.

The results of the network analyses can be used 

to prioritize stream-gaging stations for continued 

operation, reactivation, or establishment of new 

stations. In addition to optimizing regional information 

on flow characteristics, other uses of data from a 

stream-gaging station serving local, State, and Federal 

interests need to be considered before modifying the 

stream-gaging network in New Hampshire.

SELECTED REFERENCES

Benson, M.A., 1962, Factors influencing the occurrence of 

floods in a humid region of diverse terrain: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1580-B, 64 p.

Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI), 

1994, ARC/INFO users guide, version 7.0: Redlands, 

Calif. 

Flynn, R.H., 2003, A stream-gaging network analysis for the 

annual 7-day, 10-year low-flow in New Hampshire 

streams: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 03-4023.

Hirsch, R.M., and Norris, J.M., 2001, National streamflow 

information program, implementation plan and 

progress report: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 

FS-048-01, 6 p.

Johnson, C.G., 1970, A proposed streamflow data program 

for central New England: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 70-174, 38 p.
Selected References 19

Medina, K.D., 1987, Analysis of surface-water data network 

in Kansas for effectiveness in providing regional 

streamflow information: U.S. Geological Survey WaterSupply Paper 2303, 29 p.

Moss, M.E., and Tasker, G.D., 1991, An intercomparison of 

hydrological network-design technologies: Journal of 

Hydrologic Sciences, v. 36, no. 3, p. 209-221.

Ruhl, K.J., 1993, Effectiveness of the streamflow-gaging 

network in Kentucky in providing regional streamflow 

information: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 93-4106, 28 p.

Smath, J.A., and Blackey, F.E., 1985, Cost effectiveness of 

the U.S. Geological Survey’s stream-gaging programs 

in New Hampshire and Vermont: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

85-4173, 134 p.

Straub, D.E., 1998, Analysis of the streamflow-gaging 

station network in Ohio for effectiveness in providing 

regional streamflow information: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

98-4043, 53 p.

Tasker, G.D., 1986, Generating efficient gaging plans for 

regional information, in Moss, M.E., ed., Integrated 

design of hydrologic networks—Proceeding of the 

Budapest Symposium, July 1986: International 

Association of Hydrologic Sciences, Publication 158, 

p. 269-281.

———1987, Theory and application of generalized least 

squares, in Medina, K.D., Analysis of surface-water 

data network in Kansas for effectiveness in providing 

regional streamflow information: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 2303, p. 24-26.

Tasker, G.D., and Stedinger, J.R., 1989, An operational GLS 

model for hydrologic regression: Journal of Hydrology, 

v. 3, p. 361-375.

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, 13 p.
20 Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information

Table 1. Selected information on stream-gaging stations having 10 years of record or more in or adjacent to New Hampshire as of the 2000 water year

[No., number; mi2, square mile; Stations are in downstream order. Abbreviations: A, active; D, discontinued; D*, discontinued, but partial record collected; 

C, crest-stage gage; F, flood control; H, hydrologic forecasting; M, management of water resources; NSIP, Federal interest stream-gaging station according to the 

National Streamflow Information Program criteria; P, hydropower generation; U, unregulated; R, regulated; SR, some regulation; DIV, flow diversion; --, station not 

used for specific flow characteristic]

Streamgaging 

station No.

Stream-gaging station name Status Use Regulation

Period of record used in the analysis Drainage 

area 

(mi2 Peak flow Mean flow ) Low flow

01050900 Four Ponds Brook near Houghton, Maine D, C -- U 1964-74 -- -- 3.26

01052500 Diamond River near Wentworth Location, N.H. A -- U 1942-2000 1942-2000 1942-2000 153

01053500 Androscoggin River at Errol, N.H. A NSIP, P R -- 1906-2000 -- 1,040

01054000 Androscoggin River near Gorham, N.H. A NSIP, P R -- 1914-2000 -- 1,360

01054200 Wild River at Gilead, Maine A -- U 1965-2000 1965-2000 1965-2000 69.9

01054300 Ellis River at South Andover, Maine D -- U 1964-82 1964-82 1964-82 130

01054500 Androscoggin River at Rumford, Maine A -- R -- 1900-2000 -- 2,070

01055000 Swift River near Roxbury, Maine A -- U 1929-2000 1929-2000 1929-2000 96.8

01055300 Bog Brook near Buckfield, Maine D, C -- U 1964-74 -- -- 10.4

01057000 Little Androscoggin River near South 

Paris, Maine

A -- U 1914-2000 1914-2000 1914-2000 74.1

01062700 Patte Brook near Bethel, Maine D, C -- U 1964-74 -- -- 5.61

01064300 Ellis River near Jackson, N.H. A -- U 1964-2000 1964-2000 1964-2000 10.5

01064380 East Branch Saco River at Town Hall Road near 

Lower Bartlett, N.H.

D, C -- U 1967-76 -- -- 34.2

01064400 Lucy Brook near North Conway, N.H. D -- U 1965-91 1965-91 1965-91 4.68

01064500 Saco River near Conway, N.H. A NSIP U 1904-2000 1904-2000 1904-2000 385

01064800 Cold Brook at South Tamworth, N.H. D -- U 1964-73 1964-73 1964-73 5.41

01065000 Ossipee River at Effingham Falls, N.H. D* M U 1943-90 1943-90 -- 329

01065500 Ossipee River at Cornish, Maine D -- U 1917-96 1917-96 -- 451

01066000 Saco River at Cornish, Maine A -- U 1917-2000 1917-2000 -- 1,290

01066100 Pease Brook near Cornish, Maine D, C -- U 1965-74, 

1997

-- -- 4.53

01066500 Little Ossipee River near South 

Limington, Maine

D -- U 1941-82, 

1997

1941-82 -- 162

01072100 Salmon Falls River at Milton, N.H. A M R -- 1969-2000 -- 107

01072500 Salmon Falls River near South Lebanon, Maine D -- R -- 1929-1969 -- 139

01072850 Mohawk Brook near Center Strafford, N.H. D -- U 1965-77 1965-77 1965-77 7.47

01073000 Oyster River near Durham, N.H. A -- U 1935-2000 1935-2000 1935-2000 12.2

01073500 Lamprey River near Newmarket, N.H. A -- SR 1935-2000 1935-2000 -- 181

01073600 Dudley Brook near Exeter, N.H. D -- U 1963-85 1963-85 1963-85 5.86

01074500 East Branch Pemigewasset River near 

Lincoln, N.H.

D -- U 1929-72 1929-72 1929-72 106

01075000 Pemigewasset River at Woodstock, N.H. A NSIP, H, F U 1940-2000 1940-77 1940-77 195

01075500 Baker River at Wentworth, N.H. D -- U 1941-52 1941-52 1941-52 57.8
Tables 21

01075800 Stevens Brook near Wentworth, N.H. D -- U 1964-98 1964-98 1964-98 3.29

01076000 Baker River near Rumney, N.H. A NSIP, H, F U 1929-2000 1929-77 1929-77 143

01076500 Pemigewasset River at Plymouth, N.H. A NSIP, H U 1904-2000 1904-2000 1904-2000 623

01077000 Squam River at Ashland, N.H. D -- R -- 1940-95 -- 57.8

01078000 Smith River near Bristol, N.H. A NSIP, H, F U 1919-2000 1919-2000 1919-2000 86

01080500 Lake Winnipesaukee Outlet at Lakeport, N.H. A M R -- -- -- 363

01081000 Winnipesaukee River at Tilton, N.H. A F, M R -- -- -- 471

01081500 Merrimack River at Franklin Junction, N.H. A NSIP, H, F R -- 1904-78 -- 1,510

01082000 Contoocook River at Peterborough, N.H. A NSIP, H, F U 1938, 

1946-2000

1946-77 1946-77 67

01083000 Nubanusit Brook below MacDowell Dam near 

Peterborough, N.H.

D* F R -- 1922-89 -- 45.1

01084000 North Branch Contoocook River near 

Antrim, N.H.

D -- R -- 1925-1970 -- 54

01084500 Beards Brook near Hillsboro, N.H. D -- U 1946-70 1946-70 1946-70 55.3

01085000 Contoocook River near Henniker, N.H. D* NSIP, H, F SR -- 1940-77 -- 367

01085500 Contoocook River below Hopkinton Dam at 

West Hopkinton, N.H.

A F DIV, R -- -- -- 427

01085800 West Branch Warner River near Bradford, N.H. A -- U 1963-2000 1963-2000 1963-2000 5.91

01086000 Warner River at Davisville, N.H. A NSIP, H, F U 1940-78, 

1999-2000

1940-78 1940-78 146

01087000 Blackwater River near Webster, N.H. D* F R -- 1919-89 -- 128

01088000 Contoocook River at Penacook, N.H. D NSIP DIV, R -- -- -- 766

01088500 Merrimack River at Garvin Falls, N.H. D NSIP DIV, R -- -- -- 2,427

01089000 Soucook River near Concord, N.H. D -- U 1952-87 1952-87 1952-87 77.8

01089100 Soucook River, at Pembroke Road, near 

Concord, N.H.

A NSIP U 1989-2000 1989-2000 1989-2000 82.9

01089500 Suncook River at North Chichester, N.H. D -- SR 1919-70 1919-70 -- 154

01090500 Merrimack River at Manchester, N.H. D -- R -- 1928-1950 -- 2,850

01090800 Piscataquog River below Everett Dam near 

East Weare, N.H.

D* NSIP, F DIV, R -- -- -- 63.1

01091000 South Branch Piscataquog River near 

Goffstown, N.H.

D -- U 1941-78 1941-78 1941-78 103

01091500 Piscataquog River near Goffstown, N.H. D* H, F DIV -- -- -- 202

01092000 Merrimack River near Goffs Falls, below 

Manchester, N.H.

A NSIP, H, F R -- 1937-2000 -- 3,080

01093000 Sucker Brook at Auburn, N.H. D -- R -- 1939-70 -- 28.8

Table 1. Selected information on stream-gaging stations having 10 years of record or more in or adjacent to New Hampshire as of the 2000 water year

--Continued

[No., number; mi2, square mile; Stations are in downstream order. Abbreviations: A, active; D, discontinued; D*, discontinued, but partial record collected; 

C, crest-stage gage; F, flood control; H, hydrologic forecasting; M, management of water resources; NSIP, Federal interest stream-gaging station according to the 

National Streamflow Information Program criteria; P, hydropower generation; U, unregulated; R, regulated; SR, some regulation; DIV, flow diversion; --, station not 

used for specific flow characteristic]

Streamgaging 

station No.

Stream-gaging station name Status Use Regulation

Period of record used in the analysis Drainage 

area 

(mi2 Peak flow Mean flow Low flow )
22 Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information

01093800 Stony Brook Tributary near Temple, N.H. A -- U 1964-2000 1964-2000 1964-2000 3.62

01094000 Souhegan River at Merrimack, N.H. A NSIP, H, F U 1910-2000 1910-76 -- 170

01094400 North Nashua River at Fitchburg, Mass. A -- DIV 1973-2000 -- -- 63.5

01094500 North Nashua River near Leominster, Mass. A -- DIV 1936-2000 -- -- 107

01095800 Easter Brook near North Leominster, Mass. D, C -- U 1964-74 -- -- 0.92

01096000 Squannacook River near West Groton, Mass. A -- SR 1950-2000 1950-2000 -- 66

010965852 Beaver Brook at North Pelham, N.H. A -- U 1987-2000 1987-2000 1987-2000 47.8

01097300 Nashoba Brook near Acton, Mass. A -- U 1963-2000 1963-2000 1963-2000 12.8

01100700 East Meadow River near Haverhill, Mass. D -- U 1963-74 1963-74 1963-74 4.74

01100800 Cobbler Brook near Merrimack, Mass. D, C -- U 1963-83 -- -- 0.76

01100900 Parker River Tributary near Georgetown, Mass. D, C -- U 1964-74 -- -- 0.71

01101000 Parker River at Byfield, Mass. A -- U 1946-2000 1946-2000 1946-2000 21.2

01127880 Big Brook near Pittsburg, N.H. D -- U 1964-84 1964-84 1964-84 6.52

01128500 Connecticut River at First Connecticut Lake near 

Pittsburg, N.H.

D -- R -- 1917-1990 -- 83

01129200 Connecticut River below Indian Stream near 

Pittsburg, N.H.

A M R -- 1957-2000 -- 254

01129300 Halls Stream near East Hereford, Quebec D -- U 1943, 

1963-94

1963-92 1963-92 84.8

01129400 Black Brook at Averill, Vt. D, C -- U 1964-78 -- -- 0.88

01129440 Mohawk River near Colebrook, N.H. A -- U 1987-2000 1987-2000 1987-2000 35.3

01129500 Connecticut River at North Stratford, N.H. A NSIP, H, P R -- 1931-2000 -- 796

01129700 Paul Stream Tributary near Brunswick Springs, 

Vt.

A, C -- U 1966-78, 

1999-2000

-- -- 1.48

01130000 Upper Ammonoosuc River near Groveton, N.H. A P U 1941-80, 

1983-2000

1941-80, 

1983-

2000

1941-80, 

1983-

2000

230

01131500 Connecticut River near Dalton, N.H. A NSIP, H, P R -- 1928-2000 -- 1,510

01133000 East Branch Passumpsic River near 

East Haven, Vt.

A -- U 1940-45, 

1949-79, 

1998-2000

1940-45, 

1949-79, 

1998-

2000

1940-45, 

1949-79, 

1998-

2000

51.3

01133200 Quimby Brook near Lyndonville, Vt. A, C -- U 1964-74, 

1999-2000

-- -- 2.15

01133300 Cold Hill Brook near Lyndon, Vt. D, C -- U 1964-78 -- -- 1.64

Table 1. Selected information on stream-gaging stations having 10 years of record or more in or adjacent to New Hampshire as of the 2000 water year

--Continued

[No., number; mi2, square mile; Stations are in downstream order. Abbreviations: A, active; D, discontinued; D*, discontinued, but partial record collected; 

C, crest-stage gage; F, flood control; H, hydrologic forecasting; M, management of water resources; NSIP, Federal interest stream-gaging station according to the 

National Streamflow Information Program criteria; P, hydropower generation; U, unregulated; R, regulated; SR, some regulation; DIV, flow diversion; --, station not 

used for specific flow characteristic]

Streamgaging 

station No.

Stream-gaging station name Status Use Regulation

Period of record used in the analysis Drainage 

area 

(mi2 Peak flow Mean flow Low flow )
Tables 23

01134500 Moose River at Victory, Vt. A -- U 1948-2000 1948-2000 1948-2000 75.2

01134800 Kirby Brook at Concord, Vt. A -- U 1964-74, 

1999-2000

1964-74 1964-74 8.13

01135000 Moose River at St. Johnsbury, Vt. D -- U 1928-83 1928-83 1928-83 129

01135150 Pope Brook near North Danville, Vt. A -- U 1991-2000 1991-2000 -- 3.27

01135300 Sleepers River near St. Johnsbury, Vt. A -- U 1991-2000 1991-2000 1991-2000 42.5

01135500 Passumpsic River at Passumpsic, Vt. A H U 1929-2000 1929-2000 -- 434

01135700 Joes Brook Tributary near East Barnet, Vt. A, C -- U 1964-74, 

1999

-- -- 0.7

01137500 Ammonoosuc River at Bethlehem Junction, N.H. A NSIP U 1940-2000 1940-2000 1940-2000 88.2

01138000 Ammonoosuc River near Bath, N.H. D -- U 1940-80 1940-80 1940-80 396

01138500 Connecticut River at Wells River, Vt. A H, F, P R -- 1951-2000 -- 2,640

01138800 Keenan Brook at Groton, Vt. D, C -- U 1964-74 -- -- 4.72

01139000 Wells River at Wells River, Vt. A -- U 1941-2000 1941-2000 1941-2000 98.7

01139500 Connecticut River at South Newbury, Vt. D -- R -- 1919-1949 -- 2,820

01139700 Waits River Tributary near West Topsham, Vt. A, C -- U 1964-74, 

1999-2000

-- -- 1.21

01139800 East Orange Branch at East Orange, Vt. A -- U 1959-2000 1959-2000 1959-2000 8.79

01140000 South Branch Waits River near Bradford, Vt. D -- U 1940-51 1940-51 1940-51 43.8

01140100 South Branch Waits River Tributary near 

Bradford Center, Vt.

D, C -- U 1964-74 -- -- 0.21

01140500 Connecticut River at Orford, N.H. D -- R -- 1901-21 -- 3,090

01140800 West Branch Ompompanoosuc River Tributary at 

South Strafford, Vt.

D, C -- U 1964-77 -- -- 1.35

01141500 Ompompanoosuc River at Union Village, Vt. D, F -- R -- 1941-89 -- 131

01141800 Mink Brook near Etna, N.H. D -- U 1963-98 1963-98 1963-98 4.88

01142000 White River near Bethel, Vt. D -- U 1932-55 1932-55 1932-55 239

01142400 Third Branch White River Tributary at 

Randolph, Vt.

A, C -- U 1964-74, 

1998-2000

-- -- 0.83

01142500 Ayers Brook at Randolph, Vt. A -- U 1940-75, 

1977-2000

1940-75, 

1977-

2000

1940-75, 

1977-

2000

30.5

01144000 White River at West Hartford, Vt. A H, F U 1916-2000 1916-2000 1916-2000 689

01144500 Connecticut River at West Lebanon, N.H. A NSIP, H, 

F, P

R -- 1913-2000 -- 4,090

01145000 Mascoma River at West Canaan, N.H. D* M U 1940-78, 

1985-2000

1940-78 1940-78 80.4

01150500 Mascoma River at Mascoma, N.H. A -- R -- 1924-2000 -- 153

Table 1. Selected information on stream-gaging stations having 10 years of record or more in or adjacent to New Hampshire as of the 2000 water year

--Continued

[No., number; mi2, square mile; Stations are in downstream order. Abbreviations: A, active; D, discontinued; D*, discontinued, but partial record collected; 

C, crest-stage gage; F, flood control; H, hydrologic forecasting; M, management of water resources; NSIP, Federal interest stream-gaging station according to the 

National Streamflow Information Program criteria; P, hydropower generation; U, unregulated; R, regulated; SR, some regulation; DIV, flow diversion; --, station not 

used for specific flow characteristic]

Streamgaging 

station No.

Stream-gaging station name Status Use Regulation

Period of record used in the analysis Drainage 

area 

(mi2 Peak flow Mean flow Low flow )
24 Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information

01150800 Kent Brook near Killington, Vt. A -- U 1964-74, 

1999-2000

-- 1964-74 3.26

01150900 Ottauquechee River near West Bridgewater, Vt. A -- U 1985-2000 1985-2000 1985-2000 23.3

01151200 Ottauquechee River Tributary near Quechee, Vt. A, C -- U 1964-74, 

1999-2000

-- -- 0.77

01151500 Ottauquechee River at North Hartland, Vt. A F R 1928, 1931-

60, 1973

1930-2000 -- 222

01152500 Sugar River at West Claremont, N.H. A M SR 1929-2000 1929-2000 -- 270

01153000 Black River at North Springfield, Vt. D -- R 1930-60, 

1973

1931-89 -- 158

01153300 Middle Branch Williams River Tributary at 

Chester, Vt.

A, C -- U 1964-78, 

1999-2000

-- -- 3.18

01153500 Williams River at Brockway Mills, Vt. D -- U 1941-84 1941-84 1941-84 102

01153550 Williams River near Rockingham, Vt. A -- U 1987-2000 1987-2000 1987-2000 112

01154000 Saxtons River at Saxtons River, Vt. A -- U 1941-82 1941-82 1941-82 72.1

01154500 Connecticut River at North Walpole, N.H. A NSIP, H, F R -- 1943-2000 -- 5,490

01155000 Cold River at Drewsville, N.H. D -- U 1941-78 1941-78 1941-78 83.4

01155200 Sackets Brook near Putney, Vt. D -- U 1964-74 1964-74 1964-74 10.1

01155300 Flood Brook near Londonderry, Vt. D -- U 1964-74 1964-74 1964-74 9.29

01155350 West River Tributary near Jamaica, Vt. A, C -- U 1964-78, 

1999-2000

-- -- 0.93

01155500 West River at Jamaica, Vt. A F R 1936, 1938, 

1947-60, 

1973, 1987

1947-89, 

1996-

2000

1947-60 177

01156000 West River at Newfane, Vt. D -- R 1920-23, 

1928-60

1921-23, 

1929-89

1921-23, 

1929-60

306

01156300 Whetstone Brook Tributary near Marlboro, Vt. A, C -- U 1963-74, 

1999-2000

-- -- 1.08

01156450 Connecticut River Tributary near Vernon, Vt. A, C -- U 1964-74, 

1999-2000

-- -- 1.1

01156500 Connecticut River at Vernon, Vt. D -- R -- 1944-73 -- 6,270

01157000 Ashuelot River near Gilsum, N.H. D -- U 1923-80 1923-80 -- 70.8

01158000 Ashuelot River below Surry Mt. Dam, near 

Keene, N.H.

A NSIP, F R -- 1946-89, 

1996-

2000

-- 102

01158500 Otter Brook near Keene, N.H. D -- R 1924-58 1924-58 1924-58 41.9

01158600 Otter Brook below Otter Brook Dam near 

Keene, N.H.

A F R -- 1959-89, 

1996-

2000

-- 47.2

Table 1. Selected information on stream-gaging stations having 10 years of record or more in or adjacent to New Hampshire as of the 2000 water year

--Continued

[No., number; mi2, square mile; Stations are in downstream order. Abbreviations: A, active; D, discontinued; D*, discontinued, but partial record collected; 

C, crest-stage gage; F, flood control; H, hydrologic forecasting; M, management of water resources; NSIP, Federal interest stream-gaging station according to the 

National Streamflow Information Program criteria; P, hydropower generation; U, unregulated; R, regulated; SR, some regulation; DIV, flow diversion; --, station not 

used for specific flow characteristic]

Streamgaging 

station No.

Stream-gaging station name Status Use Regulation

Period of record used in the analysis Drainage 

area 

(mi2 Peak flow Mean flow Low flow )
Tables 25

01160000 South Branch Ashuelot River at Webb near 

Marlborough, N.H.

D -- SR 1921-78 1921-78 -- 35.8

01161000 Ashuelot River at Hinsdale, N.H. A -- R 1908-11, 

1915-42

1908-11, 

1915-

2000

-- 421

01161300 Millers Brook at Northfield, Mass. D, C -- U 1964-83 -- -- 2.31

01161500 Tarbell Brook near Winchendon, Mass. D -- R -- 1917-83 -- 18.6

01162000 Millers River near Winchendon, Mass. A -- R -- 1917-2000 -- 82.5

01162500 Priest Brook near Winchendon, Mass. A -- U 1917-2000 1917-2000 1917-2000 19

01163100 Wilder Brook near Gardner, Mass. D, C -- U 1964-74 -- -- 2.44

01163200 Otter River at Otter River, Mass. A -- DIV 1965-2000 -- -- 34.3

01164000 Millers River at South Royalston, Mass. D -- R -- 1916-2000 -- 190

01165000 East Branch Tully River near Athol, Mass. D -- R 1917-48 1917-90 -- 50.6

01165500 Moss Brook at Wendell Depot, Mass. D -- U 1910-82 1910-82 1910-82 12.2

01166500 Millers River at Erving, Mass. A -- R -- 1916-2000 -- 373

01167800 Beaver Brook at Wilmington, Vt. D -- U 1964-77 1964-77 1964-77 6.36

Table 1. Selected information on stream-gaging stations having 10 years of record or more in or adjacent to New Hampshire as of the 2000 water year

--Continued

[No., number; mi2, square mile; Stations are in downstream order. Abbreviations: A, active; D, discontinued; D*, discontinued, but partial record collected; 

C, crest-stage gage; F, flood control; H, hydrologic forecasting; M, management of water resources; NSIP, Federal interest stream-gaging station according to the 

National Streamflow Information Program criteria; P, hydropower generation; U, unregulated; R, regulated; SR, some regulation; DIV, flow diversion; --, station not 

used for specific flow characteristic]

Streamgaging 

station No.

Stream-gaging station name Status Use Regulation

Period of record used in the analysis Drainage 

area 

(mi2 Peak flow Mean flow Low flow )
26 Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information

Table 5. Station ranking in order of importance for providing regional streamflow information for selected peak-, mean-, and low-flow characteristics and 

planning horizons, by station number

[No., number; Abbreviations: Peak, instantaneous peak flow with 100-year recurrence interval; Mean, mean annual discharge; Low, 7-day low flow with 

10-year recurrence interval; Comp, composite rank; reg, regulated with respect to flow characteristic; csg, crest-stage gage; div, diversion; na, not applicable]

Streamgaging 

station No.

Stream-gaging station name

Rank for 0-year planning horizon Rank for 5-year planning horizon Rank for 20-year planning horizon

Peak Mean Low Comp Peak Mean Low Comp Peak Mean Low Comp

101 Isinglass River near 

Barrington, N.H.

na na na na 48 9 16 11 19 37 16 16

102 Bellamy River near 

Madbury, N.H.

na na na na 7 7 2 4 4 9 3 5

103 Picassic River near 

Newfields, N.H.

na na na na 1 3 7 3 2 11 6 6

104 Winnicut River near 

Greenland, N.H.

na na na na 2 1 4 1 1 7 5 4

105 Taylor River near 

Hampton, N.H.

na na na na 3 2 3 2 3 4 4 3

106 Salmon Falls River near 

Somersworth, N.H.

na na na na reg 11 reg 61 reg 43 reg 84

107 Jones Brook, near Route 153, 

near Middleton, N.H.

na na na na 9 8 5 5 7 2 2 2

108 Cockermouth River at 

Groton, N.H.

na na na na 36 15 14 10 11 14 10 11

109 Mad River near Campton, N.H. na na na na 41 81 17 34 15 15 17 14

110 Big River near Center 

Barnstead, N.H.

na na na na 27 10 15 9 8 13 8 9

111 Hubbard Brook at West 

Thornton, N.H.

na na na na 16 80 13 20 9 8 9 7

112 North Branch Contoocook 

River near Stoddard, N.H.

na na na na reg 53 reg 104 reg 12 reg 63

114 Clear Stream near Errol, N.H. na na na na 21 55 12 13 17 101 15 31

115 Stony Brook near 

Gorham, N.H.

na na na na 26 5 11 7 13 10 14 13

116 Saco River near Glen, N.H. na na na na 68 28 18 22 22 65 20 23

117 Swift River at Conway, N.H. na na na na 130 60 19 57 21 91 19 30

120 South Branch Israel River near 

Jefferson, N.H.

na na na na 35 4 10 8 14 5 12 10

122 Perry Stream near 

Pittsburg, N.H.

na na na na 11 130 8 42 16 6 13 12

125 South Branch Gale River near 

Franconia, N.H.

na na na na 19 135 9 45 12 3 11 8

01050900 Four Ponds Brook near 

Houghton, Maine

22 csg csg 72 24 csg csg 81 39 csg csg 95

01052500 Diamond River near 

Wentworth Location, N.H.

62 41 46 34 99 78 74 83 97 80 76 71

01053500 Androscoggin River at 

Errol, N.H.

reg 35 reg 77 reg 83 reg 131 reg 89 reg 137

01054000 Androscoggin River near 

Gorham, N.H.

reg 83 reg 127 reg 119 reg 159 reg 123 reg 164
Tables 27

01054200 Wild River at Gilead, Maine 51 23 34 22 79 49 55 48 81 47 54 50

01054300 Ellis River at South 

Andover, Maine

102 112 43 128 102 95 52 79 83 84 47 58

01054500 Androscoggin River at 

Rumford, Maine

reg 31 reg 74 reg 84 reg 133 reg 88 reg 135

01055000 Swift River near 

Roxbury, Maine

76 28 48 35 117 69 77 97 113 77 80 98

01055300 Bog Brook near 

Buckfield, Maine

34 csg csg 85 34 csg csg 98 45 csg csg 104

01057000 Little Androscoggin River near 

South Paris, Maine

81 15 60 37 109 57 82 76 115 62 82 81

01062700 Patte Brook near Bethel, Maine 32 csg csg 82 30 csg csg 91 38 csg csg 94

01064300 Ellis River near Jackson, N.H. 24 14 18 7 59 29 43 27 67 36 44 35

01064380 East Branch Saco River at 

Town Hall Road near 

Lower Bartlett, N.H.

98 csg csg 138 47 csg csg 110 47 csg csg 106

01064400 Lucy Brook near North 

Conway, N.H.

37 17 21 13 57 36 40 30 63 35 39 33

01064500 Saco River near Conway, N.H. 87 30 61 44 118 58 83 87 116 63 83 86

01064800 Cold Brook at South 

Tamworth, N.H.

40 48 3 17 55 66 21 35 52 31 22 20

01064801 Bearcamp River at South 

Tamworth, N.H.

na na na na 42 21 39 17 24 18 18 15

01065000 Ossipee River at Effingham 

Falls, N.H.

107 103 reg 137 125 131 reg 161 120 128 reg 157

01065500 Ossipee River at 

Cornish, Maine

103 88 reg 126 127 99 reg 138 122 103 reg 139

01066000 Saco River at Cornish, Maine 100 82 reg 116 128 104 reg 145 126 110 reg 146

01066100 Pease Brook near 

Cornish, Maine

33 csg csg 84 33 csg csg 95 40 csg csg 96

01066500 Little Ossipee River near 

South Limington, Maine

90 96 reg 122 98 103 reg 121 98 102 reg 117

01072100 Salmon Falls River at 

Milton, N.H.

reg 46 reg 88 reg 50 reg 101 reg 48 reg 90

01072500 Salmon Falls River near 

South Lebanon, Maine

reg 78 reg 125 reg 71 reg 122 reg 68 reg 115

01072800 Cocheco River near 

Rochester, N.H.

na na na na 97 14 reg 52 18 67 reg 47

01072850 Mohawk Brook near Center 

Strafford, N.H.

57 70 5 30 71 109 23 55 62 52 23 32

Table 5. Station ranking in order of importance for providing regional streamflow information for selected peak-, mean-, and low-flow characteristics and 

planning horizons, by station number--Continued

[No., number; Abbreviations: Peak, instantaneous peak flow with 100-year recurrence interval; Mean, mean annual discharge; Low, 7-day low flow with 

10-year recurrence interval; Comp, composite rank; reg, regulated with respect to flow characteristic; csg, crest-stage gage; div, diversion; na, not applicable]

Streamgaging 

station No.

Stream-gaging station name

Rank for 0-year planning horizon Rank for 5-year planning horizon Rank for 20-year planning horizon

Peak Mean Low Comp Peak Mean Low Comp Peak Mean Low Comp
28 Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information

01072880 Cocheco River, at Spaulding 

Turnpike, at Dover

na na na na 28 6 reg 23 26 39 reg 36

01073000 Oyster River near 

Durham, N.H.

50 25 49 27 78 48 73 53 82 56 77 57

01073500 Lamprey River near 

Newmarket, N.H.

71 81 reg 89 93 96 reg 111 99 95 reg 111

01073587 Exeter River, at Haigh Road, 

Near Brentwood, N.H.

na na na na 51 12 reg 37 10 66 reg 43

01073600 Dudley Brook near 

Exeter, N.H.

29 43 15 15 53 32 34 25 56 33 36 29

01074500 East Branch Pemigewasset 

River near Lincoln, N.H.

66 29 58 36 85 34 66 50 84 38 57 49

01074520 East Branch Pemigewasset 

River at Lincoln, N.H.

na na na na 45 33 20 15 23 58 21 18

01075000 Pemigewasset River at 

Woodstock, N.H.

45 109 36 60 75 111 64 82 76 114 65 77

01075500 Baker River at 

Wentworth, N.H.

69 68 24 40 104 112 37 86 72 130 37 65

01075800 Stevens Brook near 

Wentworth, N.H.

44 27 22 18 66 51 42 43 69 44 40 41

01076000 Baker River near 

Rumney, N.H.

55 65 41 39 87 122 70 116 91 125 72 123

01076500 Pemigewasset River at 

Plymouth, N.H.

101 33 64 64 131 72 85 117 130 83 85 129

01077000 Squam River at Ashland, N.H. reg 95 reg 134 reg 123 reg 163 reg 116 reg 158

01078000 Smith River near Bristol, N.H. 86 40 56 48 121 90 81 123 119 98 81 130

01079602 Poorfarm Brook at Ellacoya 

State Park near Gilford, N.H.

na na na na 5 22 1 6 5 1 1 1

01079900 Shannon Brook near 

Moultonborough, N.H.

na na na na 4 65 6 12 6 90 7 19

01081500 Merrimack River at 

Franklin Junction, N.H.

reg 49 reg 91 reg 98 reg 147 reg 106 reg 148

01082000 Contoocook River at 

Peterborough, N.H.

38 110 25 46 67 126 50 74 75 127 52 74

01083000 Nubanusit Brook below 

MacDowell Dam near 

Peterborough, N.H.

reg 66 reg 110 reg 67 reg 118 reg 73 reg 121

01083500 Contoocook River near 

Elmwood, N.H.

na na na na 40 24 reg 40 51 16 reg 37

Table 5. Station ranking in order of importance for providing regional streamflow information for selected peak-, mean-, and low-flow characteristics and 

planning horizons, by station number--Continued

[No., number; Abbreviations: Peak, instantaneous peak flow with 100-year recurrence interval; Mean, mean annual discharge; Low, 7-day low flow with 

10-year recurrence interval; Comp, composite rank; reg, regulated with respect to flow characteristic; csg, crest-stage gage; div, diversion; na, not applicable]

Streamgaging 

station No.

Stream-gaging station name

Rank for 0-year planning horizon Rank for 5-year planning horizon Rank for 20-year planning horizon

Peak Mean Low Comp Peak Mean Low Comp Peak Mean Low Comp
Tables 29

01084000 North Branch Contoocook 

River near Antrim, N.H.

reg 61 reg 107 reg 70 reg 120 reg 64 reg 112

01084500 Beards Brook near 

Hillsboro, N.H.

73 100 33 79 92 120 48 100 86 131 46 93

01085000 Contoocook River near 

Henniker, N.H.

reg 59 reg 103 reg 108 reg 153 reg 99 reg 143

01085800 West Branch Warner River near 

Bradford, N.H.

30 13 13 8 63 42 41 38 71 42 42 42

01086000 Warner River at 

Davisville, N.H.

43 101 35 50 76 132 61 105 78 141 63 114

01087000 Blackwater River near 

Webster, N.H.

reg 60 reg 105 reg 110 reg 155 reg 112 reg 152

01089000 Soucook River near 

Concord, N.H.

75 69 52 69 89 138 63 125 87 140 61 122

01089100 Soucook River, at Pembroke 

Road, near Concord, N.H.

39 9 6 6 70 30 35 31 134 30 38 55

01089500 Suncook River at North 

Chichester, N.H.

96 71 reg 101 110 88 reg 119 112 86 reg 113

01090500 Merrimack River at 

Manchester, N.H.

reg 104 reg 139 reg 129 reg 167 reg 54 reg 101

01091000 South Branch Piscataquog 

River near Goffstown, N.H.

88 111 47 118 96 137 60 128 94 135 60 125

01092000 Merrimack River near 

Goffs Falls, below 

Manchester, N.H.

reg 74 reg 119 reg 105 reg 149 reg 134 reg 168

01093000 Sucker Brook at Auburn, N.H. reg 75 reg 121 reg 74 reg 124 reg 69 reg 116

01093800 Stony Brook Tributary near 

Temple, N.H.

26 7 12 4 64 35 36 32 70 40 41 38

01094000 Souhegan River at 

Merrimack, N.H.

56 24 reg 33 82 73 reg 70 92 78 reg 76

01094400 North Nashua River at 

Fitchburg, Mass.

46 div div 97 74 div div 134 77 div div 136

01094500 North Nashua River near 

Leominster, Mass.

83 div div 131 108 div div 160 111 div div 163

01095800 Easter Brook near North 

Leominster, Mass.

20 csg csg 70 17 csg csg 75 28 csg csg 75

01096000 Squannacook River near 

West Groton, Mass.

59 6 reg 28 88 19 reg 51 93 20 reg 54

010965852 Beaver Brook at North 

Pelham, N.H.

19 4 8 2 49 20 30 16 55 26 32 25

Table 5. Station ranking in order of importance for providing regional streamflow information for selected peak-, mean-, and low-flow characteristics and 

planning horizons, by station number--Continued

[No., number; Abbreviations: Peak, instantaneous peak flow with 100-year recurrence interval; Mean, mean annual discharge; Low, 7-day low flow with 

10-year recurrence interval; Comp, composite rank; reg, regulated with respect to flow characteristic; csg, crest-stage gage; div, diversion; na, not applicable]

Streamgaging 

station No.

Stream-gaging station name

Rank for 0-year planning horizon Rank for 5-year planning horizon Rank for 20-year planning horizon

Peak Mean Low Comp Peak Mean Low Comp Peak Mean Low Comp
30 Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information

01097300 Nashoba Brook near 

Action, Mass.

28 11 20 9 58 31 47 33 68 34 49 39

01100505 Spicket River, at Island Pond 

Road, at North Salem, N.H.

na na na na reg 46 reg 99 reg 126 reg 165

01100700 East Meadow River near 

Haverhill, Mass.

35 94 4 31 52 43 24 26 50 25 24 17

01100800 Cobbler Brook near 

Merrimac, Mass.

18 csg csg 68 25 csg csg 84 44 csg csg 103

01100900 Parker River Tributary near 

Georgetown, Mass.

15 csg csg 65 10 csg csg 66 25 csg csg 70

01101000 Parker River at Byfield, Mass. 42 18 28 16 73 40 53 46 80 50 56 51

01127880 Big Brook near Pittsburg, N.H. 25 12 10 5 54 26 28 19 57 29 30 26

01128500 Connecticut River at First 

Connecticut Lake near 

Pittsburg, N.H.

reg 53 reg 95 reg 62 reg 113 reg 61 reg 109

01129200 Connecticut River below 

Indian Stream near 

Pittsburg, N.H.

reg 45 reg 87 reg 77 reg 126 reg 72 reg 119

01129300 Halls Stream near East 

Hereford, Quebec

84 54 38 45 107 76 51 64 89 53 50 53

01129400 Black Brook at Averill, Vt. 16 csg csg 67 12 csg csg 69 32 csg csg 85

01129440 Mohawk River near 

Colebrook, N.H.

17 3 7 1 50 18 27 14 53 23 29 21

01129500 Connecticut River at North 

Stratford, N.H.

reg 92 reg 133 reg 124 reg 165 reg 119 reg 162

01129700 Paul Stream Tributary near 

Brunswick Springs, Vt.

3 csg csg 51 15 csg csg 73 36 csg csg 89

01130000 Upper Ammonoosuc River 

near Groveton, N.H.

78 77 51 80 114 102 78 127 108 104 78 124

01131500 Connecticut River near 

Dalton, N.H.

reg 106 reg 140 reg 136 reg 169 reg 132 reg 167

01133000 East Branch Passumpsic River 

near East Haven, Vt.

54 19 30 20 90 68 54 58 90 81 53 61

01133200 Quimby Brook near 

Lyndonville, Vt.

6 csg csg 53 20 csg csg 77 37 csg csg 91

01133300 Cold Hill Brook near 

Lyndon, Vt.

23 csg csg 75 32 csg csg 94 43 csg csg 102

01134500 Moose River at Victory, Vt. 68 44 44 38 103 85 67 88 101 82 70 72

01134800 Kirby Brook at Concord, Vt. 8 105 16 29 37 39 33 21 131 60 34 60

01135000 Moose River at 

St. Johnsbury, Vt.

93 80 59 102 120 101 79 130 107 107 75 120

Table 5. Station ranking in order of importance for providing regional streamflow information for selected peak-, mean-, and low-flow characteristics and 

planning horizons, by station number--Continued

[No., number; Abbreviations: Peak, instantaneous peak flow with 100-year recurrence interval; Mean, mean annual discharge; Low, 7-day low flow with 

10-year recurrence interval; Comp, composite rank; reg, regulated with respect to flow characteristic; csg, crest-stage gage; div, diversion; na, not applicable]

Streamgaging 

station No.

Stream-gaging station name

Rank for 0-year planning horizon Rank for 5-year planning horizon Rank for 20-year planning horizon

Peak Mean Low Comp Peak Mean Low Comp Peak Mean Low Comp
Tables 31

01135150 Pope Brook near 

North Danville, Vt.

13 1 na 14 46 13 na 36 49 19 na 40

01135300 Sleepers River near 

St. Johnsbury, Vt.

63 8 1 12 84 23 25 28 65 22 26 24

01135500 Passumpsic River at 

Passumpsic, Vt.

99 87 reg 123 129 127 reg 162 124 122 reg 154

01135700 Joes Brook Tributary near 

East Barnet, Vt.

10 csg csg 56 22 csg csg 78 29 csg csg 78

01137500 Ammonoosuc River at 

Bethlehem Junction, N.H.

70 85 42 71 106 63 68 67 104 71 71 66

01138000 Ammonoosuc River near 

Bath, N.H.

109 108 54 135 134 133 76 164 132 133 73 161

01138500 Connecticut River at 

Wells River, Vt.

reg 55 reg 98 reg 93 reg 142 reg 105 reg 147

01138800 Keenan Brook at Groton, Vt. 52 csg csg 106 38 csg csg 102 42 csg csg 100

01139000 Wells River at Wells River, Vt. 80 72 40 61 116 121 69 137 110 118 69 131

01139500 Connecticut River at 

South Newbury, Vt.

reg 64 reg 109 reg 97 reg 146 reg 109 reg 150

01139700 Waits River Tributary near 

West Topsham, Vt.

1 csg csg 47 8 csg csg 65 27 csg csg 73

01139800 East Orange Branch at 

East Orange, Vt.

31 10 19 10 69 44 46 44 74 45 48 46

01140000 South Branch Waits River near 

Bradford, Vt.

48 26 27 19 60 114 38 59 64 70 35 48

01140100 South Branch Waits River 

Tributary near Bradford 

Center, Vt.

14 csg csg 62 6 csg csg 63 20 csg csg 69

01140500 Connecticut River at 

Orford, N.H.

reg 22 reg 63 reg 38 reg 85 reg 32 reg 68

01140800 West Branch Ompompanoosuc 

River Tributary at South 

Strafford, Vt.

61 csg csg 115 80 csg csg 140 59 csg csg 118

01141500 Ompompanoosuc River at 

Union Village, Vt.

reg 67 reg 113 reg 140 reg 170 reg 137 reg 169

01141800 Mink Brook near Etna, N.H. 49 39 26 23 72 59 44 47 73 46 43 44

01142000 White River near Bethel, Vt. 64 36 39 32 86 56 57 54 85 51 55 52

01142400 Third Branch White River 

Tributary at Randolph, Vt.

11 csg csg 57 44 csg csg 108 121 csg csg 166

01142500 Ayers Brook at Randolph, Vt. 60 21 37 25 95 79 62 68 100 79 67 67

01144000 White River at West 

Hartford, Vt.

108 57 63 96 133 113 84 154 133 120 84 156

Table 5. Station ranking in order of importance for providing regional streamflow information for selected peak-, mean-, and low-flow characteristics and 

planning horizons, by station number--Continued

[No., number; Abbreviations: Peak, instantaneous peak flow with 100-year recurrence interval; Mean, mean annual discharge; Low, 7-day low flow with 

10-year recurrence interval; Comp, composite rank; reg, regulated with respect to flow characteristic; csg, crest-stage gage; div, diversion; na, not applicable]

Streamgaging 

station No.

Stream-gaging station name

Rank for 0-year planning horizon Rank for 5-year planning horizon Rank for 20-year planning horizon

Peak Mean Low Comp Peak Mean Low Comp Peak Mean Low Comp
32 Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information

01144500 Connecticut River at 

West Lebanon, N.H.

reg 107 reg 141 reg 134 reg 168 reg 139 reg 170

01145000 Mascoma River at 

West Canaan, N.H.

41 98 31 43 77 141 58 114 79 138 59 110

01150500 Mascoma River at 

Mascoma, N.H.

reg 56 reg 100 reg 107 reg 152 reg 113 reg 153

01150800 Kent Brook near 

Killington, Vt.

4 na 2 26 18 na 22 49 34 na 25 56

01150900 Ottauquechee River near 

West Bridgewater, Vt.

21 2 17 3 56 16 32 18 61 24 33 28

01151200 Ottauquechee River Tributary 

near Quechee, Vt.

12 csg csg 58 39 csg csg 103 33 csg csg 87

01151500 Ottauquechee River at 

North Hartland, Vt.

85 84 reg 129 123 116 reg 157 125 115 reg 155

01152500 Sugar River at West 

Claremont, N.H.

106 89 reg 130 132 128 reg 166 129 124 reg 160

01153000 Black River at North 

Springfield, Vt.

82 63 reg 108 119 106 reg 151 117 111 reg 151

01153300 Middle Branch Williams River 

Tributary at Chester, Vt.

7 csg csg 54 31 csg csg 92 46 csg csg 105

01153500 Williams River at Brockway 

Mills, Vt.

94 93 53 114 113 125 71 144 103 129 66 132

01153550 Williams River near 

Rockingham, Vt.

36 5 23 11 62 25 45 29 66 28 45 34

01154000 Saxtons River at Saxtons 

River, Vt.

91 91 50 104 112 118 65 129 105 121 64 126

01154500 Connecticut River at North 

Walpole, N.H.

reg 51 reg 93 reg 86 reg 135 reg 96 reg 141

01155000 Cold River at Drewsville, N.H. 105 97 45 120 126 139 59 150 118 136 58 140

01155200 Sackets Brook near Putney, Vt. 95 86 14 66 65 52 31 41 54 85 28 45

01155300 Flood Brook near 

Londonderry, Vt.

104 102 9 86 83 37 26 39 58 21 27 22

01155350 West River Tributary near 

Jamaica, Vt.

9 csg csg 55 29 csg csg 89 41 csg csg 99

01155500 West River at Jamaica, Vt. 72 73 29 117 115 89 49 136 127 87 51 134

01156000 West River at Newfane, Vt. 89 90 57 132 124 100 80 148 128 100 79 145

01156300 Whetstone Brook Tributary 

near Marlboro, Vt.

2 csg csg 49 13 csg csg 71 31 csg csg 83

01156450 Connecticut River Tributary 

near Vernon, Vt.

5 csg csg 52 14 csg csg 72 30 csg csg 82

Table 5. Station ranking in order of importance for providing regional streamflow information for selected peak-, mean-, and low-flow characteristics and 

planning horizons, by station number--Continued

[No., number; Abbreviations: Peak, instantaneous peak flow with 100-year recurrence interval; Mean, mean annual discharge; Low, 7-day low flow with 

10-year recurrence interval; Comp, composite rank; reg, regulated with respect to flow characteristic; csg, crest-stage gage; div, diversion; na, not applicable]

Streamgaging 

station No.

Stream-gaging station name

Rank for 0-year planning horizon Rank for 5-year planning horizon Rank for 20-year planning horizon

Peak Mean Low Comp Peak Mean Low Comp Peak Mean Low Comp
Tables 33

01156500 Connecticut River at 

Vernon, Vt.

reg 50 reg 92 reg 45 reg 96 reg 49 reg 92

01157000 Ashuelot River near 

Gilsum, N.H.

97 79 reg 111 122 94 reg 132 114 93 reg 127

01158000 Ashuelot River below Surry 

Mt. Dam, near Keene, N.H.

reg 76 reg 124 reg 117 reg 158 reg 117 reg 159

01158500 Otter Brook near Keene, N.H. 79 20 62 59 105 41 75 90 102 41 74 80

01158600 Otter Brook below Otter Brook 

Dam near Keene, N.H.

reg 32 reg 76 reg 91 reg 139 reg 92 reg 138

01160000 South Branch Ashuelot 

River at Webb near 

Marlborough, N.H.

92 58 reg 83 111 75 reg 106 109 74 reg 97

01160350 Ashuelot River at West 

Swanzey, N.H.

na na na na reg 17 reg 62 reg 17 reg 64

01161000 Ashuelot River at 

Hinsdale, N.H.

65 34 reg 41 100 87 reg 109 123 94 reg 133

01161300 Millers Brook at 

Northfield, Mass.

47 csg csg 99 43 csg csg 107 48 csg csg 108

01161500 Tarbell Brook near 

Winchendon, Mass.

reg 52 reg 94 reg 61 reg 112 reg 59 reg 107

01162000 Millers River near 

Winchendon, Mass.

reg 37 reg 81 reg 64 reg 115 reg 76 reg 128

01162500 Priest Brook near 

Winchendon, Mass.

67 16 32 24 101 47 56 56 106 57 62 62

01163100 Wilder Brook near 

Gardner, Mass.

27 csg csg 78 23 csg csg 80 35 csg csg 88

01163200 Otter River at Otter 

River, Mass.

58 div div 112 81 div div 143 88 div div 144

01164000 Millers River at South 

Royalston, Mass.

reg 99 reg 136 reg 115 reg 156 reg 108 reg 149

01165000 East Branch Tully River near 

Athol, Mass.

74 62 reg 73 91 82 reg 93 96 75 reg 79

01165500 Moss Brook at Wendell 

Depot, Mass.

77 38 55 42 94 54 72 60 95 55 68 59

01166500 Millers River at Erving, Mass. reg 47 reg 90 reg 92 reg 141 reg 97 reg 142

01167800 Beaver Brook at 

Wilmington, Vt.

53 42 11 21 61 27 29 24 60 27 31 27

Table 5. Station ranking in order of importance for providing regional streamflow information for selected peak-, mean-, and low-flow characteristics and 

planning horizons, by station number--Continued

[No., number; Abbreviations: Peak, instantaneous peak flow with 100-year recurrence interval; Mean, mean annual discharge; Low, 7-day low flow with 

10-year recurrence interval; Comp, composite rank; reg, regulated with respect to flow characteristic; csg, crest-stage gage; div, diversion; na, not applicable]

Streamgaging 

station No.

Stream-gaging station name

Rank for 0-year planning horizon Rank for 5-year planning horizon Rank for 20-year planning horizon

Peak Mean Low Comp Peak Mean Low Comp Peak Mean Low Comp
34 Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information Table 6. Station ranking in order of importance for providing regional streamflow information for selected peak-, mean-, and low-flow characteristics and planning 

[No., number; Leading zero of station number has been omitted. Abbreviations: Peak, instantaneous peak flow with a 100-year recurrence interval; Mean, annual mean dwith a 10-year recurrence interval; Comp, composite ranking; --, no data available] Rank Station No. for 0-year planning horizon Station No. for 5-year planning horizon Station No. for 20-

Peak Mean Low Comp Peak Mean Low Comp Peak Mean 

1 1139700 1135150 1135300 1129440 103 104 1079602 104 104 1079602 2 1156300 1150900 1150800 10965852 104 105 102 105 103 107 3 1129700 1129440 1064800 1150900 105 103 105 103 105 125 4 1150800 10965852 1100700 1093800 1079900 120 104 102 102 105 5 1156450 1153550 1072850 1127880 1079602 115 107 107 1079602 120 6 1133200 1096000 1089100 1089100 1140100 1072880 1079900 1079602 1079900 122 7 1153300 1093800 1129440 1064300 102 102 103 115 107 104 8 1134800 1135300 10965852 1085800 1139700 107 122 120 110 111 9 1155350 1089100 1155300 1097300 107 101 125 110 111 102 

10 1135700 1139800 1127880 1139800 1100900 110 120 108 1073587 115 11 1142400 1097300 1167800 1153550 122 106 115 101 108 103 12 1151200 1127880 1093800 1135300 1129400 1073587 114 1079900 125 112 13 1135150 1085800 1085800 1064400 1156300 1135150 111 114 115 110 14 1140100 1064300 1155200 1135150 1156450 1072800 108 1129440 120 108 15 1100900 1057000 1073600 1073600 1129700 108 110 1074520 109 109 16 1129400 1162500 1134800 1101000 111 1150900 101 10965852 122 1083500 17 1129440 1064400 1150900 1064800 1095800 1160350 109 1064801 114 1160350 18 1100800 1101000 1064300 1075800 1150800 1129440 116 1150900 1072800 1064801 19 10965852 1133000 1139800 1140000 125 1096000 117 1127880 101 1135150 20 1095800 1158500 1097300 1133000 1133200 10965852 1074520 111 1140100 1096000 21 1150900 1142500 1064400 1167800 114 1064801 1064800 1134800 117 1155300 22 1050900 1140500 1075800 1054200 1135700 1079602 1150800 116 116 1135300 23 1133300 1054200 1153550 1141800 1163100 1135300 1072850 1072880 1074520 1129440 24 1064300 1094000 1075500 1162500 1050900 1083500 1100700 1167800 1064801 1150900 25 1127880 1073000 1082000 1142500 1100800 1153550 1135300 1073600 1100900 1100700 
Tables 35

26 1093800 1140000 1141800 1150800 115 1127880 1155300 1100700 1072880 10965852 27 1163100 1075800 1140000 1073000 110 1167800 1129440 1064300 1139700 1167800 28 1097300 1055000 1101000 1096000 1072880 116 1127880 1135300 1095800 1153550 29 1073600 1074500 1155500 1134800 1155350 1064300 1167800 1153550 1135700 1127880 30 1085800 1064500 1133000 1072850 1062700 1089100 10965852 1064400 1156450 1089100 31 1139800 1054500 1145000 1100700 1153300 1097300 1155200 1089100 1156300 1064800 32 1062700 1158600 1162500 1142000 1133300 1073600 1150900 1093800 1129400 1140500 33 1066100 1076500 1084500 1094000 1066100 1074520 1134800 1097300 1151200 1073600 34 1055300 1161000 1054200 1052500 1055300 1074500 1073600 109 1150800 1097300 35 1100700 1053500 1086000 1055000 120 1093800 1089100 1064800 1163100 1064400 36 1153550 1142000 1075000 1074500 108 1064400 1093800 1135150 1129700 1064300 37 1064400 1162000 1142500 1057000 1134800 1155300 1075500 1073587 1133200 101 38 1082000 1165500 1129300 1134500 1138800 1140500 1140000 1085800 1062700 1074500 39 1089100 1141800 1142000 1076000 1151200 1134800 1064801 1155300 1050900 1072880 40 1064800 1078000 1139000 1075500 1083500 1101000 1064400 1083500 1066100 1093800 41 1145000 1052500 1076000 1161000 109 1158500 1085800 1155200 1155350 1158500 42 1101000 1167800 1137500 1165500 1064801 1085800 1075800 122 1138800 1085800 43 1086000 1073600 1054300 1145000 1161300 1100700 1064300 1075800 1133300 106 44 1075800 1134500 1134500 1064500 1142400 1139800 1141800 1139800 1100800 1075800 45 1075000 1129200 1155000 1129300 1074520 1156500 1153550 125 1055300 1139800 46 1094400 1072100 1052500 1082000 1135150 1100505 1139800 1101000 1153300 1141800 47 1161300 1166500 1091000 1139700 1064380 1162500 1097300 1141800 1064380 1054200 48 1140000 1064800 1055000 1078000 101 1073000 1084500 1054200 1161300 1072100 49 1141800 1081500 1073000 1156300 10965852 1054200 1155500 1150800 1135150 1156500 50 1073000 1156500 1154000 1086000 1129440 1072100 1082000 1074500 1100700 1101000 

Table 6. Station ranking in order of importance for providing regional streamflow information for selected peak-, mean-, and low-flow characteristics and planning h[No., number; Leading zero of station number has been omitted. Abbreviations: Peak, instantaneous peak flow with a 100-year recurrence interval; Mean, annual mean dwith a 10-year recurrence interval; Comp, composite ranking; --, no data available]

Rank

Station No. for 0-year planning horizon Station No. for 5-year planning horizon Station No. for 20-

Peak Mean Low Comp Peak Mean Low Comp Peak Mean 
36 Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information 51 1054200 1154500 1130000 1129700 1073587 1075800 1129300 1096000 1083500 1142000 

52 1138800 1161500 1089000 1156450 1100700 1155200 1054300 1072800 1064800 1072850 53 1167800 1128500 1153500 1133200 1073600 112 1101000 1073000 1129440 1129300 54 1133000 1129300 1138000 1153300 1127880 1165500 1133000 1142000 1155200 1090500 55 1076000 1138500 1165500 1155350 1064800 114 1054200 1072850 10965852 1165500 56 1094000 1150500 1078000 1135700 1150900 1142000 1162500 1162500 1073600 1073000 57 1072850 1144000 1156000 1142400 1064400 1057000 1142000 117 1127880 1162500 58 1163200 1160000 1074500 1151200 1097300 1064500 1145000 1133000 1155300 1074520 59 1096000 1085000 1135000 1158500 1064300 1141800 1155000 1140000 1140800 1161500 60 1142500 1087000 1057000 1075000 1140000 117 1091000 1165500 1167800 1134800 61 1140800 1084000 1064500 1139000 1167800 1161500 1086000 106 1150900 1128500 62 1052500 1165000 1158500 1140100 1153550 1128500 1142500 1160350 1072850 1057000 63 1135300 1153000 1144000 1140500 1085800 1137500 1089000 1140100 1064400 1064500 64 1142000 1139500 1076500 1076500 1093800 1162000 1075000 1129300 1140000 1084000 65 1161000 1076000 -- 1100900 1155200 1079900 1154000 1139700 1135300 116 66 1074500 1083000 -- 1155200 1075800 1064800 1074500 1100900 1153550 1073587 67 1162500 1141500 -- 1129400 1082000 1083000 1134500 1137500 1064300 1072800 68 1134500 1075500 -- 1100800 116 1133000 1137500 1142500 1097300 1072500 69 1075500 1089000 -- 1089000 1139800 1055000 1139000 1129400 1075800 1093000 70 1137500 1072850 -- 1095800 1089100 1084000 1076000 1094000 1093800 1140000 71 1073500 1089500 -- 1137500 1072850 1072500 1153500 1156300 1085800 1137500 72 1155500 1139000 -- 1050900 1141800 1076500 1165500 1156450 1075500 1129200 73 1084500 1155500 -- 1165000 1101000 1094000 1073000 1129700 1141800 1083000 74 1165000 1092000 -- 1054500 1094400 1093000 1052500 1082000 1139800 1160000 75 1089000 1093000 -- 1133300 1075000 1160000 1158500 1095800 1082000 1165000 

Table 6. Station ranking in order of importance for providing regional streamflow information for selected peak-, mean-, and low-flow characteristics and planning h[No., number; Leading zero of station number has been omitted. Abbreviations: Peak, instantaneous peak flow with a 100-year recurrence interval; Mean, annual mean dwith a 10-year recurrence interval; Comp, composite ranking; --, no data available]

Rank

Station No. for 0-year planning horizon Station No. for 5-year planning horizon Station No. for 20-

Peak Mean Low Comp Peak Mean Low Comp Peak Mean 
Tables 37

76 1055000 1158000 -- 1158600 1086000 1129300 1138000 1057000 1075000 1162000 77 1165500 1130000 -- 1053500 1145000 1129200 1055000 1133200 1094400 1055000 78 1130000 1072500 -- 1163100 1073000 1052500 1130000 1135700 1086000 1094000 79 1158500 1157000 -- 1084500 1054200 1142500 1135000 1054300 1145000 1142500 80 1139000 1135000 -- 1130000 1140800 111 1156000 1163100 1101000 1052500 81 1057000 1073500 -- 1162000 1163200 109 1078000 1050900 1054200 1133000 82 1153000 1066000 -- 1062700 1094000 1165000 1057000 1075000 1073000 1134500 83 1094500 1054000 -- 1160000 1155300 1053500 1064500 1052500 1054300 1076500 84 1129300 1151500 -- 1066100 1135300 1054500 1144000 1100800 1074500 1054300 85 1151500 1137500 -- 1055300 1074500 1134500 1076500 1140500 1142000 1155200 86 1078000 1155200 -- 1155300 1142000 1154500 -- 1075500 1084500 1089500 87 1064500 1135500 -- 1129200 1076000 1161000 -- 1064500 1089000 1155500 88 1091000 1065500 -- 1072100 1096000 1089500 -- 1134500 1163200 1054500 89 1156000 1152500 -- 1073500 1089000 1155500 -- 1155350 1129300 1053500 90 1066500 1156000 -- 1166500 1133000 1078000 -- 1158500 1133000 1079900 91 1154000 1154000 -- 1081500 1165000 1158600 -- 1062700 1076000 117 92 1160000 1129500 -- 1156500 1084500 1166500 -- 1153300 1094000 1158600 93 1135000 1153500 -- 1154500 1073500 1138500 -- 1165000 1096000 1157000 94 1153500 1100700 -- 1161500 1165500 1157000 -- 1133300 1091000 1161000 95 1155200 1077000 -- 1128500 1142500 1054300 -- 1066100 1165500 1073500 96 1089500 1066500 -- 1144000 1091000 1073500 -- 1156500 1165000 1154500 97 1157000 1155000 -- 1094400 1072800 1139500 -- 1055000 1052500 1166500 98 1064380 1145000 -- 1138500 1066500 1081500 -- 1055300 1066500 1078000 99 1135500 1164000 -- 1161300 1052500 1065500 -- 1100505 1073500 1085000 

100 1066000 1084500 -- 1150500 1161000 1156000 -- 1084500 1142500 1156000 

Table 6. Station ranking in order of importance for providing regional streamflow information for selected peak-, mean-, and low-flow characteristics and planning h[No., number; Leading zero of station number has been omitted. Abbreviations: Peak, instantaneous peak flow with a 100-year recurrence interval; Mean, annual mean dwith a 10-year recurrence interval; Comp, composite ranking; --, no data available]

Rank

Station No. for 0-year planning horizon Station No. for 5-year planning horizon Station No. for 20-

Peak Mean Low Comp Peak Mean Low Comp Peak Mean 
38 Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information 101 1076500 1086000 -- 1089500 1162500 1135000 -- 1072100 1134500 114 

102 1054300 1155300 -- 1135000 1054300 1130000 -- 1138800 1158500 1066500 103 1065500 1065000 -- 1085000 1134500 1066500 -- 1151200 1153500 1065500 104 1155300 1090500 -- 1154000 1075500 1066000 -- 112 1137500 1130000 105 1155000 1134800 -- 1087000 1158500 1092000 -- 1086000 1154000 1138500 106 1152500 1131500 -- 1138800 1137500 1153000 -- 1160000 1162500 1081500 107 1065000 1144500 -- 1084000 1129300 1150500 -- 1161300 1135000 1135000 108 1144000 1138000 -- 1153000 1094500 1085000 -- 1142400 1130000 1164000 109 1138000 1075000 -- 1139500 1057000 1072850 -- 1161000 1160000 1139500 110 -- 1082000 -- 1083000 1089500 1087000 -- 1064380 1139000 1066000 111 -- 1091000 -- 1157000 1160000 1075000 -- 1073500 1094500 1153000 112 -- 1054300 -- 1163200 1154000 1075500 -- 1161500 1089500 1087000 113 -- -- -- 1141500 1153500 1144000 -- 1128500 1055000 1150500 114 -- -- -- 1153500 1130000 1140000 -- 1145000 1157000 1075000 115 -- -- -- 1140800 1155500 1164000 -- 1162000 1057000 1151500 116 -- -- -- 1066000 1139000 1151500 -- 1076000 1064500 1077000 117 -- -- -- 1155500 1055000 1158000 -- 1076500 1153000 1158000 118 -- -- -- 1091000 1064500 1154000 -- 1083000 1155000 1139000 119 -- -- -- 1092000 1153000 1054000 -- 1089500 1078000 1129500 120 -- -- -- 1155000 1135000 1084500 -- 1084000 1065000 1144000 121 -- -- -- 1093000 1078000 1139000 -- 1066500 1142400 1154000 122 -- -- -- 1066500 1157000 1076000 -- 1072500 1065500 1135500 123 -- -- -- 1135500 1151500 1077000 -- 1078000 1161000 1054000 124 -- -- -- 1158000 1156000 1129500 -- 1093000 1135500 1152500 125 -- -- -- 1072500 1065000 1153500 -- 1089000 1151500 1076000 

Table 6. Station ranking in order of importance for providing regional streamflow information for selected peak-, mean-, and low-flow characteristics and planning h[No., number; Leading zero of station number has been omitted. Abbreviations: Peak, instantaneous peak flow with a 100-year recurrence interval; Mean, annual mean dwith a 10-year recurrence interval; Comp, composite ranking; --, no data available]

Rank

Station No. for 0-year planning horizon Station No. for 5-year planning horizon Station No. for 20-

Peak Mean Low Comp Peak Mean Low Comp Peak Mean 
Tables 39

126 -- -- -- 1065500 1155000 1082000 -- 1129200 1066000 1100505 127 -- -- -- 1054000 1065500 1135500 -- 1130000 1155500 1082000 128 -- -- -- 1054300 1066000 1152500 -- 1091000 1156000 1065000 129 -- -- -- 1151500 1135500 1090500 -- 1154000 1152500 1153500 130 -- -- -- 1152500 117 122 -- 1135000 1076500 1075500 131 -- -- -- 1094500 1076500 1065000 -- 1053500 1134800 1084500 132 -- -- -- 1156000 1152500 1086000 -- 1157000 1138000 1131500 133 -- -- -- 1129500 1144000 1138000 -- 1054500 1144000 1138000 134 -- -- -- 1077000 1138000 1144500 -- 1094400 1089100 1092000 135 -- -- -- 1138000 -- 125 -- 1154500 -- 1091000 136 -- -- -- 1164000 -- 1131500 -- 1155500 -- 1155000 137 -- -- -- 1065000 -- 1091000 -- 1139000 -- 1141500 138 -- -- -- 1064380 -- 1089000 -- 1065500 -- 1145000 139 -- -- -- 1090500 -- 1155000 -- 1158600 -- 1144500 140 -- -- -- 1131500 -- 1141500 -- 1140800 -- 1089000 141 -- -- -- 1144500 -- 1145000 -- 1166500 -- 1086000 142 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1138500 -- -- 143 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1163200 -- -- 144 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1153500 -- -- 145 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1066000 -- -- 146 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1139500 -- -- 147 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1081500 -- -- 148 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1156000 -- -- 149 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1092000 -- -- 150 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1155000 -- -- 

Table 6. Station ranking in order of importance for providing regional streamflow information for selected peak-, mean-, and low-flow characteristics and planning h[No., number; Leading zero of station number has been omitted. Abbreviations: Peak, instantaneous peak flow with a 100-year recurrence interval; Mean, annual mean dwith a 10-year recurrence interval; Comp, composite ranking; --, no data available]

Rank

Station No. for 0-year planning horizon Station No. for 5-year planning horizon Station No. for 20-

Peak Mean Low Comp Peak Mean Low Comp Peak Mean 
40 Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information 151 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1153000 -- -- 

152 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1150500 -- -- 153 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1085000 -- -- 154 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1144000 -- -- 155 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1087000 -- -- 156 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1164000 -- -- 157 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1151500 -- -- 158 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1158000 -- -- 159 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1054000 -- -- 160 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1094500 -- -- 161 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1065000 -- -- 162 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1135500 -- -- 163 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1077000 -- -- 164 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1138000 -- -- 165 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1129500 -- -- 166 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1152500 -- -- 167 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1090500 -- -- 168 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1144500 -- -- 169 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1131500 -- -- 170 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1141500 -- -- 

Table 6. Station ranking in order of importance for providing regional streamflow information for selected peak-, mean-, and low-flow characteristics and planning h[No., number; Leading zero of station number has been omitted. Abbreviations: Peak, instantaneous peak flow with a 100-year recurrence interval; Mean, annual mean dwith a 10-year recurrence interval; Comp, composite ranking; --, no data available]

Rank

Station No. for 0-year planning horizon Station No. for 5-year planning horizon Station No. for 20-

Peak Mean Low Comp Peak Mean Low Comp Peak Mean 
APPENDIX 1: BASIN CHARACTERISTICS OF 

STREAM-GAGING STATIONS IN THE NEW HAMPSHIRE 

STREAM-GAGING NETWORK
42 Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information

APPENDIX 1: DEFINITIONS

No. number

figs. figures

ft foot

ft/mi foot per mile

in. inch

in/h inch per hour

mi mile

mi2 square mile

-- not available

° degree

Basin length is measured along a line areally centered through the drainage area from the basin

outlet to where the main channel meets the basin divide

Basin slope is computed as (total length of selected elevation contours) x (contour interval) /

drainage area

Relief is the difference between elevations of the highest point in the basin and the outlet

Azimuth is the direction of a line from the point on the main channel where, if extended, it 

intersects the drainage divide to the outlet; The line is measured in degrees clockwise

from north at 0 degrees

Width is drainage area/basin length; Active status stations are on fig. 2; Discontinued stations 

are on fig. 3

Shape factor is the ratio computed by basin length/width

Elongation ratio is the ratio of the diameter of a circle having an area the same as the drainage area to

the basin length

Compactness ratio is the ratio of the perimeter of the basin to the circumference of a circle having an area

the same as the drainage area

Channel length is the length of the main channel extended to the basin divide

Channel slope is the slope computed between points 10 and 85 percent up the main channel, which is

extended to the basin divide

Sinuosity ratio channel length / basin length

Slope ratio channel slope / basin slope
Appendix 1 43

Appendix 1. Basin characteristics of stream-gaging stations in the New Hampshire stream-gaging network[No., number; fig., figure; mi2, square mile; ft/mi, foot per mile; in., inch; °, degree; in/h, inch per hour]

Station No. 

(figs. 2 and 3) Stream-gaging station name Drainage area (mi2) Basin length1 (mi) Perimeter1 (mi) Basin slope1 (ft/mi) Relief1 (ft) 

01050900 Four Ponds Brook near Houghton, Maine 3.26 3.23 9.92 501 874 01052500 Diamond River near Wentworth Location, N.H. 153 21.8 69.9 934 2,316 01053500 Androscoggin River at Errol, N.H. 1,040 45.7 301 203 2,859 01054000 Androscoggin River near Gorham, N.H. 1,360 69.2 268 204 3,260 01054200 Wild River at Gilead, Maine 69.9 15.1 45.6 1,300 4,089 01054300 Ellis River at South Andover, Maine 130 14.8 62.4 807 3,124 01054500 Androscoggin River at Rumford, Maine 2,070 79.2 433 791 5,771 01055000 Swift River near Roxbury, Maine 96.8 15.7 57.7 973 3,124 01055300 Bog Brook near Buckfield, Maine 10.4 5.07 19.1 400 703 01057000 Little Androscoggin River near South Paris, Maine 74.1 11.9 50.1 718 1,925 01062700 Patte Brook near Bethel, Maine 5.61 4.33 13.1 734 1,212 01064300 Ellis River near Jackson, N.H. 10.5 4.84 14.9 2,040 4,773 01064380 East Branch Saco River at Town Hall Road near Lower Bartlett, N.H. 34.2 9.32 37.9 1,030 2,778 01064400 Lucy Brook near North Conway, N.H. 4.68 3.47 9.88 1,530 2,494 01064500 Saco River near Conway, N.H. 385 26.1 109 1,230 5,855 01064800 Cold Brook at South Tamworth, N.H. 5.41 3.23 9.78 1,380 1,850 01064801 Bearcamp River at South Tamworth, N.H. 67.6 -- -- -- -- 01065000 Ossipee River at Effingham Falls, N.H. 329 25.4 119 202 3,601 01065500 Ossipee River at Cornish, Maine 451 38.6 193 638 3,724 01066000 Saco River at Cornish, Maine 1,290 43.6 221 774 5,981 01066100 Pease Brook near Cornish, Maine 4.53 2.89 10.3 693 980 01066500 Little Ossipee River near South Limington, Maine 162 22.5 104 446 1,009 01072100 Salmon Falls River at Milton, N.H. 107 16.7 73.6 130 1,393 01072500 Salmon Falls River near South Lebanon, Maine 139 23.8 89.2 396 1,611 01072800 Cocheco River near Rochester, N.H. 85.7 -- -- -- -- 
44 Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information 01072850 Mohawk Brook near Center Strafford, N.H. 7.47 5.16 14.5 490 841 

01072880 Cocheco River, at Spaulding Turnpike, at Dover, N.H. 173 -- -- -- -- 01073000 Oyster River near Durham, N.H. 12.2 7.98 24.4 242 315 01073500 Lamprey River near Newmarket, N.H. 181 17.9 107 361 1,105 01073587 Exeter River, at Haigh Road, near Brentwood, N.H. 63.5 -- -- -- -- 01073600 Dudley Brook near Exeter, N.H. 5.86 4.44 12.5 192 169 01074500 East Branch Pemigewasset River near Lincoln, N.H. 106 12.2 52.7 1,650 4,203 01074520 East Branch Pemigewasset River at Lincoln, N.H. 115 -- -- -- -- 01075000 Pemigewasset River at Woodstock, N.H. 195 21.2 77.8 1,530 4,621 01075500 Baker River at Wentworth, N.H. 57.8 13.2 39.5 1,070 4,222 01075800 Stevens Brook near Wentworth, N.H. 3.29 3.32 8.63 1,270 2,664 01076000 Baker River near Rumney, N.H. 143 20.2 80.1 960 4,301 01076500 Pemigewasset River at Plymouth, N.H. 623 34.6 159 1,200 4,780 01077000 Squam River at Ashland, N.H. 57.8 11.1 52 576 1,658 01078000 Smith River near Bristol, N.H. 86 15 60.3 756 2,363 01079602 Poorfarm Brook at Ellacoya State Park near Gilford, N.H. 6.38 -- -- -- -- 01079900 Shannon Brook near Moultonborough, N.H. 6.99 -- -- -- -- 01080500 Lake Winnipesaukee Outlet at Lakeport, N.H. 363 -- -- -- -- 01081000 Winnipesaukee River at Tilton, N.H. 471 -- -- -- -- 01081500 Merrimack River at Franklin Junction, N.H. 1,510 61 367 777 4,918 01082000 Contoocook River at Peterborough, N.H. 67 9.63 50.6 452 2,407 01083000 Nubanusit Brook below MacDowell Dam near Peterborough, N.H. 45.1 8.48 48.3 551 2,387 01083500 Contoocook River near Elmwood, N.H. 168 -- -- -- -- 01084000 North Branch Contoocook River near Antrim, N.H. 54 9.98 54.7 625 1,539 01084500 Beards Brook near Hillsboro, N.H. 55.3 11.7 41.6 643 1,813 

Appendix 1. Basin characteristics of stream-gaging stations in the New Hampshire stream-gaging network--Continued[No., number; fig., figure; mi2, square mile; ft/mi, foot per mile; in., inch; °, degree; in/h, inch per hour]

Station No. 

(figs. 2 and 3) Stream-gaging station name Drainage area (mi2) Basin length1 (mi) Perimeter1 (mi) Basin slope1 (ft/mi) Relief1 (ft) 
Appendix 1 45

01085000 Contoocook River near Henniker, N.H. 367 32.1 115 529 2,652 01085500 Contoocook River below Hopkinton Dam at West Hopkinton, N.H. 427 -- -- -- -- 01085800 West Branch Warner River near Bradford, N.H. 5.91 3.02 11 959 1,542 01086000 Warner River at Davisville, N.H. 146 21.2 73.1 704 2,259 01087000 Blackwater River near Webster, N.H. 128 23 97.8 680 2,476 01088000 Contoocook River at Penacook, N.H. 766 -- -- -- -- 01088500 Merrimack River at Garvin Falls, N.H. 2,430 -- -- -- -- 01089000 Soucook River near Concord, N.H. 77.8 15.7 53.7 431 1,189 01089100 Soucook River, at Pembroke Road, near Concord, N.H. 82.9 17.8 72.8 402 1,197 01089500 Suncook River at North Chichester, N.H. 154 20.4 92.6 467 1,979 01090500 Merrimack River at Manchester, N.H. 2,850 92.3 550 646 5,011 01090800 Piscataquog River below Everett Dam near East Weare, N.H. 63.1 -- -- -- -- 01091000 South Branch Piscataquog River near Goffstown, N.H. 103 13.7 61.9 570 1,708 01091500 Piscataquog River near Goffstown, N.H. 202 -- -- -- -- 01092000 Merrimack River near Goffs Falls, below Manchester, N.H. 3,080 96.4 524 634 5,069 01093000 Sucker Brook at Auburn, N.H. 28.8 8.17 44.4 298 678 01093800 Stony Brook Tributary near Temple, N.H. 3.62 2.65 7.71 913 1,358 01094000 Souhegan River at Merrimack, N.H. 170 30.1 122 484 2,091 01094400 North Nashua River at Fitchburg, Mass. 63.5 11.5 66.2 457 1,575 01094500 North Nashua River near Leominster, Mass. 107 16.9 85.4 461 1,705 01095800 Easter Brook near North Leominster, Mass. 0.92 0.833 5.3 561 264 01096000 Squannacook River near West Groton, Mass. 66 12.8 62.4 426 1,240 010965852 Beaver Brook at North Pelham, N.H. 47.8 14.3 48.1 321 483 01097300 Nashoba Brook near Action, Mass. 12.8 6.15 20.5 248 301 01100505 Spicket River, at Island Pond Road, at North Salem, N.H. 16.5 -- -- -- -- 

Appendix 1. Basin characteristics of stream-gaging stations in the New Hampshire stream-gaging network--Continued[No., number; fig., figure; mi2, square mile; ft/mi, foot per mile; in., inch; °, degree; in/h, inch per hour]

Station No. 

(figs. 2 and 3) Stream-gaging station name Drainage area (mi2) Basin length1 (mi) Perimeter1 (mi) Basin slope1 (ft/mi) Relief1 (ft) 
46 Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information 01100700 East Meadow River near Haverhill, Mass. 4.74 2.85 13.3 304 262 

01100800 Cobbler Brook near Merrimack, Mass. .76 1.29 4.27 322 182 01100900 Parker River Tributary near Georgetown, Mass. .71 1.21 4.35 209 78 01101000 Parker River at Byfield, Mass. 21.2 6.79 34.6 268 318 01127880 Big Brook near Pittsburg, N.H. 6.52 4.29 12.5 662 1,470 01128500 Connecticut River at First Connecticut Lake near Pittsburg, N.H. 83 -- -- -- -- 01129200 Connecticut River below Indian Stream near Pittsburg, N.H. 254 -- -- -- -- 01129300 Halls Stream near East Hereford, Quebec 84.8 15.8 53.1 550 1,608 01129400 Black Brook at Averill, Vt. .88 1.68 5.17 362 495 01129440 Mohawk River near Colebrook, N.H. 35.3 8.11 29.3 768 2,224 01129500 Connecticut River at North Stratford, N.H. 796 45.4 233 654 2,837 01129700 Paul Stream Tributary near Brunswick Springs, Vt. 1.48 1.75 5.46 720 761 01130000 Upper Ammonoosuc River near Groveton, N.H. 230 23.6 95.5 857 3,202 01131500 Connecticut River near Dalton, N.H. 1,510 73.4 338 694 4,850 01133000 East Branch Passumpsic River near East Haven, Vt. 51.3 12.4 38.1 782 2,388 01133200 Quimby Brook near Lyndonville, Vt. 2.15 2.8 7.36 566 810 01133300 Cold Hill Brook near Lyndon, Vt. 1.64 1.54 5.52 692 688 01134500 Moose River at Victory, Vt. 75.2 14.8 48.6 769 2,299 01134800 Kirby Brook at Concord, Vt. 8.13 5.57 15 770 1,585 01135000 Moose River at St. Johnsbury, Vt. 129 24.9 73.8 780 2,823 01135150 Pope Brook near North Danville, Vt. 3.27 2.85 7.6 715 1,124 01135300 Sleepers River near St. Johnsbury, Vt. 42.5 8.5 31.6 709 1,928 01135500 Passumpsic River at Passumpsic, Vt. 434 30.6 110 748 2,951 01135700 Joes Brook Tributary near East Barnet, Vt. .7 1.32 3.97 897 902 01137500 Ammonoosuc River at Bethlehem Junction, N.H. 88.2 18.1 50.9 1,120 5,062 

Appendix 1. Basin characteristics of stream-gaging stations in the New Hampshire stream-gaging network--Continued[No., number; fig., figure; mi2, square mile; ft/mi, foot per mile; in., inch; °, degree; in/h, inch per hour]

Station No. 

(figs. 2 and 3) Stream-gaging station name Drainage area (mi2) Basin length1 (mi) Perimeter1 (mi) Basin slope1 (ft/mi) Relief1 (ft) 
Appendix 1 47

01138000 Ammonoosuc River near Bath, N.H. 396 38 131 890 5,764 01138500 Connecticut River at Wells River, Vt. 2,640 94.9 439 223 5,869 01138800 Keenan Brook at Groton, Vt. 4.72 3.52 11 622 1,322 01139000 Wells River at Wells River, Vt. 98.7 17 60.5 693 2,851 01139500 Connecticut River at South Newbury, Vt. 2,820 104 475 223 5,880 01139700 Waits River Tributary near West Topsham, Vt. 1.21 2.72 6.12 1,160 1,608 01139800 East Orange Branch at East Orange, Vt. 8.79 3.75 14 1,170 1,207 01140000 South Branch Waits River near Bradford, Vt. 43.8 11.8 36.9 893 1,647 01140100 South Branch Waits River Tributary near Bradford Center, Vt. 0.21 0.675 2.04 675 509 01140500 Connecticut River at Orford, N.H. 3,090 115 521 741 5,885 01140800 West Branch Ompompanoosuc River Tributary at South Strafford, Vt. 1.35 1.9 5.4 892 778 01141500 Ompompanoosuc River at Union Village, Vt. 131 14.1 56.4 926 1,962 01141800 Mink Brook near Etna, N.H. 4.88 2.89 13.4 727 1,247 01142000 White River near Bethel, Vt. 239 24.2 82.3 1,280 3,199 01142400 Third Branch White River Tributary at Randolph, Vt. .83 1.87 4.69 853 833 01142500 Ayers Brook at Randolph, Vt. 30.5 9.26 27 917 1,634 01144000 White River at West Hartford, Vt. 689 34.6 150 1,080 3,373 01144500 Connecticut River at West Lebanon, N.H. 4,090 136 652 801 5,937 01145000 Mascoma River at West Canaan, N.H. 80.4 14.9 51.2 585 2,349 01150500 Mascoma River at Mascoma, N.H. 153 13.5 92.9 632 2,457 01150800 Kent Brook near Killington, Vt. 3.26 3.09 8.05 1,100 2,300 01150900 Ottauquechee River near West Bridgewater, Vt. 23.3 4.51 22.4 1,280 2,956 01151200 Ottauquechee River Tributary near Quechee, Vt. .77 1.63 4.28 932 751 01151500 Ottauquechee River at North Hartland, Vt. 222 26.5 87 1,080 3,789 01152500 Sugar River at West Claremont, N.H. 270 20.2 96 628 2,326 

Appendix 1. Basin characteristics of stream-gaging stations in the New Hampshire stream-gaging network--Continued[No., number; fig., figure; mi2, square mile; ft/mi, foot per mile; in., inch; °, degree; in/h, inch per hour]

Station No. 

(figs. 2 and 3) Stream-gaging station name Drainage area (mi2) Basin length1 (mi) Perimeter1 (mi) Basin slope1 (ft/mi) Relief1 (ft) 
48 Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information 01153000 Black River at North Springfield, Vt. 158 26.1 77.7 853 3,025 

01153300 Middle Branch Williams River Tributary at Chester, Vt. 3.18 4.2 10.3 918 1,411 01153500 Williams River at Brockway Mills, Vt. 102 15.8 53 909 2,464 01153550 Williams River near Rockingham, Vt. 112 17.8 58.9 906 2,559 01154000 Saxtons River at Saxtons River, Vt. 72.1 12.7 48.3 965 2,441 01154500 Connecticut River at North Walpole, N.H. 5,490 179 786 803 6,041 01155000 Cold River at Drewsville, N.H. 83.4 16.9 54.7 674 1,739 01155200 Sackets Brook near Putney, Vt. 10.1 4.71 15.1 816 1,211 01155300 Flood Brook near Londonderry, Vt. 9.29 5.33 15.6 785 2,028 01155350 West River Tributary near Jamaica, Vt. .93 1.77 4.46 683 889 01155500 West River at Jamaica, Vt. 177 21.6 73.5 731 3,173 01156000 West River at Newfane, Vt. 306 33.5 104 826 3,540 01156300 Whetstone Brook Tributary near Marlboro, Vt. 1.08 1.96 5.16 428 535 01156450 Connecticut River Tributary near Vernon, Vt. 1.1 1.64 5.43 557 495 01156500 Connecticut River at Vernon, Vt. 6,270 -- -- -- -- 01157000 Ashuelot River near Gilsum, N.H. 70.8 20.1 51.9 577 1,709 01158000 Ashuelot River below Surry Mt. Dam, near Keene, N.H. 102 24.8 87.4 202 2,018 01158500 Otter Brook near Keene, N.H. 41.9 10.8 33.5 671 1,404 01158600 Otter Brook below Otter Brook Dam near Keene, N.H. 47.2 12.4 43.5 647 1,438 01160000 South Branch Ashuelot River at Webb near Marlborough, N.H. 35.8 5.82 29.3 563 2,418 01160350 Ashuelot River at West Swanzey, N.H. 316 -- -- -- -- 01161000 Ashuelot River at Hinsdale, N.H. 421 45.3 142 624 2,890 01161300 Millers Brook at Northfield, Mass. 2.31 2.28 9.1 837 1,145 01161500 Tarbell Brook near Winchendon, Mass. 18.6 6.46 27.3 356 399 01162000 Millers River near Winchendon, Mass. 82.5 9.71 72.1 352 1,021 

Appendix 1. Basin characteristics of stream-gaging stations in the New Hampshire stream-gaging network--Continued[No., number; fig., figure; mi2, square mile; ft/mi, foot per mile; in., inch; °, degree; in/h, inch per hour]

Station No. 

(figs. 2 and 3) Stream-gaging station name Drainage area (mi2) Basin length1 (mi) Perimeter1 (mi) Basin slope1 (ft/mi) Relief1 (ft) 
Appendix 1 49

01162500 Priest Brook near Winchendon, Mass. 19 10.7 29.6 354 1,016 01163100 Wilder Brook near Gardner, Mass. 2.44 2.03 11.4 298 361 01163200 Otter River at Otter River, Mass. 34.3 6.54 42 345 445 01164000 Millers River at South Royalston, Mass. 190 14.7 125 104 1,062 01165000 East Branch Tully River near Athol, Mass. 50.6 12.2 43.5 453 1,237 01165500 Moss Brook at Wendell Depot, Mass. 12.2 6.38 18.6 558 1,112 01166500 Millers River at Erving, Mass. 373 30.1 183 422 1,478 01167800 Beaver Brook at Wilmington, Vt. 6.36 3.94 14.2 752 820 

1Basin characteristic computed with Basinsoft (Harvey and Eash, 1995).

Appendix 1. Basin characteristics of stream-gaging stations in the New Hampshire stream-gaging network--Continued[No., number; fig., figure; mi2, square mile; ft/mi, foot per mile; in., inch; °, degree; in/h, inch per hour]

Station No. 

(figs. 2 and 3) Stream-gaging station name Drainage area (mi2) Basin length1 (mi) Perimeter1 (mi) Basin slope1 (ft/mi) Relief1 (ft) 
50 Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information Appendix 1. Basin characteristics of stream-gaging stations in the New Hampshire stream-gaging network--Continued [No., number; fig., figure; mi2, square mile; ft/mi, foot per mile; in., inch; °, degree; in/h, inch per hour] Station No. Shape factor1 Elongation ratio1 Compactness ratio1 Channel length1 (mi) Channel slope1 (ft/mi) Sinuosity ratio1 Slope ratio1 Station Mean basin elevation2 (ft) Percent la

and pon

area3 

Latitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees) 

01050900 3.21 0.631 1.55 3.62 29.1 1.12 0.191 44.8319 70.7022 2,414 18.3 01052500 3.12 .640 1.60 25.5 42.1 1.17 .045 44.8778 71.0570 2,119 .34 01053500 2.00 .796 2.63 59.9 4.67 1.31 .023 44.7825 71.1294 1,956 8.09 01054000 3.52 .601 2.05 93.9 3.02 1.36 .015 44.4361 71.1908 1,893 6.41 01054200 3.27 .625 1.54 17.4 116 1.15 .089 44.3906 70.9795 2,051 .02 01054300 1.68 .869 1.54 17.7 65.0 1.20 .081 44.5936 70.7336 1,449 1.55 01054500 3.04 .648 2.69 143 10.1 1.80 .013 44.5425 70.5472 1,774 4.49 01055000 2.53 .707 1.65 19.8 81.6 1.27 .084 44.6422 70.5881 1,863 .18 01055300 2.46 .718 1.67 6.10 25.1 1.21 .063 44.2658 70.3161 490 .21 01057000 1.90 .816 1.64 14.0 59.3 1.18 .083 44.3036 70.5400 930 1.73 01062700 3.34 .617 1.56 4.99 105 1.15 .143 44.3447 70.7922 958 1.29 01064300 2.24 .755 1.30 6.60 552 1.36 .270 44.2189 71.2497 3,355 .03 01064380 2.54 .708 1.83 11.9 154 1.27 .150 44.1217 71.1306 1,994 .39 01064400 2.57 .703 1.29 3.86 352 1.11 .230 44.0703 71.1733 1,517 0 01064500 1.77 .848 1.57 39.3 55.0 1.51 .045 43.9908 71.0914 1,805 .39 01064800 1.93 .813 1.19 3.94 377 1.22 .272 43.8158 71.2975 1,677 .01 01064801 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 01065000 1.96 .806 1.86 29.2 8.95 1.15 .044 43.7956 71.0600 977 3.95 01065500 3.30 .621 2.56 44.2 13.6 1.15 .021 43.8072 70.7986 878 3.67 01066000 1.47 .930 1.73 74.3 12.0 1.70 .016 43.8081 70.7814 1,090 3.17 01066100 1.85 .831 1.37 3.49 144 1.21 .208 43.7886 70.7661 650 .16 01066500 3.11 .638 2.31 32.5 12.4 1.45 .028 43.6894 70.6708 537 4.02 01072100 2.59 .699 2.01 18.7 4.07 1.12 .031 43.4133 70.9875 679 6.96 01072500 4.08 .559 2.14 27.0 18.8 1.14 .047 43.3278 70.9278 617 5.53 01072800 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
Appendix 1 51

01072850 3.57 0.598 1.50 5.90 89.1 1.14 0.182 43.2631 71.0972 572 1.36 01072880 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 01073000 5.22 .494 1.97 8.36 20.7 1.05 .086 43.1486 70.9656 193 1.45 01073500 1.77 .848 2.24 36.9 12.6 2.06 .035 43.1025 70.9531 357 2.01 01073587 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 01073600 3.37 .615 1.46 4.76 14.3 1.07 .075 42.9931 71.0222 140 .27 01074500 1.41 .952 1.44 17.3 90.2 1.42 .055 44.0614 71.6167 2,682 .05 01074520 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 01075000 2.31 .743 1.57 26.2 79.1 1.23 .052 43.9761 71.6800 2,369 .18 01075500 3.02 .650 1.47 16.5 172 1.25 .161 43.8681 71.9095 1,712 .13 01075800 3.36 .616 1.34 4.36 416 1.31 .328 43.8367 71.8853 1,629 0 01076000 2.85 .668 1.89 24.4 102 1.21 .106 43.7961 71.8450 1,510 0.70 01076500 1.93 .814 1.79 45.1 41.1 1.30 .034 43.7592 71.6861 1,780 .50 01077000 2.15 .773 1.93 14.1 10.6 1.26 .018 43.7053 71.6303 800 20.9 01078000 2.60 .698 1.84 24.1 22.4 1.61 .030 43.5678 71.7483 1,182 .74 01079602 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 01079900 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 01080500 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 01081000 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 01081500 2.47 .719 2.67 72.8 21.8 1.19 .028 43.4228 71.6533 1,226 7.93 01082000 1.39 .959 1.75 14.1 39.7 1.46 .088 42.8625 71.9597 1,160 3.41 01083000 1.60 .894 2.03 13.6 43.1 1.61 .078 42.8953 71.9869 1,297 7.17 01083500 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 01084000 1.84 .831 2.10 14.2 52.6 1.43 .084 43.0817 71.9789 1,479 4.06 01084500 2.46 .717 1.58 13.7 74.1 1.17 .115 43.1142 71.9267 1,158 1.62 

Appendix 1. Basin characteristics of stream-gaging stations in the New Hampshire stream-gaging network--Continued[No., number; fig., figure; mi2, square mile; ft/mi, foot per mile; in., inch; °, degree; in/h, inch per hour]

Station No. Shape factor1 Elongation ratio1 Compactness ratio1 Channel length1 (mi) Channel slope1 (ft/mi) Sinuosity ratio1 Slope ratio1 Station Mean basin elevation2 (ft) Percent la

and pon

area3 

Latitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees) 
52 Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information 01085000 2.81 0.673 1.69 40.2 14.6 1.25 0.028 43.1528 71.8567 1,135 3.49 

01085500 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 01085800 1.54 .908 1.28 3.19 374 1.06 .390 43.2592 72.0264 1,470 .23 01086000 3.09 .643 1.71 25.4 35.2 1.20 .050 43.2508 71.7331 937 2.25 01087000 4.12 .555 2.44 30.6 29.3 1.33 .043 43.2975 71.6942 1,048 1.56 01088000 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 01088500 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 01089000 3.15 .634 1.72 19.7 35.5 1.26 .082 43.2394 71.4622 682 1.30 01089100 3.81 .577 2.25 21.1 33.9 1.18 .084 43.2130 71.4803 668 1.58 01089500 2.69 .686 2.10 26.5 19.2 1.30 .041 43.2578 71.3695 785 3.50 01090500 2.99 .653 2.91 113 9.67 1.23 .015 43.0028 71.4694 1,039 5.41 01090800 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 01091000 1.83 .836 1.72 23.9 30.2 1.74 .053 43.0150 71.6417 763 1.40 01091500 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 01092000 3.02 .650 2.66 118 8.82 1.22 .014 42.9483 71.4644 1,011 5.13 01093000 2.32 .741 2.34 10.2 29.1 1.25 .098 43.0056 71.3481 443 2.54 01093800 1.94 .810 1.14 3.56 270 1.34 .296 42.8600 71.8333 1,384 0 01094000 5.35 .489 2.64 35.3 30.4 1.17 .063 42.8575 71.5067 782 1.14 01094400 2.08 .782 2.34 15.8 51.9 1.37 .114 42.5761 71.7886 980 3.56 01094500 2.67 .691 2.33 22.8 42.7 1.35 .093 42.5017 71.7230 839 3.12 01095800 .76 1.30 1.56 1.23 99.4 1.48 .177 42.5461 71.7125 470 .44 01096000 2.48 .716 2.17 16.0 59.2 1.25 .139 42.6342 71.6583 642 1.07 010965852 4.30 .546 1.96 17.5 16.1 1.22 .050 42.7831 71.3539 349 1.54 01097300 2.96 .656 1.61 7.10 19.3 1.16 .078 42.5125 71.4047 232 .63 01100505 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Appendix 1. Basin characteristics of stream-gaging stations in the New Hampshire stream-gaging network--Continued[No., number; fig., figure; mi2, square mile; ft/mi, foot per mile; in., inch; °, degree; in/h, inch per hour]

Station No. Shape factor1 Elongation ratio1 Compactness ratio1 Channel length1 (mi) Channel slope1 (ft/mi) Sinuosity ratio1 Slope ratio1 Station Mean basin elevation2 (ft) Percent la

and pon

area3 

Latitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees) 
Appendix 1 53

01100700 1.71 0.862 1.72 3.86 21.6 1.35 0.071 42.8114 71.0331 129 0.81 01100800 2.18 .763 1.38 1.56 56.1 1.21 .174 42.8486 71.0195 207 .04 01100900 2.07 .786 1.46 1.36 22.5 1.13 .107 42.7342 70.9728 96 3.80 01101000 2.17 .765 2.12 9.59 8.90 1.41 .033 42.7528 70.9461 119 2.36 01127880 2.82 .672 1.38 4.50 215 1.05 .324 45.1350 71.2064 2,127 .96 01128500 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 45.0872 71.2928 2,141 -- 01129200 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 45.0403 71.4436 1,937 -- 01129300 2.96 .658 1.63 19.4 36.7 1.23 .067 45.0447 71.4983 1,650 .04 01129400 3.20 .630 1.55 1.91 250 1.14 .690 45.0039 71.6928 1,935 0 01129440 1.86 .827 1.39 9.59 65.2 1.18 .0849 44.8744 71.4106 1,915 .41 01129500 2.59 .701 2.33 58.6 20.5 1.29 .031 44.7497 71.6317 1,771 1.68 01129700 2.07 .784 1.27 1.86 212 1.06 .294 44.6850 71.6217 1,358 .21 01130000 2.42 .725 1.78 32.2 27.4 1.37 .032 44.6250 71.4694 1,900 .62 01131500 3.57 .597 2.45 93.3 11.4 1.27 .016 44.4100 71.7211 1,716 1.24 01133000 2.98 .652 1.50 13.1 86.1 1.06 .110 44.6339 71.8981 1,706 .79 01133200 3.65 .591 1.42 3.17 248 1.13 .439 44.5811 71.9864 1,194 .02 01133300 1.46 .938 1.22 1.93 239 1.25 .345 44.5297 72.0503 1,306 .06 01134500 2.91 .661 1.58 17.0 78.9 1.15 .103 44.5117 71.8369 1,783 .20 01134800 3.82 .578 1.49 6.88 125 1.23 .163 44.4419 71.8792 1,493 .36 01135000 4.81 .515 1.83 32.2 45.7 1.29 .059 44.4228 72.0006 1,567 .36 01135150 2.48 .716 1.19 3.27 223 1.15 .312 44.4764 72.1258 1,602 .04 01135300 1.70 .865 1.37 10.6 123 1.24 .174 44.4344 72.0394 1,352 .09 01135500 2.16 .768 1.49 36.2 34.4 1.18 .046 44.3656 72.0397 1,446 .37 01135700 2.50 .715 1.34 1.46 567 1.10 .632 44.3444 72.0645 994 .05 01137500 3.74 .585 1.53 21.3 73.4 1.17 .066 44.2689 71.6311 2,472 .04 

Appendix 1. Basin characteristics of stream-gaging stations in the New Hampshire stream-gaging network--Continued[No., number; fig., figure; mi2, square mile; ft/mi, foot per mile; in., inch; °, degree; in/h, inch per hour]

Station No. Shape factor1 Elongation ratio1 Compactness ratio1 Channel length1 (mi) Channel slope1 (ft/mi) Sinuosity ratio1 Slope ratio1 Station Mean basin elevation2 (ft) Percent la

and pon

area3 

Latitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees) 
54 Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information 01138000 3.65 0.591 1.86 52.8 28.6 1.39 0.032 44.1539 71.9861 1,692 0.26 

01138500 3.41 .611 2.41 127 10.7 1.34 .015 44.1536 72.0428 1,613 1.17 01138800 2.63 .696 1.43 5.37 161 1.52 .260 44.2028 72.2014 1,464 .11 01139000 2.94 .659 1.72 20.3 36.9 1.19 .053 44.1508 72.0653 1,367 1.41 01139500 3.87 .576 2.52 137 9.56 1.31 .013 44.0456 72.0761 1,590 1.15 01139700 6.10 .456 1.57 2.77 429 1.02 .370 44.1414 72.3145 2,054 .05 01139800 1.60 .892 1.33 5.89 162 1.57 .139 44.0928 72.3361 1,809 .16 01140000 3.17 .633 1.57 14.0 90.8 1.19 .102 44.0181 72.2083 1,425 .17 01140100 2.16 .766 1.25 0.672 625 1.00 .927 44.0206 72.2039 1,039 0 01140500 4.26 .545 2.64 148 9.00 1.29 .012 43.9069 72.1397 1,563 1.10 01140800 2.66 .690 1.31 2.04 264 1.07 .296 43.8322 72.3722 1,375 .09 01141500 1.52 .916 1.39 19.7 50.1 1.39 .054 43.7897 72.2553 1,269 .90 01141800 1.71 .863 1.71 3.44 163 1.19 .224 43.7022 72.1875 1,502 .29 01142000 2.45 .721 1.50 30.9 24.5 1.27 .019 43.8125 72.6569 1,774 .07 01142400 4.24 .550 1.46 1.93 402 1.03 .471 43.9317 72.6828 1,215 0 01142500 2.81 .673 1.38 10.9 83.5 1.18 .091 43.9344 72.6583 1,342 .20 01144000 1.74 .856 1.62 51.3 13.2 1.48 .012 43.7142 72.4186 1,465 .19 01144500 4.55 .531 2.88 171 7.76 1.25 .010 43.6461 72.3128 1,509 .93 01145000 2.77 .679 1.61 16.6 59.7 1.11 .102 43.6500 72.0806 1,393 1.54 01150500 1.19 1.03 2.12 20.2 26.4 1.5 .042 43.6486 72.1819 1,264 3.93 01150800 2.93 .659 1.26 3.60 432 1.17 .393 43.6733 72.8092 2,337 .49 01150900 0.88 1.21 1.31 9.71 138 2.15 .107 43.6222 72.7595 2,027 .841 01151200 3.45 .607 1.38 1.55 294 .948 .316 43.6603 72.432 1,005 .126 01151500 3.15 .634 1.65 39.4 25.7 1.49 .024 43.6025 72.3547 1,507 .36 01152500 1.51 .918 1.65 32.4 28.2 1.60 .045 43.3875 72.3625 1,255 4.31 

Appendix 1. Basin characteristics of stream-gaging stations in the New Hampshire stream-gaging network--Continued[No., number; fig., figure; mi2, square mile; ft/mi, foot per mile; in., inch; °, degree; in/h, inch per hour]

Station No. Shape factor1 Elongation ratio1 Compactness ratio1 Channel length1 (mi) Channel slope1 (ft/mi) Sinuosity ratio1 Slope ratio1 Station Mean basin elevation2 (ft) Percent la

and pon

area3 

Latitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees) 
Appendix 1 55

01153000 4.32 0.543 1.74 35.3 28.1 1.35 0.033 43.3333 72.5153 1,497 1.08 01153300 5.53 .479 1.63 4.53 229 1.08 .249 43.2703 72.6089 1,242 0.06 01153500 2.43 .721 1.48 19.5 64.3 1.24 .071 43.2086 72.5181 1,323 .13 01153550 2.83 .671 1.57 21.7 63.2 1.22 .070 43.1917 72.4856 1,280 .13 01154000 2.23 .754 1.60 18.1 76.2 1.43 .079 43.1372 72.4881 1,294 .21 01154500 5.85 .467 2.99 214 5.15 1.20 .006 43.1261 72.4372 1,440 1.09 01155000 3.43 .610 1.69 21.6 46.0 1.28 .068 43.1317 72.3897 1,246 3.63 01155200 2.19 .761 1.34 5.04 181 1.07 .221 42.9992 72.5331 991 .49 01155300 3.06 .645 1.45 6.06 186 1.14 .237 43.2364 72.8564 1,966 .40 01155350 3.38 .615 1.31 1.77 380 1.00 .557 43.1256 72.8131 1,571 .07 01155500 2.62 .695 1.56 25.7 31.7 1.19 .043 43.1089 72.7758 1,768 .66 01156000 3.67 .589 1.67 39.0 31.1 1.16 .038 42.9953 72.6370 1,664 .50 01156300 3.57 .598 1.40 2.03 140 1.04 .327 42.8783 72.7083 1,620 1.04 01156450 2.44 .722 1.46 1.87 194 1.14 .348 42.7836 72.5325 608 .08 01156500 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 42.7694 72.5139 1,417 -- 01157000 5.68 .472 1.74 23.1 37.5 1.15 .065 43.0392 72.2706 1,509 3.36 01158000 6.04 .460 2.44 32.0 43.1 1.29 .065 42.9947 72.3117 1,381 2.88 01158500 2.77 .676 1.46 12.5 65.6 1.16 .098 42.9653 72.2333 1,413 2.12 01158600 3.24 .625 1.79 14.1 63.9 1.14 .099 42.9458 72.2372 1,373 2.41 01160000 0.95 1.16 1.38 9.60 79.3 1.65 .141 42.8722 72.2142 1,275 1.79 01160350 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 01161000 4.87 .511 1.95 57.4 23.9 1.27 .038 42.7853 72.4867 1,095 1.99 01161300 2.23 .752 1.68 2.32 377 1.02 .450 42.6853 72.4531 945 .06 01161500 2.24 .753 1.79 8.84 32.7 1.37 .092 42.7125 72.0858 1,041 3.92 01162000 1.14 1.06 2.24 16.2 20.6 1.67 .058 42.6842 72.0839 1,117 5.66 

Appendix 1. Basin characteristics of stream-gaging stations in the New Hampshire stream-gaging network--Continued[No., number; fig., figure; mi2, square mile; ft/mi, foot per mile; in., inch; °, degree; in/h, inch per hour]

Station No. Shape factor1 Elongation ratio1 Compactness ratio1 Channel length1 (mi) Channel slope1 (ft/mi) Sinuosity ratio1 Slope ratio1 Station Mean basin elevation2 (ft) Percent la

and pon

area3 

Latitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees) 
56 Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information

1Basin characteristic computed with Basinsoft (Harvey and Eash, 1995). 2Basin characteristic computed with data from the National Elevation Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey, 2001b). 3Basin characteristic computed with data from preliminaries of the National Hydrography Dataset (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Geological Su4Basin characteristics computed from the PRISM climatic dataset (Daly, 2000).

01162500 6.04 0.460 1.91 12.4 27.8 1.16 0.078 42.6825 72.1156 1,097 1.52 01163100 1.68 .868 2.07 2.32 60.3 1.15 .202 42.5950 72.0147 1,106 .16 01163200 1.25 1.01 2.03 10.0 23.2 1.53 .067 42.5883 72.0414 1,077 3.23 01164000 1.14 1.06 2.55 23.5 17.5 1.6 .052 42.6297 72.1508 1,069 3.52 01165000 2.96 .658 1.72 12.6 52.8 1.03 .117 42.6422 72.2261 1,035 2.49 01165500 3.34 .618 1.50 7.27 53.6 1.14 .096 42.6028 72.3600 868 1.18 01166500 2.43 .724 2.67 44.0 18.0 1.46 .043 42.5975 72.4386 981 2.8 01167800 2.44 .722 1.58 4.53 115 1.15 .153 42.8606 72.8511 1,951 0.52 

Appendix 1. Basin characteristics of stream-gaging stations in the New Hampshire stream-gaging network--Continued[No., number; fig., figure; mi2, square mile; ft/mi, foot per mile; in., inch; °, degree; in/h, inch per hour]

Station No. Shape factor1 Elongation ratio1 Compactness ratio1 Channel length1 (mi) Channel slope1 (ft/mi) Sinuosity ratio1 Slope ratio1 Station Mean basin elevation2 (ft) Percent la

and pon

area3 

Latitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees) 
Appendix 1 57

Appendix 1. Basin characteristics of stream-gaging stations in the New Hampshire stream-gaging network--Continued[No., number; fig., figure; mi2, square mile; ft/mi, foot per mile; in., inch; °, degree; in/h, inch per hour]

Station No.

Basinwide

Forest cover6

(in decimal 

percent)

Percent of 

basin greater 

than 1,200 in 

altitude2

(in decimal 

percent)

X-coordinate 

of basin 

centroid in 

N.H. State 

plane 

coordinates 

(ft)

Y-coordinate 

of basin 

centroid in 

N.H. State 

plane 

coordinates 

(ft)

Average basin 

slope2, 7

(degrees)

Percent of basin having a 

slope greater than

24-hour 

recurre

Mean annual 

temperature4

(° Fahrenheit)

Mean 

permeability5

(in/h)

2, 740°

(in decimal 

percent)

40° and north 

facing2, 7

(in decimal 

percent)

2 year 

(in.)

01050900 38.0 5.01 0.758 1.00 1,241,600 854,796 37.6 0.489 0.105 2.07 01052500 37.0 2.17 .943 1.00 1,112,244 897,731 53.5 .806 .248 1.94 01053500 37.4 2.61 .853 1.00 1,176,099 906,438 42.6 .602 .194 1.99 01054000 38.0 2.98 .866 0.983 1,161,954 877,205 42.9 .602 .194 2.00 01054200 40.7 2.90 .989 .874 1,143,322 660,512 62.4 .921 .343 2.51 01054300 40.0 4.66 .916 .555 1,219,921 791,460 46.6 .643 .192 2.20 01054500 39.1 3.69 .881 .847 1,170,297 823,451 46.6 .659 .214 2.14 01055000 38.9 3.21 .895 .853 1,254,565 822,546 55.2 .841 .230 2.18 01055300 44.0 3.67 .811 0 1,340,963 659,961 32.8 .379 .0661 2.59 01057000 42.6 4.19 .849 .170 1,262,630 674,521 45.3 .635 .182 2.54 01062700 42.6 3.65 .956 .128 1,206,850 666,241 46.6 .673 .304 2.53 01064300 36.8 2.24 .915 1.00 1,088,371 636,792 70.9 .969 .154 2.51 01064380 40.8 3.06 .975 .926 1,130,748 612,278 56.8 .865 .192 2.59 01064400 41.7 6.90 .983 .604 1,106,694 568,815 60.3 .814 .311 2.60 01064500 40.5 5.37 .946 .718 1,091,712 580,298 55.8 .789 .208 2.56 01064800 41.6 6.31 .974 .855 1,080,526 472,476 64.3 .949 .453 2.56 01064801 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 01065000 42.6 7.00 .866 .223 1,100,674 479,198 39.7 .514 .149 2.62 01065500 42.8 7.17 .865 .169 1,121,036 476,831 39.4 .509 .152 2.65 01066000 42.2 6.41 .874 .309 1,133,562 539,790 43.6 .583 .163 2.63 01066100 43.2 7.74 .928 .0061 1,220,004 463,977 45.5 .645 .290 2.77 01066500 44.3 8.89 .823 .0005 1,203,440 421,739 31.6 .339 .106 2.78 01072100 45.3 5.98 .818 .0265 1,158,269 373,378 31.8 .345 .117 2.75 01072500 45.5 6.10 .806 .0204 1,161,052 361,308 30.2 .310 .0971 2.76 01072800 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
58 Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information 01072850 45.4 4.51 0.866 0 1,129,071 289,137 33.7 0.359 0.0882 2.67 

01072880 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 01073000 46.8 5.63 .742 0 1,160,602 240,355 21.2 .0873 .0297 2.76 01073500 46.3 5.87 .779 0 1,118,479 221,808 28.6 .255 .0723 2.66 01073587 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 01073600 46.9 6.05 .746 0 1,146,954 182,908 15.3 .0272 .0052 2.75 01074500 39.4 5.25 .988 0.994 1,019,333 588,479 64.2 .906 .250 2.39 01074520 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 01075000 40.3 5.19 .965 .912 998,938 578,565 62.2 .883 .240 2.34 01075500 42.2 6.23 .937 .689 930,310 526,402 54.8 .808 .181 2.22 01075800 42.9 5.89 .984 .711 931,362 494,433 61.3 .910 .028 2.25 01076000 42.5 5.95 .932 .650 919,076 501,716 51.5 .754 .207 2.23 01076500 41.7 5.60 .941 .719 973,939 525,742 56.1 .807 .226 2.32 01077000 42.9 5.87 .722 .0980 1,016,152 455,940 36.5 .481 .102 2.43 01078000 43.1 5.96 .858 .411 924,358 387,096 46.1 .666 .195 2.32 01079602 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 01079900 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 01080500 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 01081000 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 01081500 42.9 5.61 .813 .382 1,000,787 453,155 44.9 .619 .180 2.39 01082000 44.4 5.58 .770 .285 897,465 114,582 32.9 .356 .103 2.48 01083000 44.4 3.24 .821 .600 881,653 155,766 39.2 .524 .135 2.45 01083500 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Appendix 1. Basin characteristics of stream-gaging stations in the New Hampshire stream-gaging network--Continued[No., number; fig., figure; mi2, square mile; ft/mi, foot per mile; in., inch; °, degree; in/h, inch per hour]

Station No.

Basinwide

Forest cover6

(in decimal 

percent)

Percent of 

basin greater 

than 1,200 in 

altitude2

(in decimal 

percent)

X-coordinate 

of basin 

centroid in 

N.H. State 

plane 

coordinates 

(ft)

Y-coordinate 

of basin 

centroid in 

N.H. State 

plane 

coordinates 

(ft)

Average basin 

slope2, 7

(degrees)

Percent of basin having a 

slope greater than

24-hour 

recurre

Mean annual 

temperature4

(° Fahrenheit)

Mean 

permeability5

(in/h)

2, 740°

(in decimal 

percent)

40° and north 

facing2, 7

(in decimal 

percent)

2 year 

(in.)
Appendix 1 59

01084000 44.7 3.52 .886 .927 874,684 218,624 41.6 .580 .161 2.41 01084500 45.1 3.40 .890 .362 893,686 241,289 42.0 .579 .137 2.40 01085000 44.9 4.59 0.827 0.374 897,416 182,730 37.4 0.474 0.127 2.44 01085500 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 01085800 44.6 3.58 .938 .698 882,109 278,339 52.3 .757 .214 2.37 01086000 44.4 4.39 .845 .183 919,635 290,437 43.6 .611 .178 2.38 01087000 43.9 5.34 .849 .316 931,164 338,869 42.9 .594 .169 2.35 01088000 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 01088500 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 01089000 44.5 5.20 .816 .0136 1,041,229 308,155 32.2 .328 .0794 2.47 01089100 44.5 5.46 .808 .0126 1,040,925 305,581 32.2 .329 .0812 2.47 01089500 44.5 3.76 .793 .0462 1,084,501 317,006 34.0 .376 .119 2.54 01090500 43.7 5.45 .802 .278 987,822 362,065 40.8 .535 .153 2.42 01090800 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 01091000 44.8 5.05 .833 .0343 960,419 180,209 37.0 .458 .143 2.47 01091500 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 01092000 43.8 5.43 .798 .258 986,893 349,120 40.4 .526 .151 2.42 01093000 45.9 5.94 .746 0 1,070,568 197,446 25.5 .180 .0412 2.57 01093800 44.6 3.46 .948 .694 933,925 135,453 52.1 .790 .160 2.48 01094000 45.4 5.63 .752 .132 959,755 120,452 36.5 .446 .126 2.51 01094400 45.4 2.32 .678 .0802 923,993 30,313 34.5 .400 .112 2.57 01094500 46.1 2.98 .594 .0495 935,539 26,821 33.8 .384 .0981 2.58 01095800 47.8 1.22 .512 0 970,028 15,156 41.1 .530 .185 2.64 

Appendix 1. Basin characteristics of stream-gaging stations in the New Hampshire stream-gaging network--Continued[No., number; fig., figure; mi2, square mile; ft/mi, foot per mile; in., inch; °, degree; in/h, inch per hour]

Station No.

Basinwide

Forest cover6

(in decimal 

percent)

Percent of 

basin greater 

than 1,200 in 

altitude2

(in decimal 

percent)

X-coordinate 

of basin 

centroid in 

N.H. State 

plane 

coordinates 

(ft)

Y-coordinate 

of basin 

centroid in 

N.H. State 

plane 

coordinates 

(ft)

Average basin 

slope2, 7

(degrees)

Percent of basin having a 

slope greater than

24-hour 

recurre

Mean annual 

temperature4

(° Fahrenheit)

Mean 

permeability5

(in/h)

2, 740°

(in decimal 

percent)

40° and north 

facing2, 7

(in decimal 

percent)

2 year 

(in.)
60 Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information 01096000 46.6 4.78 .778 .0177 959,153 66,781 33.0 .356 .0815 2.57 

010965852 46.8 6.05 .537 0 1,074,167 135,352 25.4 .170 .0472 2.64 01097300 48.3 7.26 .710 0 1,049,179 14,966 21.9 .125 .0273 2.73 01100505 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 01100700 48.5 9.94 0.736 0 1,151,624 121,109 25.0 0.196 0.0679 2.76 01100800 48.5 1.30 .901 0 1,154,550 127,676 27.0 .247 .105 2.77 01100900 48.7 7.14 .577 0 1,169,833 83,130 17.7 .0476 .0113 2.79 01101000 48.7 4.30 .684 0 1,162,746 85,905 22.9 .154 .0546 2.79 01127880 36.0 1.43 .907 1.00 1,099,324 969,524 45.5 .633 .087 1.91 01128500 -- -- -- -- -- -- 41.1 -- -- -- 01129200 -- -- -- -- -- -- 42.3 -- -- -- 01129300 38.0 1.07 .878 0.958 1,029,811 961,050 39.7 .536 .138 1.92 01129400 38.5 3.11 .867 1.00 974,205 915,090 33.5 .377 .0845 1.93 01129440 37.8 1.71 .811 1.00 1,065,574 872,428 48.5 .703 .195 1.94 01129500 38.1 2.29 .866 .932 1,032,577 909,015 43.5 .607 .177 1.94 01129700 40.5 2.45 .962 .837 995,671 792,744 48.1 .706 .419 1.97 01130000 40.0 3.95 .925 .872 1,065,714 769,914 50.1 .713 .220 2.04 01131500 39.3 3.12 .861 .826 1,030,437 832,112 44.3 .609 .183 2.01 01133000 39.2 2.85 .932 .895 923,996 804,180 49.2 .731 .135 1.96 01133200 40.7 2.19 .724 .551 894,506 760,950 41.9 .589 .113 1.97 01133300 40.5 1.60 .854 .762 880,909 737,731 48.5 .756 .420 1.97 01134500 40.2 2.57 .886 .933 950,087 756,675 47.6 .683 .164 1.97 01134800 41.3 2.72 .775 .740 923,098 723,648 49.4 .744 .091 1.97 

Appendix 1. Basin characteristics of stream-gaging stations in the New Hampshire stream-gaging network--Continued[No., number; fig., figure; mi2, square mile; ft/mi, foot per mile; in., inch; °, degree; in/h, inch per hour]

Station No.

Basinwide

Forest cover6

(in decimal 

percent)

Percent of 

basin greater 

than 1,200 in 

altitude2

(in decimal 

percent)

X-coordinate 

of basin 

centroid in 

N.H. State 

plane 

coordinates 

(ft)

Y-coordinate 

of basin 

centroid in 

N.H. State 

plane 

coordinates 

(ft)

Average basin 

slope2, 7

(degrees)

Percent of basin having a 

slope greater than

24-hour 

recurre

Mean annual 

temperature4

(° Fahrenheit)

Mean 

permeability5

(in/h)

2, 740°

(in decimal 

percent)

40° and north 

facing2, 7

(in decimal 

percent)

2 year 

(in.)
Appendix 1 61

01135000 40.8 2.50 .846 .753 937,858 738,712 48.5 .708 .177 1.97 01135150 39.1 1.67 .815 .987 859,096 724,568 47.7 .715 .112 1.98 01135300 40.0 1.92 .785 .625 868,567 720,128 46.6 .680 .169 1.98 01135500 40.3 2.54 .807 .679 907,050 753,755 47.7 .694 .180 1.97 01135700 42.2 3.26 .753 .142 877,589 671,134 56.3 .894 .422 1.98 01137500 39.3 4.31 .886 1.00 1,036,624 639,093 55.6 .790 .285 2.27 01138000 41.4 4.74 0.887 0.698 967,406 625,433 50.0 0.708 0.256 2.19 01138500 40.0 3.31 .847 .746 985,438 770,486 45.9 .645 .195 2.03 01138800 41.0 1.92 .880 .860 836,077 614,798 44.8 .646 .288 2.00 01139000 41.0 2.49 .833 .645 840,684 627,177 46.1 .671 .199 2.00 01139500 40.1 3.36 .844 .729 977,875 759,594 45.9 .645 .196 2.03 01139700 40.3 2.94 .941 1.00 809,325 604,528 59.5 .869 .048 2.01 01139800 40.6 2.87 .906 1.00 799,657 582,009 61.3 .926 .279 2.03 01140000 41.3 2.55 .856 .693 815,558 555,228 53.8 .826 .275 2.06 01140100 42.1 2.01 .719 .0598 844,321 553,064 51.8 .900 .477 2.08 01140500 40.3 3.37 .844 .712 966,548 742,141 46.4 .656 .198 2.03 01140800 42.0 5.31 .643 .831 793,619 485,447 56.1 .903 .394 2.15 01141500 42.2 3.12 .861 .560 815,122 507,014 53.8 .824 .219 2.13 01141800 43.3 2.84 .851 .906 850,903 439,568 48.9 .735 .144 2.22 01142000 41.9 2.78 .935 .864 678,032 492,117 62.4 .920 .270 2.13 01142400 42.5 2.69 .847 .552 715,920 528,259 53.9 .827 0 2.10 01142500 42.0 2.57 .731 .650 722,155 549,554 53.2 .792 .121 2.08 01144000 42.0 2.94 .839 .689 721,818 506,847 57.7 .862 .241 2.12 01144500 40.8 3.31 .839 .681 914,680 682,675 48.6 .698 .206 2.06 

Appendix 1. Basin characteristics of stream-gaging stations in the New Hampshire stream-gaging network--Continued[No., number; fig., figure; mi2, square mile; ft/mi, foot per mile; in., inch; °, degree; in/h, inch per hour]

Station No.

Basinwide

Forest cover6

(in decimal 

percent)

Percent of 

basin greater 

than 1,200 in 

altitude2

(in decimal 

percent)

X-coordinate 

of basin 

centroid in 

N.H. State 

plane 

coordinates 

(ft)

Y-coordinate 

of basin 

centroid in 

N.H. State 

plane 

coordinates 

(ft)

Average basin 

slope2, 7

(degrees)

Percent of basin having a 

slope greater than

24-hour 

recurre

Mean annual 

temperature4

(° Fahrenheit)

Mean 

permeability5

(in/h)

2, 740°

(in decimal 

percent)

40° and north 

facing2, 7

(in decimal 

percent)

2 year 

(in.)
62 Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information 01145000 42.9 5.03 .853 .646 893,086 437,294 42.4 .583 .127 2.25 

01150500 43.1 4.46 .827 .498 881,145 428,427 42.0 .576 .126 2.25 01150800 41.5 3.32 .950 1 678,853 422,860 60.4 .905 .468 2.21 01150900 41.3 2.79 .858 .978 686,519 424,567 59.9 .868 .313 2.21 01151200 43.4 2.01 .655 .0866 780,474 427,981 56.0 .856 .036 2.20 01151500 42.2 2.83 .858 .698 733,070 409,846 57.7 .866 .255 2.22 01152500 44.2 4.39 .781 .534 854,361 329,715 42.5 .590 .168 2.30 01153000 42.8 2.78 0.861 0.703 722,797 341,718 51.3 0.758 0.217 2.29 01153300 43.4 1.70 .960 .563 727,201 291,021 54.9 .852 .194 2.35 01153500 43.0 2.49 .893 .567 723,723 282,924 54.1 .820 .252 2.36 01153550 43.1 2.64 .886 .523 726,870 280,703 54.0 .818 .247 2.36 01154000 42.6 3.31 .906 .556 733,359 239,472 54.8 .825 .223 2.42 01154500 41.5 3.37 .833 .632 882,494 597,525 48.8 .703 .206 2.11 01155000 44.6 3.09 .855 .653 822,023 251,882 44.9 .639 .185 2.39 01155200 43.9 2.67 .846 .224 745,144 191,015 51.7 .811 .152 2.47 01155300 42.0 2.92 .922 1.00 654,567 277,579 49.0 .716 .170 2.37 01155350 41.4 3.35 .977 1.00 674,732 228,200 49.2 .789 .409 2.45 01155500 41.7 2.53 .898 .933 668,424 266,455 46.8 .665 .169 2.39 01156000 41.7 2.83 .906 .846 676,562 242,612 50.1 .731 .203 2.43 01156300 43.0 2.97 .807 1.00 703,055 135,179 36.4 .404 .155 2.50 01156450 45.9 2.05 .854 0 747,986 105,241 40.7 .550 .088 2.50 01156500 -- -- -- -- -- -- 48.3 -- -- -- 01157000 44.4 3.98 .876 .900 847,456 233,666 41.4 .568 .155 2.41 

Appendix 1. Basin characteristics of stream-gaging stations in the New Hampshire stream-gaging network--Continued[No., number; fig., figure; mi2, square mile; ft/mi, foot per mile; in., inch; °, degree; in/h, inch per hour]

Station No.

Basinwide

Forest cover6

(in decimal 

percent)

Percent of 

basin greater 

than 1,200 in 

altitude2

(in decimal 

percent)

X-coordinate 

of basin 

centroid in 

N.H. State 

plane 

coordinates 

(ft)

Y-coordinate 

of basin 

centroid in 

N.H. State 

plane 

coordinates 

(ft)

Average basin 

slope2, 7

(degrees)

Percent of basin having a 

slope greater than

24-hour 

recurre

Mean annual 

temperature4

(° Fahrenheit)

Mean 

permeability5

(in/h)

2, 740°

(in decimal 

percent)

40° and north 

facing2, 7

(in decimal 

percent)

2 year 

(in.)
Appendix 1 63

2Basin characteristic computed with data from the National Elevation Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey, 2001b).4Basin characteristic computed with data from the PRISM climatic dataset (Daly, 2000).5Basin characteristic computed with data from the STATSGO soils dataset (U.S. Geological Survey, 1997).6Basin characteristic computed with data from the Global Land Cover Characterization Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey, 2001a).7Average basin slope in degrees determined using the ARC/INFO SLOPE command (Environmental Systems Research Institute, 1994) with a Z-factor of 10.8Basin characteristic computed with a coverage made from data in Wilkes and Cember (1993).

01158000 44.3 3.84 .873 .759 836,461 224,039 43.7 .611 .153 2.41 01158500 43.9 2.80 .882 .891 850,072 189,905 45.7 .676 .199 2.45 01158600 44.0 2.80 .878 .823 847,956 188,273 45.6 .670 .186 2.43 01160000 43.7 3.54 .839 .574 849,463 125,573 39.0 .482 .128 2.48 01160350 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 01161000 44.6 4.20 .829 .420 825,888 160,410 42.6 .594 .157 2.47 01161300 45.3 4.18 .880 .216 780,961 65,195 52.7 .791 .353 2.50 01161500 44.1 3.80 .729 .0266 872,709 94,056 27.8 .239 .049 2.48 01162000 44.0 4.34 .692 .190 892,558 77,785 28.4 .251 .059 2.50 01162500 44.0 3.81 0.794 0.197 860,720 93,669 29.8 0.269 0.0345 2.48 01163100 44.0 1.75 .847 .0633 894,027 43,459 23.8 .177 .020 2.53 01163200 44.1 3.68 .542 .0458 893,469 23,263 26.8 .231 .0586 2.54 01164000 44.1 4.58 .678 .118 883,086 59,646 28.1 .243 .055 2.51 01165000 44.2 4.23 .825 .142 841,736 78,782 35.1 .408 .055 2.50 01165500 44.8 5.11 .876 .0050 798,183 54,117 39.8 .531 .115 2.50 01166500 44.5 4.92 .730 .0869 853,914 55,520 32.8 .355 .072 2.51 01167800 42.6 1.72 .868 1.00 674,198 132,718 48.9 .731 .240 2.51 

Appendix 1. Basin characteristics of stream-gaging stations in the New Hampshire stream-gaging network--Continued[No., number; fig., figure; mi2, square mile; ft/mi, foot per mile; in., inch; °, degree; in/h, inch per hour]

Station No.

Basinwide

Forest cover6

(in decimal 

percent)

Percent of 

basin greater 

than 1,200 in 

altitude2

(in decimal 

percent)

X-coordinate 

of basin 

centroid in 

N.H. State 

plane 

coordinates 

(ft)

Y-coordinate 

of basin 

centroid in 

N.H. State 

plane 

coordinates 

(ft)

Average basin 

slope2, 7

(degrees)

Percent of basin having a 

slope greater than

24-hour 

recurre

Mean annual 

temperature4

(° Fahrenheit)

Mean 

permeability5

(in/h)

2, 740°

(in decimal 

percent)

40° and north 

facing2, 7

(in decimal 

percent)

2 year 

(in.)
64 Effectiveness of the New Hampshire Stream-gaging Network in Providing Regional Streamflow Information

APPENDIX 1. REFERENCES

Daly, Christopher, 2000, PRISM (Parameter-elevation 

Regressions on Independent Slopes Model), 

U.S. Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources 

Conservation Service Climate Mapping Project: 

National Water and Climate Center, Oregon State 

University Partnership.

Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI), 

1994, ARC/INFO users guide, version 7.0: 

Redlands, Calif. 

Harvey, C.A. and Eash, D.A., 1995, Description, 

instructions, and verification for Basinsoft, a computer 

program to quantify drainage-basin characteristics: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 95-4287, 25 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Geological 

Survey, 2002, National hydrography dataset, accessed 

June 18, 2002, at URL <http://nhd.usgs.gov/.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1997, STATSGO soil characteristics 

for the conterminous United States: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 656, accessed 

December 21, 2001, at URL http:// 

water.usgs.gov/GIS/metadata/usgswrd/muid.html

———2001a, Global land cover characterization, accessed 

December 21, 2001, at URL 

http://edcdaac.usgs.gov/glcc/glcc.html

———2001b, National elevation dataset, accessed 

December 21, 2001, at URL 

http://edcnts12.cr.usgs.gov/ned/.

Wilks, D.S., and Cember, R.P., 1993, Atlas of precipitation 

extremes for the northeastern United States and 

southeastern Canada: Northeast Regional Climate 

Center Research Series RR 93-5, 40 p.