THE
MASSACHUSETTS
ECOLOGICAL REGIONS
PROJECT
prepared by the
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
CORVALLIS, OREGON
for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Trudy Coxe, Secretary
Department of Environmental Protection
Thomas B. Powers, Acting Commissioner
Bureau of Resource Protection
Dean S. Spencer, Ariing Assistant Commissioner
Division of Water Pollution Control
John J. Higglns, Acting Director
Office of Watershed Management
Andrew Gottlieb, Director
Publication No. 17587 - 74 - 70 - 6/94 - D.E.P.
Approved by: State Purchasing Agent Philmore Anderson, 111
-------
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY
LIMITED COPIES OF THIS REPORT ARE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW
At the time of first printing, eight (8) copies of this report were submitted to the State
House Library in Boston. These eight copies were distributed as follows:
on shelf, retained at the State Library (two copies);
~ microfilmed, and retained at the State Library;
~ delivered to the Boston Public Library at Copley Square;
~ delivered to the Worcester Public Library;
~ delivered to the Springfield Public Library;
~ delivered to the University Library at UMass, Amherst;
»• delivered to the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C.
This circulation is further augmented by inter-library loans. For example, a resident of
Winchendon can apply at the local library for loan of the Worcester Public Library's copy
of this report.
-------
MASSACHUSETTS ECOLOGICAL REGIONS PROJECT
Glenn E. Griffith'
James M. Omernik 1
Suzanne M. Pierson*
Chris W. Kiilsgaard2
'U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
200 SW 35ft Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
•Project Officer
(503)754-4458
*ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc.
Environmental Research Laboratory
200 SW 35* Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
Prepared for
Department of Environmental Protection
Division of Water Pollution Control
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Robert C. Hqynes, Ph J).
Project Manager
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Trudy Coze, Secretary
Department of Environmental Protection
Thomas B. Powers, Acting Commissioner
Bureau of Resource Protection
Dean S. Spencer, Acting Assistant Commissioner
Division of Water Pollution Control
John J. Higgins, Acting Director
Office of Watershed Management
Andrew Gottlieb, Director
June 30, 1994
Publication No. 17587 - 74 - 70 - 6/94 - D.E.P.
Approved by: State Purchasing Agent Philmore Anderson, QI
-------
PREFACE
The main body of this manuscript consists of the "Massachusetts Ecological Regions Project"
final report prepared by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental
Research Laboratory (EPA/ERL) in Corvallis, Oregon. The state-wide ecological regions, or
"ecoregions," project was performed by EPA/ERL for Massachusetts under a cooperative
agreement with its Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), as described in more
detail in the following paragraphs. This manuscript also includes an Addendum prepared by
DEP's Division of Water Pollution Control (DWPC). Elaboration of some potential
applications of the ecoregion framework for Massachusetts are described in that section of
the manuscript, as is a general description of a recommended pilot research project to begin
verification of the ecoregions and subregions delineated by .EPA/ERL.
The impetus for the ecoregions project originated with the DWPC Lakes Program. Staff of
this program, cognizant of the regional diversity of lakes and ponds throughout the state,
sought a framework to develop a comprehensive lake assessment/lake classification system
to replace its existing, and outdated, eutrophication-based system (Anon. 1989; refer to
Addendum References). Through its Division and Department, the Lakes Program applied
to EPA Region I for federal Clean Lakes Program funding under Section 314 of Public Law
95-217 (Clean Water Act). A grant was awarded to DEP in August 1991. With funding
secured, the Division of Water Pollution Control formally requested that EPA/ERL
undertake researching, delineating, describing, and mapping the ecoregions and subregions
of Massachusetts on November 18, 1991. This request was supported "strongly" by EPA
Region I in the form or a written endorsement by Ronald G. Manfredonia, Water Quality
Branch Chief. The EPA's Environmental Research Laboratory also endorsed this project on
December 11, 1991, in a letter written by Spencer A. Peterson, Regional Effects Team
Leader. Subsequently, a cooperative agreement was executed by DEP and EPA/ERL in the
spring of 1992 following extensive discussion as to the form of that agreement. Shortly
thereafter, DEP's Assistant Commissioner for Resource Protection Arleen O'Donnell issued
a notice to proceed with the project on May 28, 1992.
EPA/ERL research geographer James Omernik, one of the foremost authorities on the
delineation of ecoregions and the utility of this land-based framework, conducted a general
overview meeting about the Massachusetts project on June 2 at DEP in Boston. Written
announcements of this meeting were widely distributed, and eighteen individuals
representing three federal and eight state agencies were in attendance. On the next day
Omernik, his co-author Glenn Griffith, and DEP Project Manager Robert Haynes met with
key researchers at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst to discuss the proposed
project and to solicit their comments, criticisms, and support (pertinent maps, manuscripts,
and other documentation).
The scope of services was established by DEP/DWPC in cooperation with EPA/ERL. It
required EPA/ERL to complete the following tasks: analyze and evaluate available maps,
data, documents, and other reference material relevant to the project; refine boundaries of
the two major ecoregions in Massachusetts previously delineated by Omernik, with a
perspective for the entire Northeastern United States; describe, define, and map these two
ecoregions and, at a lower hierarchical level, their respective subregions; map the boundary
transition widths, or zones of uncertainty, for each subregion; evaluate and list candidate
reference streams, and reference sampling sites, for least-disturbed watersheds within the
ii
-------
boundaries of each subregicm; map lake phosphorus regions, if different from subregions,
based on geophysical information and the spatial distribution of lake total phosphorus;
examine total phosphorus concentrations in streams to detect apparent regional patterns of
loading from nonpoint sources; and update a map of regional patterns of total alkalinity for
Massachusetts. The end products of this project are the final comprehensive report and hard
copy maps presented herein, and'final digital products for application to the Massachusetts
Geographical Information System.
The end product ecoregion/subregion map (Fig. 1), and its companion boundary transition
map (Fig. 2), are general purpose maps that have broad application for investigating and
managing resources within the Commonwealth. As an example, least disturbed lakes are
. presently being screened by the Lakes Program within three subregions (Green
Mountain/Berkshire Highlands, Worcester/Monadnock Plateau, and Narragansett/Bristol
Lowland) as potential sampling sites for a pending fish toxics study being planned by DEP's
Office of Research and Standards. Interstate cooperation may also be fostered within
particular ecological subregions that are crossed by political boundaries, as occurred oh May
25, 1993 when a diverse assemble of twenty one ecologists, foresters, soil scientists,
hydrologists, and resource managers representing all New England 6tates and New York met
in Auburn, Massachusetts, to assist the regional U. S. Forest Service office delineate "section"
and "subsection" levels of that agency's Ecological Classification System for southern New
England. Draft ecoregion and subregion maps developed for ^Massachusetts by Omernik,
Griffith and other ERL team members were used for this purpose, and there was general
agreement among participants that these maps.did characterize the Commonwealth's diverse
geological and ecological landscape rather well. In a related example, the EPA's
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) used an earlier version of the
total alkalinity of surface waters map (Fig. 8) presented in this document to belp make
preliminary assessments of lake regions in the Northeast that would be susceptible to
invasion by the non-native zebra mussel Wreissena,polymorpha). This type of assessment
can be quite useful if limited resources need to be allocated to contain the spread of D.
polymorphat or other nuisance species populations. More detailed applications of the
ecoregion framework are presented in the Addendum.
Readers of this "Massachusetts Ecological Regions Report" are hereby encouraged to
communicate their assessments of the regional, framework to DEP, whether complimentary
or critical, so that further refinements may be made over time. Of particular importance are
suggested revisions to the current subregion boundaries and boundary transition widths,
although comments on all aspects of the document are welcome. Examples of the utility of
this framework for research or resource management are solicited from readers as well. To
facilitate a more critical review, detailed ecoregion and subregion boundary lines, and
boundary transition width lines, will be drawn for those individuals that submit clean USGS
1:100,000-scale maps to DEP for. this purpose. In tbe near future, digitized
ecoregion/subregion and boundary transition maps should be available on GIS ARC/INFO.
Please address all comments or requests to:
Robert C. Haynes, Ph.D.
Ecoregions Project Manager
Department of Environmental Protection
One Winter Street, 8* floor
Boston, MA 02108
617/292-5954
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
Ecoregion frameworks are valuable tools for inventorying and assessing environmental
resources, for setting resource management goals, and for developing biological criteria and
water quality standards. In a collaborative project with the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, Division of Water Pollution Control (DWPC), we have refined the
boundaries of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's two m^jor ecological regions in
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, defined 13 subregions, and mapped boundary transition
widths. Lists of candidate stream reference sites have been developed for each subregion,
and the sites are being examined and evaluated by DWPC staff to determine their suitability
for sampling. Phosphorus and alkalinity data for lakes and streams have been collected,
evaluated, mapped, and analyzed to determine spatial distributions and regional patterns.
The resulting regional frameworks and maps of surface water chemistry lead to a better
understanding of the spatial variations in water resource conditions in Massachusetts.
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE ii
ABSTRACT iv
FIGURES AND TABLES vi
1. ECOREGION/SUBREGION FRAMEWORK . 1
.1.1 Introduction . . . 1
1.2 Methods 2
1.3 Results and Regional Descriptions 3
1.3.1 Northeastern Highlands Ecoregioh (58) 4
Taoonic. Mountains (58a) 4
Western New England Marble Valleys (58b) 7
Green Mountains/Berkshire Highlands (58c) 8
Lower Berkshire Hills (58d) 8
Berkshire Transition (58e) • 9
Vermont Piedmont (580 9
Worcester/Monadnock Plateau (58g) 10
1.3.2 Northeastern Coastal Zone Ecoregion (59) 11
Connecticut Valley (59a) 11
Lower Worcester Plateau/Eastern Connecticut Upland (59b) 12
Southern New England Coastal Plains and Hills (59c) 12
Boston Basin (59d) 13
Narragansett/Bristol Lowland (59e) .. . . . ... 13
Cape Cod/Long Island (59fl 14
2 STREAM REFERENCE SITE SELECTION
3. TOTAL PHOSPHORUS OF SURFACE WATERS 17
3.1 Introduction 17
3.2 Total Phosphorus of Lakes 17
3.2.1 Methods . . 18
3.2.2 Results and Regional Descriptions 22
3.3 Total Phosphorus of Streams . 28
4. TOTAL ALKALINITY OF SURFACE WATERS 31
4.1 Introduction 31
4.2 Methods : .. . 31
4.3 Results 32
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 35
REFERENCES 38
APPENDIX A. Candidate Stream Reference Site List 45
ADDENDUM A1
v
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Ecoregions and subregions of Massachusetts 5
2 Ecoregion and subregion boundary transition widths of Massachusetts 6
3 Spring vs. fall phosphorus values for 20 Massachusetts lakes 20
4 Total phosphorus of lakes of Massachusetts 21
5 Spring/fall lake phosphorus regions of Massachusetts 24
6 Histograms for spring/fall lake phosphorus regions 25
7 Total phosphorus of streajns of Massachusetts 30
8 Total alkalinity of surface waters of Massachusetts 33
TABLES
Number Za££
1 Sources, analytical methods, and quality of data used in map compilation of
spring/fall lake total phosphorus regions 19
2 Shift in total phosphorus classes for spring (S) and fall (F) values collected
from the same lake 20
vi
-------
SECTION 1
ECOREGION/SUBREGION FRAMEWORK
1.1 INTRODUCTION
5, ^.,;Vnrk.s are essential for structuring the research, assessment, monitoring,
and v!.. !element of environmental resources. Ecological regions, defined here
as regioni y ?eneity in ecological systems and relationships between organisms
and their ?s. t.ve been developed in the the United States (Bailey 1976;
Omernik 1987), • ken 1986), New Zealand (Biggs et al. 1990) and other countries
to address this need. . ui egions subsume patterns of homogeneity in ecosystem components
and the factors that arr 'associated with spatial differences in their quality and quantity,
factors such as soils, vegetation, climate, geology, and physiography. These regions also.
define areas within which there are different patterns in human stresses on the environment
and different patterns in the existing and attainable quality of environmental resources.
Ecoregion classifications are effective-for inventorying and assessing national and regional
environmental resources, for setting regional resource management goals, and for developing
biological criteiia and water quality standards (Gallant et aL 1989; Hughes et aL 1990, 1994;
Hughes 1989; Environment Canada 1989; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science
Advisory Board 1991; Warry and Hanau 1993).
The development of ecoregion frameworks in North America has evolved considerably in
recent years (Bailey et al. 1985; Omernik and Gallant 1990): The first compilation of
ecoregions of the conterminous ^United States by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) was performed at a relatively cursory scale, 1:3,168,000, and was published at a
smaller scale, 1:7,500,000 (Omernik 1987). Omernik recognized that'the combination and
relative importance of characteristics that explain ecosystem regionally vary from one place
to another and from one hierarchical level to another. The approach used by Environment
Canada is similar (Wiken 1986). : In describing ecoregionalization in Canada, Wiken (1986)
stated:
"Ecological land classification is a process of delineating and classifying
ecologically distinctive areas of the earth's surface. Each area can be viewed
as a discrete system which has resulted .from the, mesh, and. interplay of the
geologic, landform, soil, vegetative, climatic, wildlife, water and. human factors
which may be present. The dominance of any one or a number of these
factors varied with the given ecological land unit. This- holistic approach to
land classification can be applied incrementally on a scale-related basis from
very site-specific ecosystems to very broad ecosystems."
The ecoregions defined by Omernik (1987) were shown to be useful for stratifying
streams in. Arkansas (Rohm et al. 1987), Nebraska (Bazata 1991), Ohio (Larsen et al. 1986),
Oregon (Hughes et aL 1987; Whittier et aL 1988), Washington (Plotnikoff 1992), and
Wisconsin (Lyons 1989). The 1987 ecoregion map was used to set water quality standards
in Arkansas (Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology 1988), identify lake
management goals in Minnesota (Heiskary and Wilson 1989), and develop biologicial criteria
in Ohio; (Ohio EPA 1988). Many state agencies, however, have found that the resolution of
the ecoregions in the l:7,500,000-scale map does not provide enough detail to meet their
needs. This has led to several collaborative projects with states, EPA regional offices, and
1
-------
EPA's Environmental Research Laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon (ERL-C), to refine ecoregions
and define subregions at a larger (1:250,000) scale. These projects cover Florida, Iowa, the
Coast Range and Columbia Plateau of Oregon and Washington, and parts of Mississippi,
Alabama, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and West Virginia.
Regional reference sites within an ecoregion or subregion can give managers and
scientists a better understanding of attainable water quality conditions. The biota and
physical and chemical habitats characteristic of these regional reference sites serve as
benchmarks for comparison to more disturbed streams, lakes, and wetlands in the same
region (Hughes et al. 1986; Hughes et al. 1993; Hughes in press). Information generated
from these sites can indicate the range of conditions that could reasonably be expected in an
ecoregion or subregion, given natural limits and present or possible land use practices.
In a cooperative project with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP), Division of Water Pollution Control (DWPC), we have refined the ecoregions of
Omernik (1987) and defined subregions. In Sections 1.2 and 1.3, we discuss the methods
and materials used to define subregions of the Northeastern Coastal Zone and Northeastern
Highlands Ecoregions in Massachusetts and provide descriptions of the significant
characteristics of each subregion.
1.2 METHODS
In brief, the procedures that we used to accomplish the regionalization process included
compiling and reviewing relevant materials, maps, and data; outlining the regional
characteristics; drafting the regional and subregional boundaries; digitizing the boundary
lines, creating digital coverages, and producing cartographic products; and revising as needed
after review by state managers and scientists. In our regionalization process, we employed
primarily qualitative methods. That is, expert judgement was applied throughout the
selection, analysis, and classification of data to form the regions, basing judgments on the
quantity and quality of component data and on interpretation of the relationships between
the data and other environmental factors. More detailed descriptions on methods, materials,
rationale, and philosophy for regionalization can be found in Omernik (1987; in press),
Gallant et al. (1989), and Omernik and Gallant (1990).
Maps of environmental characteristics and other documents were collected from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and from ERL-C. The most important of these are listed
in the References section. The most useful map types for our ecoregion delineations are
usually soil, physiography or land surface form, vegetation, and land use. Bedrock and
surficial geology, hydrology, and climate information can also be important. Soils
information was obtained from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) county soil
surveys, the 1:250,000-scale STATSGO soil maps, descriptions and maps in Beaumont (1954),
the general soil map of the northeastern U.S. (Smith 1984), the regional overview of
Ciolkosz et al. (1989), and other soils information from surrounding states. The primary
bedrock geology maps included the 1:250,000-scale state map (Zen 1983) and a national-
scale map (King and Biekman 1974). Surficial geology information was gathered from
Heeley (1972; 1973) for all of Massachusetts, from Larson (1982) and Brownlow (1979) for
southeastern Massachusetts, from Stone and Peper (1982) for eastern Massachusetts, and
from Hunt (1979) at the national scale. Physiographic and land-surface form information
2
-------
were gathered from Emerson (1917), Fenneman (1938), Hammond (1970), Heeley (1973), and
Denny (1982). Hydrology information sources included Larson (1973), Motts and O'Brien
(1981),'Halliwell et al; (1981), Ackerman (1989), arid Simcox (1992). The vegetation/forest
cover maps and information were obtained from many sources, including Hawley and Hawes
(1912), Bromley (1935), Egler (1940), Braun (1950), USDA (1956), Westveld (1956), Kingsley
(1974), Kuchler (1964), Sczerzenie (1981), Weatherbee and Crow (1990), and the National
Atlas (Kuchler, 1970; U.S. Forest Service, 1970). For land use/land cover,-we used primarily
the l:250,000-scale' maps from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the general
classification - of Anderson (1970). Some of the land use maps developed by William
MacConhell and his staff at the Department of Forestry, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, were examined, but were not vised to a large extent. Although this is an excellent
-land use database, the l:25,000-scale datalayer stored in individual community coverages
provided more detail than we needed to delineate general regions, and:one of the<.available
generalized land use maps from MacGonnell had less forest type detail 'than the USGS land
use/land .cover data. Combinations of MacConnelTs land use data stored by MassGIS (the
geographic information system. developed by the Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs) should be helpful, however, iii iproviding more current and detailed
characterizations of the regions and reference watersheds. For other land cover information,
maps produced from composited multi-temporal Advanced Veiy High Resolution Radiometer
(AVHRR) satellite data were also used to assess boundaries and regional differences. These
data are currently being used by the USGS EROS Data Center to characterize land cover of
the conterminous United States (Loveland et al. 1991). We obtained other regional
descriptions of Massachusetts and New England from sources such as Bickford and Dymon
(1990), Jorgenseri (1977), Leak (1982), Lull (1968), and USDA (1977; 1978a,b). ^
We used USGS 1:250,000-scale topographic maps as the base for delineating the
ecoregion and subregion boundaries. Although this niap series is dated (latest revisions:
made in the late '60's and early '70's), it does provide quality in terms of the relative
consistency and comparability of the series,* in the accuracy of the topographic information
portrayed, and in the locational control. It' is also a very convenient scale. Three of these
maps give complete coverage of Massachusetts.
1.3 RESULTS AND REGIONAL DESCRIPTIONS
To the geographer, Southern New England offers a fascinating and challenging problem to landscape interpretation,"
- (James 1929, p.67).
We have divided the Commonwealth of Massachusetts into two ecoregions containing a
total of 13 subregions (Figure 1). Although these subregions still retain some heterogeneity
in factors that can affect water quality and biotic characteristics, the framework is an
improvement on the national-scale: ecoregions,. and provides more homogeneous units for
inventorying, monitoring, and assessing surface waters than the often used hydrologic unit
frameworks or political unit frameworks (Omernik and Griffith 1991).
Ecoregion boundaries are often portrayed by a. single line, but in reality they are
transition zones of varying widths. In some areas the change is distinct and abrupt. For
example, there are obvious breaks in geology, topography, and land use where the valley
3
-------
subregions (Connecticut, Marble) meet upland subregions. In other areas, such as the
ecoregion division between the Worcester/Monadnock Plateau and the Lower Worcester
Plateau, the boundary is fuzzy and more difficult to determine. The fuzzy boundaries are
areas of uncertainty or where there may be a heterogenous mosaic of characteristics from
each of the adjacent areas. Figure 2 illustrates the relative widths of the ecoregion and
subregion boundaries in Massachusetts.
Our regional framework has some similarities to other regional schemes of
Massachusetts. Because geology and physiography are important causal factors in
explaining regional variations in this area, our framework is comparable to some
physiographic regional schemes such as those of Wright (1933), Heeley (1973), and Denny
(1982), and the geology-based surface water regions of Mattson et al. (1992). Sczerzenie
(1981) provided a more detailed ecological zoning of Massachusetts than our framework,
although the purpose was for deer management. Our approaches are similar, however, in
that we both recognize that the importance of any one component or parameter, or
combination of parameters, varies from one area to another. Sczerzeriie's 27 regions were
lumped into 10 regions in The Historical Atlas of Massachusetts (Wilkie and Tager 1991),
providing yet another regional scheme for comparison.
1.3.1 Northeastern Highlands Ecoregion (#58)
This ecoregion covers most of the northern and mountainous parts of New England as
well as the Adirondacks in New York. The low mountains and open low mountains have a
dominant land use of forest and woodland mostly ungrazed; the potential natural vegetation
is northern hardwoods (maple-beech-birch), northern hardwoods/spruce, and northeastern
spruce-fir forests; and the soils are generally frigid and cryic spodosols (Omernik 1987). The
major river basins in Massachusetts that fall, in whole or in part, in the ecoregion include
the Hoosic, Housatonic, Deerfield, Westfield, Farmington, Millers, and small parts of the
Connecticut, upper Nashua and northern upper Chicopee. In Massachusetts, the subregions
of this ecoregion include the Taconic Mountains, Western New England Marble Valleys,
Green Mountains/Berkshire Highlands, Lower Berkshire Hills, Berkshire Transition,
Vermont Piedmont, and the Worcester/Monadnock Plateau.
Taconic Mountains (58a)
The Taconic Mountains, an area of high hills and low mountains, extends from
southwest Vermont down to the Hudson Highlands of New York (Prindle and Knopf 1932).
The Massachusetts part of the subregion includes Mt. Greylock, which at 3491 feet (1064 m)
is the highest elevation in the state; general elevations of the region are 1000-2000 feet
(300-610 m). The bedrock is primarily phyllite and schist, although there are some minor
lenses of limestone (Zen 1983). Taconic-Macomber and Lanesboro-Dummerston are the main
soil associations. These soils are loamy-skeletal and coarse-loamy, mixed, frigid Typic
Dystrochrepts. The vegetation consists generally of northern hardwoods (maple-beech-birch)
with some spruce-fir at higher elevations. Streams are mostly small, high-gradient
tributaries, and there are few lakes in the Massachusetts part of the subregion. Stream
4
-------
D 0 in 10 20
20 0 km 20 40
Abes eqiri
-------
NORTHEASTERN HIGHLANDS (58)
Taconic Mountains (58a)
Western New England Marble Valleys (58b)
Green Mountains/Berkshire Highlands (58c)
Lower Berkshire Hills (58d)
Berkshire Transition (58e)
Vermont Piedmont (58f)
Worcester/Monodnock Plateau (58g)
NORTHEASTERN COASTAL ZONE (59)
Connecticut Volley (59a)
Lower Worcester Plateau/
Eastern Connecticut Upland (59b)
Southern New England Coastal Plains
ond Hills (59c)
Boston Basin (59d)
Narragansett/Bristol Lowland (59e)
Cape Cod/Long Island (59f)
—— Ecoregion boundary
Subregion boundary
I ' ::: "I Fuuy boundary
P 0 mi P 20
20 0 km 20 «
Aber, egjd (JM projection
Figure 2 Ecoregion and subregion boundary transition widths of Massachusetts
-------
alkalinity values are in the 100-200 jieq/1 range, unless there is a limestone influence. Some
•lower values (<100 jieq/1) are found at higher elevations. . River basins draining the
subregion in Massachusetts include the Hoosic, Kinderhook, Bashbish, and Housatonic.
Oh the western side of the Taconics, the hillis gradually descend toward the Hudson
Valley in Niew York and there is a rather fuzzy boundary between upland and lowland. On
the east side in Massachusetts;" however, there is a sharp boundary between this subregion
and the marble valleys. The weathering and removal of carbonate rocks has created many
of the steep-sided mountains and narrow valleys (Denny 1982). These rugged, deeply cut
mountains contrast with the less dissected, relatively flat-topped nature of the southern
Greeii Mountains and Berkshire Hills. Although Mt. Greylock has the geology of the
Taconics, the Tunbridge-Lymon soil association and spruce-fir forest type related to its
elevation suggest that it is similar to the Green Mountains.
Western New England Marble Valleys (58b)
Also known as the Berkshire Valley or Stockbridge Valley in Massachusetts, this scenic
lowland subregion of. soluble carbonate rocks stands in sharp contrast to the surrounding
highland areas of more resistant rock. Elevations are generally 600-1200 feet (180-370 m).
From Brandon, Vermont south to Pittsfield, Massachusetts, the subregion is narrow, but
then widens to about 10 miles .(16'km) across in the southwest part of the state. Drained
by the Hoosic River in the northwest part of Massachusetts and by the Housatonic River in
the southwest, the lowland has formed because of differential weathering and erosion of the
calcitic and dolomitic marbles and limestone. Surficial materials consist of undifferentiated
stratified deposits, and this drift is relatively abundant compared to that found in the
surrounding, highland areas (Heeley 1973).
Due to faulting and, folding, some of the resistant rocks of schist, gneiss, and quartzite
that surround the subregion also crop out within it. Areas such as Tom Ball Mountain,
West Stockbridge Mountain, and Lenox Mountain have schist and phyllite bedrock similar to
the Taconic Mountain subregion and could be delineated as such. For statewide assessment
of water resources, however, these ridges may not be a significant influence. Warner
Mountain and East Mountain, consisting mainly of gneiss, quarzite, and schist, were
included with the Lower Berkshire Hills subregion.
The dominant soil series are the Amenia (coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic Aquic
Eutrochrepts), Pittsfield (coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic Dystric Eutrochrepts) and Farmington
(loamy,. mixed, mesic Lithic Eutrochrepts). The land use/land cover consists of urban/built-
up land, cropland and . pasture, evergreen forest, and deciduous forest. The forests are
generally transition hardwoods (maple-beech-birch, oak-hickory) and northern hardwoods
(maple-beech-birch) depending on latitude and elevation. Surface water alkalinity values are
high (>1000 jieq/1) due to the limestone and marble. The alkaline groundwater is also
important for Calcareous Fens, one of . the smaller but more important natural communities
in Massachusetts that support at least 30 state-listed rare species of plants and animals
(Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife 1990).
7
-------
Green Mountains/Berkshire Highlands (58c)
The Hudson Highlands, Berkshire Hills, and Green Mountains (and the Sutton and
Notre Dame Mountains in Quebec) were defined by Denny (1982) as one physiographic unit.
This range of mountains can be considered a continuum, in that there are similar
topographic and geologic features along its length. There are variations on the theme,
however, with not only latitudinal influences on climate and vegetation, but also a decrease
in elevation as one moves south from the Green Mountains in Vermont to the Hudson
Highlands of New York. There is no clear evidence on either side of the Massachusetts-
Vermont border for dividing the Green Mountains from the Hoosac Range and Berkshire
Hills. The Massachusetts part of our subregion includes what we would consider the
southernmost extent of the Green Mountains, generally the highest elevations of the
Berkshire Plateau. The main bodies of evidence for separating this region from surrounding
areas and for the placement of boundaries include Fenneman's (1938) Green Mountain
extension into Massachusetts, Kuchler's (1964, 1970) northern hardwoods-spruce vegetation
class, Egler's (1940) Savoy vegetation zone, Scerzenie's (1981) Central Berkshires zone, the
AVHRR vegetation greenness data, and elevation information.
The geology of this subregion is complex, with mostly gneiss and schist; till deposits are
thin with bedrock outcrops. The general soil association is Tunbridge-Lyman-Peru. The
Tunbridge soils (coarse-loamy, mixed, frigid Typic Haplorthods) are moderately deep and
well-drained upland soils. Lyman soils (loamy, mixed, frigid Lithic Haplorthods) are
shallow, somewhat excessively drained soils on the upper steep slopes. Peru soils (coarse-
loamy, mixed, frigid Aquic Haplorthods) are very deep, located in concave areas and on
lower slopes. Elevations of the subregion range from approximately 1000 feet (300 m) to
more than 2500 feet (760 m), with spruce-fir and northern hardwoods (maple-beech-birch)
forest types. The western part of the Deerfield and the upper Westfield are the main river
basins in the subregion, with some waters draining west to the Hoosic and Housatonic
basins. Surface water alkalinity is generally less than 200 peq/1, with lower values (<100
^ieq/1) in the towns of Rowe, Monroe, Florida, and Savoy.
Lower Berkshire Hills (58d)
As noted in the Green Mountains/Berkshire Highlands section above, it is difficult to
find significant breaks in the highland continuum in western New England. Considering
only Massachusetts information, one might be tempted to extend a Berkshire Hills region
from border to border. There are differences, however, between the highlands of Vermont
and Connecticut. The Lower Berkshire Hills subregion differs from the Berkshire Highland
to the north mainly in terms of elevation, generally 1000 to 1700 feet (300-520 m), and
vegetation types, still mostly northern hardwoods (maple-beech-birch) but lacking the spruce-
fir, and moving into transition hardwoods (maple-beech-birch, oak-hickory). The AVHRR
data also indicate that the vegetative cover is different from the area to the north. The
bedrock and surficial geology, soil associations, and land use appear to be similar to the
Berkshire Highlands, although the climate is slightly milder (Baldwin 1973). Our
delineation of this subregion is also similar to the Lower Berkshires zone defined by
8
-------
Sczerzenie (1981).
Lakes and ponds are relatively abundant in this subregion compared to some subregions
of western Massachusetts. The lake density is similar to that of the Berkshire Highlands,
bat these two subregions have a greater density and contain more lakes than the Berkshire
Transition, Vermont Piedmont, or Taconic Mountains. Most of the surface waters drain to
the Farmington basin, with some draining east to the Westfield and some draining west to
the Housatonic. Surface water alkalinity values are mixed, although mostly less than 200
jaeq/1. Average values are less than 100 }ieq/l around the town of Toland, but are often
greater than 200 jieq/lto the west in Sandisfield.
Berkshire Transition. (58e)
Many of the characteristics in this subregion are similar to those of the Massachusetts
portion of the 'Vermont Piedmont (58f). The climate of the subregion in southern
Massachusetts arid Connecticut -is somewhat milder, however, than that of the Vermont
Piedmont in ^Vermont. Forest types are transition hardwoods (maple-beech-birch, oak-
hickory) and northern hardwoods' (maple-beech-birch), with elevations in the range of 400-
1400 feet (120-430 m). Some of the calcareous geologic bedrock found in the Vermont
Piedmont is also present in this region; however, there are also various types > of schist,
micaceous quartzite or quartz schist, and some gneiss. Surface waters are; lower in
alkalinity than the Vermont Piedmont^ generally in the 100-300 |ieq/l range, with some less
than 100 peq/1 in the Russell and Montgomery area. Charlton-Paxton-Woodbridge soils
comprise one' of the typical soil associations. Charlton soils (coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic
Typic Dystrochrepts) are deep and well drained, located on the middle ; part ;of slopes.
Paxton and Woodbridge soils (coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic Typic Fragiochrepts) both have the
firm substratum-or fragipan that restricts root growth and the movement of water. Surface
waters drain to the Westfield and Connecticut basins.
Vermont Piedmont (58f)
Although Sczerzenie (1981) defined a Berkshire Transition zone that traversed the
length of Massachusetts west of the Connecticut Valley, geological and hydrochemical
differences suggest this northern section should bec included with the Vermont Piedmont. In
Vermont, there is hot always agreement on the boundary between the Green Mountains and
the Venriont Piedmont; but the various physiographic and landform maps (Meeks' 1975) all
tend to show some type of piedmont region. We examined primarily geolo'gy maps,
physiography maps, and water chemistry data to help locate this boundary division;
The geologic types are mostly Devonian schist, phyllite," calcareous grainofels or
quartzose marble. Beds of limestone or quartzose marble result in surface waters that are
well-buffered with high values of alkalinity, usually greater than 500 neq/1 and often greater
than 1000 peq/1. The topography is hilly with some steep slopes, and elevations are
approximately 400 to 1400 feet (120-430 m) in Massachusetts. Streams in the
Massachusetts part of the subregion drain into the Deerfield and Connecticut basins.
9
-------
The subregion has boundaries similar to those of the Westminster-Colrain-BuckJand soil
association, as shown in the Franklin County soil survey. These soils were formed in fine
sandy loam glacial till derived from mica schist and siliceous limestone. The vegetation
types included in this subregion consist of transition hardwoods {maple-bcech-birch, oak-
hickory) and northern hardwoods (maple-beech-birch).
Worcester/Monadnock Plateau (58g)
The question of how far south to bring the ecoregion line in the central uplands area of
Massachusetts is not easily answered. The northernmost possibility is suggested by
Hammond's (1970) landform map, the M^jor Land Resource Area map CUSDA 1981), and the
general soil map (Smith 1984). The regional boundary in these frameworks is north of the
Millers River. Similar to the western highlands of New England, this central highlands is a
continuum where divisions must be made, but there are not distinct breaks. The
southernmost possibility for the ecoregion line might extend it into Connecticut, similar to
the upland boundary of Dowhan and Craig (1976), that would include our Lower Worcester
Plateau subregion (59b). In terms of elevation, relief, climate, soils, and vegetation,
however, the upland area of south-central Massachusetts and northeast Connecticut appears
dissimilar to the rugged, colder, more mountainous nature of the Northeastern Highlands
ecoregion.
The first draft boundary that we delineated for this region included all of the Millers
drainage and the northwest part of the Chicopee basin (the Quabbin area), and was
anchored on the southeast by Mt. Wachusett. The boundary was similar to Omernik's
(1977) ecoregion line and the boundary shown by Barnes and Marschner (1933), and
enclosed an area where aquatic ecosystems are generally acidic. This draft boundary was
subsequently modified at the recommendation of the DWPC staff (Robert Haynes, DEP-
DWPC, personal communication) to exclude some of the flatter, plateau-like areas. The
current boundary loops around Prescott Peninsula on the west side of Quabbin Reservoir,
extends north around Orange and Athol, then south to Barre, and curves down toward
Worcester. The eastern boundary near Fitchburg follows approximately the divide between
the Worcester Front and the Nashua Valley (Stone and Peper 1982). The boundary is based
in part on elevation, generally enclosing areas with elevations greater than 1000 feet (305
m), and areas of frigid soils shown by the USDA Soil Conservation Service in the STATSGO
database.
The subregion in Massachusetts includes the most mountainous and hilly areas of the
central upland. Elevations range from 500 feet to 1400 feet (150-430 m), with some higher
peaks (e.g., Mt. Watatic, 1832 feet [558 m]; Mt. Wachusett, 2006 feet [611 m]). The rock
types are mainly gneiss, schist, and granite. The monadnocks, residual hills or mountains
usually composed of more resistant rocks, tend to increase in number as one moves north
toward the White Mountains of New Hampshire. Monadnock, Tunbridge, Lyman, and
Becket are some of the common soil series. The general vegetation types are transition
hardwoods (maple-beech-birch, oak-hickory) with some northern hardwoods (maple-beech-
birch). Forested wetlands are common and surface waters are acidic, with most alkalinity
values less than 50 peq/1. M^jor river basins that drain the subregion in Massachusetts
10
-------
include the Millers, Chicopee, Connecticut, and Nashua.
1-.3.2 Northeastern Coastal Zone Ecoregion (#59)
This ecoregion covers most of southern New England and coastal areas of New
Hampshire and southern Maine. In Massachusetts, the mjyor drainage basins of the
ecoregion include the Connecticut, Chicopee, Quinebaug, French, Blackstone, Nashua,
1 ' i
Concord, Merrimac, Shawsheen, Parker, Ipswich, North Coastal, Boston Harbor, Charles,
Ten Mile, Taunton, South Coastal, Nairagansett Bay, Mt. Hope Bay Shore, Buzzard's Bay,
Cape Cod, and Islands. Land-surface form classes include irregular plains, plains with low
to high hills, and open hills (Hammond 1970), supporting land uses of woodland and forest
with some cropland and pasture, and urban (Anderson 1970). Appalachian oak forest and
northeastern oak-pine forest are the natural vegetation types (Kuchler 1970), with mostly
inceptisol soils. The subregions of this ecoregion in Massachusetts include the Connecticut
Valley, Lower Worcester Plateau/Eastern Connecticut Upland, Southern New, England
Coastal Plains and Hills, Boston Basin, Narragansett/Bristol Lowland, and Cape' Cod/Long
Island.
Connecticut Valley (59a)
The Connecticut Valley of southern New England is a distinctive subregion where the
borders are easily defined by bedrock geology and physiography. With a climate milder than
that found on surrounding uplands, and with . relatively rich soils and level terrain, the
valley has long attracted human settlement (Wilkie and Tager 1991). Elevations range from
100 to 500 feet (30-150 in), with some higher ridges. The topography is level to rolling;
Hammond (1970) classes'it as plains with high hills. Although the dominant geology is
sedimentary, such as arkose, siltstone, sandstone, shale, and conglomerate, tilted basalt
layers have formed distinctive ridges in many parts of the valley. The Jurassic-age Holyoke
basalt results in a prominent north-south trending ridge from southern Connecticut into
central Massachusetts. This ridge then curves to trend east-west near Mt. Tom and Mt.
Holyoke in the Holyoke Range. Surfxcial geology deposits in the valley are relatively thick
and include outwash, alluvial, and lake bottom deposits. This mix stands in contrast to the
till deposits of the highlands to the west and the till-outwash mix characteristic of the
Worcester/Monadnock Plateau and Lower Worcester Plateau to the east (Heeley 1973). The
Hadley-Winooski-Limerick soil association is typical of the near-river floodplain soils formed
in alluvial materials. The well-drained Hadley soils are coarse-silty, mixed, nonatid, mesic
Typic Udifluvents, and the poorly-drained Limerick soils are coarse-silty, mixed, nonacid,
mesic Typic Fluvaquents. On the ;> outwash plains, deep, excessively drained siandy and
loamy soils are found, such as the Hinckley series (sandyrskeletal, mixed, mesic Typic
Udorthents). The mzgor land use/land cover is urban and built-up land, cropland and
pasture, with deciduous forest mostly on-the ridges. The m^jor forest types are central
hardwoods (oaik-hickbry) and transition hardwoods (maple-beech-birch, oak-hickory).
Surface water alkalinity in the subregion is generally, greater than 500 peq/1, although
some small areas are in the 100-300 jieq/1 range. Surface waters drain primarily into the
11
-------
lower stems of the Westfield and Chicopee rivers and the main channel of the Connecticut
River.
Lower Worcester PlateauTEastern Connecticut Upland (59b)
This subregion is separated from the Southern New England Coastal Plains and Hills
primarily because of the effect of higher elevation, which ranges from approximately 500 feet
to 1200 feet (150-370 m). The relief, 300 to 500 feet (90-150 m), is relatively moderate
compared to other upland or highland areas of the state, and the land form is classified by
Hammond (1970) as open hills where 50-75% of the gentle slope is on the upland. The
same north-south trending geologic belts that are found in the region to the north occur
here; mostly gneiss, schist, and granofels. The soils developed primarily on glacial till in the
upland areas, and on stratified deposits of sand, gravel, and silt in the valleys. The Paxton,
Brookfield, and Scituate soil series are typical of the upland soils (coarse-loamy, mixed,
mesic Typic Dystrochrepts). The mEgor forest types are transition hardwoods (maple-beech-
birch, oak-hickory) with some central hardwoods (oak-hickory).
Surface water alkalinity is mostly in the 100-200 |jeq/l range, with small areas of values
less than 50 peq/l, such as the one near Wales and the Brimfield State Forest. Most surface
waters drain into the Chicopee and Quinebaug river basins.
Southern New England Coastal Plains and Hills (59c)
This is the largest subregion in southern New England, covering much of Connecticut,
Rhode Island, and eastern Massachusetts, and it is diverse in its characteristics and
habitats. There are obviously some regions within the subregion, but it is debatable
whether to break them out at this hierarchical level or a level below this one. Areas that
could be separated out might include the Rhode Island gneissic upland and some of the low
coastal flatlands.
The landforms of the subregion are plains with hills with relief of 300-500 feet (90-150
m), and irregular plains with relief of 100-200 feet (30-60 m). Elevations range from sea
level to 800 feet (240 m). Bedrock types are mostly granites, schist, and gneiss, and the
surface materials include stratified drift, till, lake bottom, alluvium, and marine deposits.
Soil patterns are complex and heterogeneous where the numerous, small, till-covered bedrock
hills rise above the valleys and general level of outwash. The forest types are mainly
central hardwoods (oak-hickory) with some transition hardwoods (maple-beech-birch, oak-
hickory), and, like many other subregions of Massachusetts, some elm-ash-red maple and
white-red pine.
Surface water alkalinity values are varied in this subregion in Massachussetts. Many
of the waters range from 200 to 500 fieq/1, although values of less than 50 peq/1 are found
near the boundary with the Worcester/Monadnock Plateau (58g) and in areas such as the
towns of Douglas, Northbridge, and Upton of southeastern Worcester County, and Gloucester
and Scituate near the coast. The major river basins of the subregion include the Nashua,
Concord, Merrimack, Shawsheen, Parker, Ipswich, North Coastal, Boston Harbor, Charles,
French, Blackstone, and part of the South Coastal.
12
-------
Boston Basin (59d)
One possible inner boundary (Figure 2) for the Boston Basin occurs at a geologic and
topographic break that encloses an area composed of the Cambridge argillite and Roxbury
conglomerate rock'units (Zen 1983). Low hills , such as the Blue Hills in the south and the
escarpment from Waltham to Lynn in the north, mark this basin's rim. We have defined a
larger subregion, howevier, to include the hilly urbanized ring and some outlying lowlands
occurring on different metamorphic and volcanic rock types. This expanded "Boston Basin"
is similar to Heeley*s (1973) Boston-Sudbury Lowland physiographic region and Sczerzenie's
(1981) Boston Basin ecological zone.
The area is drained primarily by the Neponset, Charles, Mystic and Saugus rivers, and
there are many urban ponds, lakes and reservoirs. The basin is not a level plain but has
low rolling topography, with stratified drift surrounding drumlins and till-covered bedrock
hills. The few areas of flat ground such as the glacial day areas on the outskirts of
Cambridge, Belmont, and Arlington were once . intensively cultivated vegetable jfields and
greenhouses (Wright 1933), but now almost the entire region is urban and suburban land.
This impervious urban veneer generally results' in similar types of water quality and water
quality problems.
Narragansett/Bristol Lowland (59e)
Although this subregion is not dramatically different from other areas of the
^Northeastern Coastal Zone ecoregion, it does exhibit a few subtle distinctions. In, terms of
geology, the Narragansett Basin is a well-recognized unit of Pennsylvanian age sedimentary
rock (sandstone, graywacke, shale, conglomerate) that stands in contrast to the surrounding
igneous and metamorphic rocks (Zen 1983). Wright's (1933) Narragansett Basin
physiographic region corresponds closely to this sedimentary unit. Our subregion is more
extensive than the Narragansett Basin proper, extending'south across the granitic rocks to
Buzzards Bay. This inclusion could be debated, in that the granitic area jhas some
characteristics similar to those of the coastal plains and hills further , north in
Massachusetts, but bedrock outcrops are not common here with the extensive covering of
glacial till and outwash plains deposits:, The glacial deposits may override some of the
regional distinctiveness, both within the subregion and in comparison with adjacent
subregions. Our boundaries of this subregion in Massachusetts are also similar to Heeley's
(1973) Seaboard Lowland physiographic region, and to Sczerzenie's (1981) combined Bristol
Bays and Central Bristol ecological zones as illustrated by Wilkie and Tager (1991). The
western and northern boundaries of the subregion are tied closely to geology and topography;
the southeastern boundary with Cape Cod is based more on vegetation and soils.
This lowland subregion exhibits flat to gently rolling irregular plains with elevations
generally less than 200 feet (60 m). Paxton and Woodbridge soils (coarse-loamy, mixed,
mesic Typic Fragiochrepts) are typical of the well-drained soils on the low hills and ridges,
and Hinckley soils (sandy-skeletal, mixed, mesic Typic Udorthents) are found on glacial
outwash plains, kames, and eskers. Ridgebury and Whitman soils are poorly drained
13
-------
Fragiaquepts Formed in glacial till. The vegetation is mostly central hardwoods (oak-
hickory), although some forest type maps show more elm-ash-red maple and white-red pine
(Kingsley 1974J or elm-ash-cottonwood and white pine (USDA 1956) than other parts of the
Northeastern Coastal Zone ecoregion. USGS land cover maps indicate mostly mixed forest
with numerous wetlands and small cropland/pasture areas. Cranberry bogs are abundant.
Surface water alkalinity values are low but varied, with many values in the 100 to 300 peq/1
range, although several areas contain values less than 50 jieq/1. The major river basins of
the subregion in Massachusetts include the Taunton, Ten Mile, Narragansett Bay, Mt. Hope
Bay Shore, and Buzzards Bay.
Cape Cod/Long Island (590
The Massachusetts part of this subregion includes all of Cape Cod, the adjacent
mainland east of a boundary line drawn roughly from Plymouth to the head of Buzzards
Bay, the Elizabeth Islands, Martha's Vineyard, and Nantucket. These lands were made by
the continental glacial ice sheet, with the advances and retreats of three lobes of the
Wisconsinan stage playing a major role in the formation of Cape Cod (Brownlow 1979). The
resulting terminal moraines, outwash plains, and coastal deposits, reshaped by wind and
water, are the dominant land form features, with elevation and relief generally less than
200 feet (60 m). The Massachusetts drainage basins include Cape Cod, Islands, and small
parts of the South Coastal and Buzzards Bay.
With Long Island this could be considered as a transition coastal plain region. The
shore characteristics of sandy beaches, grassy dunes, bays, marshes, and scrubby oak-pine
forests are more like those to the south, in contrast to the more rocky, jagged forested
coastline found north of Boston. In Massachusetts, although there are differences between
the Cape and the islands (Woodworth and Wigglesworth 1934; USDA 1978a), the
heterogeneity is no greater than that found within mainland subregions.
There is not exact agreement on where the mainland boundary should be drawn for this
subregion, with a transitional boundary width of about five to eight miles across (Figure 2).
Vegetation maps, physiography maps, Sczerzenie's (1981) ecological zone map, soils maps,
and Barnes and Marschner's (1933) natural land-use area map all show relatively close
agreement on this boundary, generally from the Kingston/Plymouth area around Plymouth
Bay south to the upper part of Buzzards Bay near Wareham. The boundary from Plymouth
is drawn around Monks Hill Moraine and encloses most of the glacio-fluvial outwash plains,
that is, the Wareham Pitted Plain and Carver Pitted Plain (Larson 1982).
Cape Cod's bedrock geology of granites, gneiss, and schist has limited ecological
relevance because it is covered with 200 to 400 feet (60-120 m} or more of gravel, sand, silt
and clay. There is a close relationship between soil types and the surficial geology. Carver
and Eastchop soils (siliceous, mesic Typic Udipsamments) are very deep, excessively drained
soils formed in glaciofluvial and moraine deposits. Some of the unique ecological features
that distinquish this subregion from mainland subregions include its moderate maritime
climate, stunted pine and oak forests, numerous kettle ponds, and unique habitats in salt
and freshwater marshes, swamps, bogs, and sand dimes. Many of the lakes have alkalinity
values less than 50 jieq/1.
14
-------
SECTION 2
STREAM REFERENCE SITE SELECTION
To develop biological criteria and evaluate impaired water bodies, it is important to
establish reference conditions that are suitable for comparison. A key function of an
ecoregion framework is its use "in selecting regional reference sites and facilitating-the
assessment of regionally attainable conditions. For estimating attainable water quality,
conditions, control 'sites should be as minimally disturbed as possible, yet representative of
the streams for which they are to be controls (Hughes et al. 1986). Although no two
streams are alike, we hypothesize that streams within an ecoregion or subregion will have
generally similar characteristics compared to streams within a state or larger area. If an
ecoregion or subregion has a variety of stream types, it might also be important to classify
these types and to consider groundwater influences, as these may tend to mask regional
differences. Additional classifications or hierarchical levels may be needed to sort out
differing stream segments and habitat types.
General guidelines for selecting reference sites have been given in Hughes et al (2986)
and Gallant et al. (1989). The process is being refined, however, as experience is gained in
current ,and' ongoing ecoregion/reference site projects (e.g., Alabama/Mississippi, Florida,
Iowa, Oregon, Washington, Pennsylvania). For any given project, it may be necessary to
modify or expand general procedures; due to varying characteristics or objectives in different
areas, it is difficult to follow strictly a detailed rule-based approach that will be applicable to
all regions. Our process of selecting candidate reference sites in Massachusetts is outlined
below:
1. We defined ecoregions and subregions within which there is apparent homogeneity in a
combination of geographic characteristics likely to be associated with resource quality,
quantity, and types of stresses and biological responses.
2. We generally characterized disturbance (such as areal or nonpoint source pollution, and
local or point sources of pollution) in each ecoregion and subregion and analyzed geographic
characteristics to better understand representative or typical conditions. What1 comprises
disturbance may vary considerably from one region to another. In valley or lowland
subregions with greater agricultural potential or urbanization pressures, reference streams
would comprise those with: few if any point sources, lack of nearstream agriculture and
channelization activity, relatively little development, and undisturbed riparian zones with
woody vegetation. Regions with hilly or mountainous terrain said nutrient-poor soils lacking
agricultural potential are likely to be affected by different types of disturbances. \ A relative
lack of housing developments, silvicultural activities, or heavy recreational usage may be
important criteria in selecting minimally-impacted, representative reference streams in these
regions.
3. We chose a set of stream sites that appeared relatively undisturbed and completely
within the ecoregion or subregion and approximated the area of the surface watersheds.
The actual number of sites/watersheds selected was a function of the apparent homogeneity
15
-------
or heterogeneity of the subregion, the size of the subregion, hydrologic characteristics, and
simply the number of stream sites/watersheds available for selection. The point of
diminishing returns, regarding the number of streams necessary to address attainable
quality and within-region variability, may be reached with only a few sites in subrpgions
that are relatively homogeneous and/or small. Complex subregions, on the other hand, are
likely to require a large number of reference sites. Another consideration was access, that
is, did roads allow the biologists to get near the stream section for sampling? Disturbance
and typicalness were interpreted from information shown on 1:250,000-scale and 1:100,000-
scale USGS topographic maps, land use maps, and soils maps. The existence of populated
areas, industry, agricultural land use, mining, cranberry bogs, fish hatcheries, transportation
routes, etc., were all interpreted from mapped information. The number of preliminary
candidate sites per subregion varied, ranging from only 2 in subregion 58b, the Western
New England Marble Valleys, to 19 sites in subregion 59c, the Southern New England
Coastal Plains and Hills. We chose not to select candidate reference sites at this time in
the Boston Basin subregion (59d) due to the almost continuous urban cover and lack of
minimally impacted sites. The DWPC may need to explore several alternative methods for
establishing regional water quality goals and criteria for this area. We developed a list of
108 candidate sites that included the subregion, site number, stream name and location,
major river basin, town, 1:100,000-scale map name, estimated watershed area (if
determinable), and additional comments (Appendix A). This list was given to DWPC
personnel along with maps of the exact site locations.
4. Each set of sites was reviewed by state biologists, and sites were visited during ground
reconnaissance to appraise the usefulness of the subregions, the characteristics that comprise
reference sites in each subregion, the range of characteristics and types of disturbances in
each subregion, and the way in which site characteristics and stream types vary between
subregions. In this process, sites found to be unsuitable were dropped (because of
disturbances not apparent on the maps or due to anomalous situations) and other sites could
be added. As of this writing, the DWPC is still analyzing this stream reference site list,
and they have been engaged in detailed reconnaissance of three subregions, the Vermont
Piedmont (58f), Worcester/Monadnock Plateau (58g), and NarragansetfBristol Lowland (59e)
for a pilot project to test the regionalization scheme.
It should be remembered that all reference sites have some level of disturbance.
Human disturbance of forest ecosystems and watersheds of Massachusetts has occurred for
centuries; most dramatically since the arrival of Europeans, but by indigenous cultures as
well (Day 1953; Cronon 1983; Cherry 1992; Denevan 1992). There are no pristine,
unimpacted watersheds in Massachusetts, or, considering atmospheric deposition of
contaminants, anywhere else in the United States. We searched for the least or minimally
impacted sites, but levels of impact are relative on a regional basis. The characteristics of
appropriate reference sites are different in different ecoregions and subregions and for
different waterbody and habitat types. It is desirable, therefore, to have a large number of
candidate reference sites for each region to help define the different types of streams, to
illustrate the natural variability within similar stream types, and to clarify the factors that
characterize the best sites from factors present in the lower quality sites.
16
-------
SECTION 3
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS OF SURFACE WATERS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
A nutrient such as phosphorus in surface waters is an important water quality concern
in terms of its central role in determining lake trophic state and cultural eutrophication,
natural variability, and as an indication-of nonpoint source pollution. The nutrient levels of
a water body are largely a function of landscape characteristics that can be viewed in
regional terms. The' development of realistically attainable phosphorus standards for
restoration and protection should reflect these regional differences.
Grouping lakes into regions within which similar factors affect trophic state can provide
a basis for selecting lakes that are representative of conditions within an area. However,
the combination * of landscape characteristics, or the importance of any one characteristic,
affecting trophic state varies from region to region. Identifying those characteristics that
influence water quality, and determining the factors that can be controlled or modified, can
lead to a better understanding of attainable lake water" quality in each lake phosphorus
region! For surface waters in regions where natural factors are likely contributors to high
phosphorus levels, it is unrealistic to expect restoration efforts to achieve the'low total
phosphorus levels found in other regions. Conversely, in regions characterized by low total
phosphorus, lakes with hiigh values of phosphorus are likely candidates for improvement in
water quality, if the anthropogenic sources of phosphorus input can be identified and
isolated.
We have used total phosphorus as an indicator of regional lake trophic condition based
on its role in controlling the fertility of most lakes. Data are fairly abundant and laboratory
analytical methods, although different, are generally comparable. Early in the project, it
appeared that' there would be a large amount of phosphorus data for Massachusetts;
however, it became evident that much of the data had quality control problems forj assessing
low concentrations of phosphorus. In an independent project to mapi lake phosphorus
regions for the northeastern United States (Kiilsgaard et al. 1993), it was apparent that
Massachusetts total phosphorus data were" considerably higher than values reported by
neighboring states, despite sharing landscape characteristics where lower phosphorus values
would have been expected. Further investigation by Massachusetts DWPC personnel
revealed that laboratory procedures and detection limits (generally >50 jig/1) were inadequate
for analyzing low level phosphorus concentrations (Robert Haynes, DEP-DWPC, personal
communication). In a related, effort in the Massachusetts regionalization project, stream
phosphorus data from relatively unimpacted sites were also collected from DWPC files.
There were not enough data,' however, to enable assessment of regional patterns or
attainable conditions.
3.2 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS OF LAKES
Lake water qualify and attainable trophic condition vary considerably across
Massachusetts. There is some correspondence of phosphorus patterns with the ecological
subregions. We believe there is utility, however, in defining lake regions that relate more
17
-------
directly to lake characteristics and phosphorus values. We have developed lake phosphorus
(LP) regions for Massachusetts using a process that is similar in concept to that used in
creating the ecological subregions. The apparent distinguishing characteristic of each LP
region, compared to adjacent LP regions, is in the spatial pattern and distribution of total
phosphorus values, which is determined by, or associated with, that LP region's landscape
characteristics including land use/land cover, land surface form, bedrock and surficial
geology, soils, and vegetation. The patterns of existing phosphorus data were the primary
basis for determining the general existence of LP regions, with landscape components being
important in distinguishing boundaries and supporting probable differences between LP
regions. In those areas where data on lake phosphorus were lacking, landscape associations
were used to estimate probable LP regions. Because several of the factors affecting
phosphorus patterns tend to be similar to those affecting the distribution of ecosystem types,
there is a correspondence between the ecological subregions and LP region boundaries.
3.2.1 Methods
The 280 lakes used to define phosphorus regions represent about 10% of the 2,871
lakes, ponds, and reservoirs listed in DWPC's compilation inventory (Ackerman 1989). The
lake phosphorus data were acquired from three sources: the University of Massachusetts
Water Resources Research Center (UMWRRC), the EPA's Eastern Lake Survey (ELS), and
EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). The data sources,
analytical methods, and quality of data are described in Table 1. Summer total phosphorus
information is often the most desirable data for lake users and managers. Because of our
lack of confidence in the quality of a large summer phosphorus database provided by the
DWPC for Massachusetts, we have relied primarily on spring/fall data. We also examined
and used, however, 19 values of summer phosphorus data from EMAP. Although there are
many sources of variability in sets of phosphorus data (Knowlton et al. 1984; Hanna and
Peters 1991), the precision and comparability of the data that we used appears adequate for
general assessments such as examining regional patterns of phosphorus or broad trophic
categories.
Because phosphorus concentrations are likely to differ seasonally, and the two principal
data sets used in this study were sampled in the spring and fall, we examined the
magnitude of variation between those lakes sampled by both UMWRRC and ELS. A plot of
the UMWRRC spring values versus ELS fall values illustrates that the spring values are
slightly lower (Figure 3). A Wilcoxon signed-ranks test showed that the relationship
between spring and fall values was weakly significant, z = -2.1275, p = .030; n = 20.
Our approach to spatial analysis of the phosphorus values entailed placing each lake
into one of eight incremental classes, from less than 5 pg/1, to greater than 50 pg/1 of total
phosphorus. An appropriate evaluation of seasonal differences, therefore, was to examine
the degree to which lakes shift classes between spring and fall sampling. Although lakes
sampled in spring tend to have lower phosphorus values, 70% of the 20 lakes in the
seasonal comparison stayed within +/- 1 class for the two sampling dates (Table 2). For
lakes with less than 10 ]ig/l total phosphorus, spring values were consistently lower than fall
values. In the more enriched lakes (spring total phosphorus >15 pg/1), seasonal distinction
is less apparent. A valid comparison of summer values to spring or fall values in
18
-------
Massachusetts was not possible due to the low number of acceptable summer data.
Phosphorus values would likely be higher in summer than in spring or fall.
Table 1. Sources, analytical methods, and quality of data used in map compilation of
spring/fall lake total phosphorus regions.
Agency
Collection
Year/Season
ft of
Lakes
Analytical
Method
Quality Control
Quality Assurance
Univ. Mass.*
1993 Spring
163
Persulfate digest-
Ion. colorimetric
phosphomolyb-
date®
Detect ion=5.4ng/i
Precisions.9%
©>7 ngflf
Accuracy=5%
© 44 jag/I
US EPA
National Lake
Survey"
1984 Fall
98
Persulfate digest-
ion.automated
colorimetric phos-
phomolybdateE
Detection=2»ig/l
Predsion=8.6 @
100 ng/f
Accuracy=18.5%
© 27 figfP
US EPA
Environmental
Monitoring and
Assessment
(EMAP)h
1991 Summer
1992 Summer
10
9
Persulfate digest-
ion, automated
colorimetric phos-
phomolybdate*
Oetaction=3n
-------
Figure 3. Spring vs. fall phosphorus values for 20 Massachusetts lakes.
O
O
o
CD
a
o
o
20
60
0
40
80
100
plall Uisn)
Table 2. Shift in total phosphorus classes for spring (S) and fall (F) values collected from
the same lake. When both seasonal values are in the same class, the lowest value
is recorded first.
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CLASS Coll
UtaPomJ Mama <5 5-9 10-H 15-19 20-21 25-29 3CV50 >50
West Lake
S F
Lake Wampanoag
S F
Morse Pood
SF
Long Pond
S F
Spectacle Pond
S F
Rot&ns Pond
S F
White Pood
SF
Round Pood
FS
Pleasant Pond
S F
Greenwood Lake
S F
Daft Brook Pood
S F
Stevens Pond
S F
Sandy Pond
FS
Hoveys Pond
F S
Herring Pond
S F
Dean Park Pond
S F
Santuit Pond
FS
Fresh Meadow P<3
FS
Dicks Pond
F S
Stony Brook Pond
S F
20
-------
J > \
^ ,
'••• - vjy
0 h • J dt« •
Totp (ug/l)
• <5
• 5-9
•10-14
• 15 - 19
• 20 - 24
• 25 - 29
3 30-49
>50
t
0 mi 10
20
20 0 km 20 40
Ab«rs equi treo projection
Figure 4 Total phosphorus of lakes of Massachusetts
-------
Component maps of landscape characteristics and written data were assembled from
various participating Commonwealth agencies and from the EPA ERL-C library. A variety
of information sources and maps .of varying scales were examined during the regionalization
process. A description of the landscape characteristics materials is provided in Section 1.2.
The LP regions were compiled by synthesizing patterns of existing lake phosphorus data
displayed on color-coded phosphorus class lake location maps overlaid upon maps of varying
landscape characteristic information. After LP region boundaries were delineated, frequency
distributions of phosphorus values were computed for each LP region. A median lake
phosphorus value was calculated for each LP region, and in most cases, formed the basis for
the class designation. For some LP regions, such as 59-04, the'median value of sampled
lakes was less than the class designation. In this case, it appeared that the monitored lakes
did not reflect the likely distribution of phosphorus values for all lakes in a sedimentary
valley setting with' urban and agricultural land uses. - Each LP region was coded to a
phosphorus class and assigned the corresponding color shade for mapping.
3.2.2 Results and Regional Descriptions
The regional patterns of spring/fall total phosphorus in Massachusetts lakes are
displayed in Figure 5. Each LP region has been identified by a numeric code based on the
national ecoregion map (Omernik 1987). The first two numbers refer to the ecoregion that
all or most of the mapped LP region occupies. The second set of numbers serves as a
designator of LP regions within the ecoregion. Several LP regions (59-01 and 59-02) have a
third-level designator. In these cases, there are sufficient lake data to warrant regional
delineation; however, due either^ to insufficient distribution of lake samples or lack of
i
distinctive landscape characteristic associations, boundary placement is difficult to determine.
These boundaries are portrayed by dashed lines in Figure 5.
Two . sets of histograms depicting the range of variation in the lake phosphorus values
are shown in Figure 6. Histograms of the monitored or sampled lakes display the
distribution of values from the three data sets listed in Table 1. The "n" in the monitored
histogram represents the number of lakes in the LP region from which data were obtained
and used for analysis. The estimated curve graphs were developed to indicate the probable
distributions of phosphorus values for all lakes in each LP region. The "n" in the estimated
curve is the number of lakes detectable on 1:100,000-scale maps using an automated feature
extraction process (Bondelid et al. 1990). The estimated curves should not be thought of as
an exact depiction of what one would find in each LP region; they are intended to {represent
reasonable approximations of the likely phosphorus distribution'based on sampling data and
landscape characteristics. Although the two distributions for each LP region are often
similar, in some regions where monitored lakes were sparse or where there was confidence
in the apparent associations between landscape characteristics and expected phosphorus
values, the estimated curves can show a different pattern.
The relative importance of landscape characteristics in defining boundaries and
interpreting, the regional phosphorus mosaic varied from region to region. In a general
sense, several landscape characteristic associations -contributed to a similar phosphorus
mosaic regardless of the region. Those LP regions containing mostly enriched lakes (total
phosphorus >20 pg/1) tended to be associated with high percentages of urban or agricultural
22
-------
land use, and were especially apparent when those land uses coincided with substrates of
sandstone or soluble carbonate rock such as Limestone and marble. Low phosphorus regions
typically were associated with areas of low agricultural potential with hilly or low
mountainous topography, mostly forested land cover, acidic bedrock types such as granite,
phylite, and schist, and soils derived from these bedrock types or associated glacial till.
There is some correspondence of phosphorus values and the ecological subregions. Lake
phosphorus values tend to be lowest in the upland subregions of the Northeastern Highlands
ecoregion, highest in the Boston Basin, Connecticut Valley, and Western New England
Marble Valleys subregions, and somewhere in between for the other subregions of the
Northeastern Coastal Zone ecoregion.
In some cases, causal factors for regional lake trophic condition are relatively intuitive;
in other cases, the factors are more obscure. For example, the majority of lakes in the
Boston Basin (LP region 59-03) have spring/fall total phosphorus values in excess of 25 pg/1.
Here the extensive coverage of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses has largely
replaced any influence that regional landscape characteristics might exert on lake
phosphorus concentrations, to such a degree that the expectation of elevated phosphorus
levels in comparison to surrounding LP regions is not too surprising. Similarly, many of the
lakes north and west of Fitchburg in the Worcester/Monadnock Plateau subregion
(approximately the extent of LP region 58-01) have total phosphorus less than 10 jig/1. In
this region, watersheds are less intensely impacted by human activities than lake
watersheds found in the eastern half of the state and they are underlain by base-poor
granitic bedrock. Thus, lower total phosphorus concentrations again would not be too
surprising. Yet in other areas, such as LP region 59-02-b, lakes in close proximity have
widely varying phosphorus concentrations and no consistent aggregation pattern. Moreover,
complex land use patterns, geologic features, and soils in LP region 59-02-b provide us with
very little insight into lake/landscape relationships. This particular LP region becomes
apparent only when viewed in a regional context where the similarity in the mosaic of
phosphorus values in comparison to acjjacent LP regions forms its basis.
Brief descriptions of the LP regions are provided on the following pages. The ecological
subregion descriptions in Section 1 also provide information on characteristics that may be
relevant to the LP regions because of the similarities between the two regional frameworks.
Region 58-01
Lakes in this region comprise two types; natural lakes are mostly found in the mountains,
whereas human-created diversions are typical of the valleys and drainage bottoms. Natural
lakes tend to have low phosphorus values (66% <10 jlgfl), while human-created lakes fall in
the classes ranging from 15 to 50 pg/1. In New Hampshire, where more valley and drainage
bottom lakes are monitored, the bimodal distribution of phosphorus is even more apparent.
Region 58-02
Phosphorus values among monitored lakes are low and invariant (95% <15 jog/1) in region
58-02. Lakes in this region are not as abundant compared to other mountainous areas of
23
-------
J.* ^
0 0 Hi P 20
20 0 km 2D 40
Abers eqjd
-------
58-01
OOr
90 -
so -
k -
58-02
n = (S
CO
90
90
70
60
a so
I <0
Sj 30
*' 20
"T'fRRaS
' ^ i ^ »Snfc s -
total boshrjs (uyt
KNTCRD
n = 266
'T'fSRSia
total (wswHis M
KIWIB
n = 26
rflTw
TOTAL MSKRE (u^/l)
lOfTORED
"T^fssaa
ijA -
TDfAL FWSHSUS (u^l)
ESTNAIH)
58-03
m
90
90
n
60
ta so
I
. ~ 20
-
D
I I I C
-
•T'fsaaa -TTTsasa
total Mfwof, (u^
ES1WIED
n =
i i ' 'ii'
'T*®ssaa
TOTAL TORCH* !u)/J
\mm
00
90
80
JO
60
50
«
»-
20
D
id
. T -r ^ajnw-
"^^ffesS-
TOTAL (WSm»J5 Ml
E5TMME)
59-01o
59 - 0 lb
59-02o
5 9 - 0 2 b
(3 X
s s a
Wa
TOTAL ITOWi M
MCNTCRED
total MHHRjs M
tsiwe
^2$;
tLzn
80
A)
GO
13 50
3 <0
to JO
20
0
TOTAL FHBWR5 (ug/Q
MOHCRD
2U
^T*®SRSP
v-
tot*. pktsphcrjs M
ESTUMW
C0r
901— If = 22
80
70
60
3)
w
to JO
" 20
:^1tuTI
^T^SRSS
TOTAL WJSWJV; (u^l)
kOirORED
CO
90
80
70
60
50
40
to 30
20
n = 425
iT*®saa?
TOTAL W3HHJS (uj/i)
CIMAIED
00
90
80
70
GO
3 »
3 <0
to »h
~ 20
n = <5
00
90
80
70
GO
a »
3 40
to 30
~ 20
'T*5? S^SS
TOTAL WOSHJU; M
MONTlOT
n = 5ft
N-rr-
'T«?ssaa
" ¦
TOTAL WWM (ucyl>
ES1VATE>
59-02c
CO
90
»
X)
60
50
«
S
20
« = 34
£~
'TTfsaas
TOTAL MHHHJ5 |>*9)
UNTO®
*96
5 9 - 0 2 d
TffSUSS
TOTAL TKBHRJS M
ESimrtD
to £
. * 2»
EL
C°r—
90 -
80 -
70 -
n = 242
TOTAL MKFKRJ5 («/)
mm
TUTAL PHEWHJS (u^l)
ESUMTE)
59-03
DO
90
80
-
70
-
60
8 50
_
3 40
-
to 30
-
~ 20
-
D
59-04
n = V
tTH
DO
90
80
70
60
B 50
3 40
to JO
~ 20
n = 257
xrrrfT
'TfTssaa '"Tffssias
^ ^ ^ jfe s6 si? ~
TOTAL IWJHRJS M
MOMTOdD
TOTAL M3HHJS (u^
ESTWAB
DO
r
DO
90
= 9
90
-
80
-
80
70
-
?0
-
60
-
60
-
50
-
a 50
-
40
-
I <0
-
D
¦ n
to J)
-
20
-J
- 20
-
D
"lii
, r
1 °
•" T f
®sssa
¦J-l
V jij
TOTAL W3HHJS fa/)
T(
kOMTOKED
i = 179
^ttTf
t«®s»aa
eswiw
Figure 6 Histograms for Spring/fall lake phosphorus regions
-------
the northeastern United States, such as the Adirondacks. The hydrology and morphology of
lakes in the region is diverse, with a wide range of lake areas and depths. Reservoirs and
weir enhancements for ponds are common. Parent material and glacial till are composed of
acidic rQck types that are associated with low phosphorus concentrations.
Region 58-03
Relatively high total phosphorus values (56% of monitored lakes > 20 fig/1) are found in this
LP region,' which approximates the extent of the Western New England Marble Valleys.
Although there are few monitored lakes in this region, the agricultural and urban/built-up
character coupled with soluble carbonate bedrock contribute to the expectation that most
lakes would have elevated phosphorus concentrations.
Region 58-04
There are no monitored lakes in the Massachusetts section of the Taconic Mountains;
however, lakes monitored in Vermont and New York are characterized by consistently low
phosphorus values. There are few lakes in the Massachusetts part of the Taconics, and they
tend, to be small. Areas of exposed residual bedrock consisting of phylite and schist and
thin, infertile soils are likely to maintain low lake phosphorus concentrations.
Region 59-01-a
Region 59-01-a is notable for its consistently low total phosphorus (73% of all 'monitored
lakes have phosphorus concentrations less than 10 jig/1), in comparison to the southern half
of Cape Cod. This LP region is principally delimited by the southern extent of glacial ice
lobes during the Wisconsin stage. Cape Cod lakes are often round and deep, characteristic
of kettle hole ponds formed when'chunks of ice melted in the outwash plain deposits. There
are relatively few lakes on the moraine deposits.
Region 59-01-b
Phosphorus concentrations are higher in this more densely populated LP region than for the
rest of Cape Cod, with the median value falling in the 15-19 pg/1 range. The: moderate
phosphorus values reflect the more extensive urban and built-up land uses on this nearly
level glacial outwash surface. The density of lakes is fairly high.
Region 59-02-a
This LP region, corresponding closely to the extent of the Narragansett/Bristol; Lowlands
subregion, is characterized by numerous wetlands, bogs, and flat to rolling plains.
Phosphorus distribution among the monitored lakes ranges, widely. Sources of high
phosphorus include commercial cranberry farms associated with the wetlands, and the
urbanized margin along Narragansett Bay.
26
-------
Region 59-02-b
Region 59-02-b is an extensive region with widely variant phosphorus concentrations within
its lakes. Phosphorus values reflect landscape and land use patterns/lake type relationships
as found in region 58-01. Region 59-02-b has a fairly high lake density. Natural lakes are
glacial in origin and typically are low in phosphorus if they do not have significant lake
shore development, especially lakes east of Oxford. Although regions 59-02-b and 59-02-c
share similar phosphorus distributions, 59-02-b is notable for its greater percentage of lakes
<10 ng/1.
Region 59-02-c
Region 59-02-c also covers an extensive area with widely ranging lake phosphorus values;
the median value is between 15 and 19 pg/1. The moderate to high phosphorus reflects the
rural residential influence of metropolitan Boston in the eastern half of this LP region and
the agricultural influence found in the Barre plains area to the west.
Region 59-02-d
Phosphorus values appear lower and less variant than in the other LP regions corresponding
to the Southern New England Coastal Plains and Hills subregion, despite many shared
landscape characteristics. Lake density is low on the coastal plains, and most lakes are
small and shallow. Lake density increases somewhat west of Lowell although morphometric
characteristics are similar.
Region 59-03
Phosphorus concentrations are typically high to very high in this region. The ponds, lakes,
and reservoirs of the greater Boston area are heavily impacted by urban and industrial
sources. Storm water routing may also affect their quality.
Region 59-04
Elevated phosphorus values are characteristic of the Connecticut River Valley due to
agriculture and fairly high population density. Natural lakes are not abundant in this
alluvial valley compared to other LP regions of Massachusetts. The low phosphorous lakes
tend to be located near the valley margins or basaltic ridges, with watersheds containing
landscape conditions of the adjacent upland LP regions.
The Massachusetts LP regions framework presented in Figure 5 is similar to an effort
to map and describe lake phosphorus regions for the northeastern United States (Kiilsgaard
et al. 1993). Comparisons between these two lake regionalization schemes for Massachusetts
reveal differences in the central tendency of the range of phosphorus concentrations within
most LP regions. This is probably due to the seasonal differences in the data. Regional
boundaries also differ between the two schemes, especially in the eastern half of the state.
27
-------
One cause for these differences, is the relatively abundant spring/fall data used for the
Massachusetts regionalization scheme, compared to sparse Massachusetts summer data used
for the northeastern lake phosphorus regions - project. Extrapolation of data from
neighboring states was required for the Massachusetts part of the northeastern map
(Kiilsgaard et al 1993). In those areas where there was a strong association between
expected lake phosphorus concentration and supporting landscape characteristics, such as the
Connecticut Valley area; the' confidence with which the regions were, defined was high. In
those areas where lake/landscape relationships were not particularly strong, or where
neighboring state data were extrapolated further into the state, confidence in the delineation
diminished markedly.
3.3 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS OF STREAMS
An examination and mapping of nutrient data'for streams that are not affected by point
sources of pollution can help illustrate general regional patterns in nutrient loadings from
nonpoint sources; These nonpoint inputs include both natural and anthropogenic sources.
At a national scale, good correlations were found, between general land use and nutrient
concentrations in streams/ with a positive correlation between percent of agriculture plus
urban land use of a watershed and stream phosphorus concentrations (Omernik 1977). We
explored the availability and quality of data to determine the feasibility of a more in-depth
study of stream phosphorus patterns in Massachusetts. We-analyzed sample station, maps
and. station descriptions in the river basin survey- reports supplied by the Massachusetts
DWPC to . find sites with phosphorus values that were not. affected by cities, wastewater
treatment plants, factories, reservoirs etc. Generally, we searched for smaller, less disturbed
tributary sites rather than mainstem sites of a large watershed. We used 1:100,000-scale
and 1:250,000-scale maps to pinpoint the site .location and identify possible point or nonpoint
sources of pollution. Basin, maps in the - Massachusetts River Systems. Atlas (Bickford and
Dymon 1990) were also checked for NPDES sites (National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System permit, sites), although their NPDES site data were incomplete. Sites downstream
from these point sources, cities, or obvious mqjor impacts were eliminated from consideration
for mapping. Stream phosphorus data values were averaged and multiplied by 1000 to
convert from milligrams per liter (mg/1) to micrograms per liter (jig/1). Most of the stream
phosphorus samples were collected in summer months.
Color-coded dots were plotted for approximately 229 sites on the 1:250,000-scale mylar
overlays. Next to the color-coded dot, we wrote the actual phosphorus value, with one code
for sites with only one phosphorus sample and another code if the value was averaged from
two samples. No code was used if the value was averaged from three or more samples. We
also plotted the range Gow and high value) and the station number of each site. Because
latitude/longitude data were not included in the reports, the sites were digitized from the
1:250,000-scale overlays.
Figure 7 illustrates the patterns of stream phosphorus values in Massachusetts. Note
that the classification for stream phosphorus values is different than the one used for lakes
in Figures 4 and 5, as many of the streams had phosphorus concentrations >50 jig/1. We
have also divided the data set as pre- or post-1980 to help assess any differences in the
28
-------
distribution or values Ln earlier data from more recent data. Similar to lake phosphorus, it
appears that the eastern part of the Commonwealth tends to have higher concentrations of
stream phosphorus. Considering the higher population density in the eastern area, this
finding is not surprising. The cluster of low phosphorus values in the Quabbin and Ware
watersheds in central Massachusetts might also be expected; however, these data could also
appear lower than other areas due to differences in laboratory methodology. These values
were generally in the 10-20 p.g/1 range, and were the most recent stream data used for our
assessment. These data were from samples collected in 1989 and 1990 by the Metropolitan
District Commission (Patricia Austin, Metropolitan District Commission, personal
communication).
The most obvious data gap is in the southeast part of Massachusetts including Cape
Cod. Many of the stream sites with phosphorus data in this area were affected by tidal
influences, were outlets from lakes, or appeared to have potentially undesirable human
impacts. The lack of plotted data in southeast Massachusetts is due primarily to our
screening criteria. A reexamination of the stream phosphorus data base for this area is
needed.
We have many concerns about the stream phosphorus data mapped in Figure 6. For
example, we have little information on laboratory quality control or detection limits of the
data. The poor detection limits for much of the DWPC lake phosphorus data is a concern
we have as well for the stream data. After this initial assessment of stream phosphorus
data, we have concluded that for this collection of values, there are insufficient data, and too
many uncertainties about the data quality and its comparability, to determine regional
patterns or nutrient loadings from nonpoint sources.
29
-------
10 0 mi 10 20
20 0 km 20 40
Abes «jld areo projection
Figure 7 Total phosphorus of streams of Massachusetts
-------
SECTION 4
TOTAL ALKALINITY OF SURFACE WATERS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Maps of surface water alkalinity were an important element in the National Acid
Precipitation Assessment Program's aquatic effects research for assessing the sensitivity of
lakes and streams to acidification. • A "first cut" national map of alkalinity was produced in
1982 based on data from approximately 2500 lakes and streams (Omernik and-Powers 1983).
More detailed regional alkalinity maps (Omernik and Kinney 1985; Omernik and Griffith
1985, 1986) provided better illustrations of the patterns in low alkalinity areas and
delineated geographic areas for more detailed'studies. The sampling design of the EPA's
National Surface Water Survey (NSWSj was based on these regional maps, and the map
classes proved to be an effective stratification factor (Linthurst et aL 1986; Landers et al.
1987). Based on EPA's NSWS. and additional data, a further revision of the regional
alkalinity maps was completed in .1988 using-larger-scale'compilation techniques. A new
national map was produced based on alkalinity values from approximately 39,000 lake and
stream sites (Omernik et al. 1988a).
Total alkalinity is often defined as the titratable base of a water sample consisting of
carbonate, bicarbonate, and hydroxide ions; that is, its measured value, is the equivalents of
acid required to neutralize the basic carbonate components. Total alkalinity is1 the most
readily available measure of the acid-neutralizing capacity of a lake or stream. In most
surface waters, alkalinity is mainly a function of the carbonate-bicarbonate system; however,
in low alkalinity waters, other basic species such as . dissociated organic acids, borates, and
alumino-hydroxy complexes also, contribute to' acid-neutralizing capacity. In addition,
alkalinity is only a static measure of a dynamic process where acid-neutralizing capacity is
generated within a watershed or water body by geochemical weathering and j biological
productivity. Thus,, an alkalinity valiie may not adequately reflect the long-term! ability to
assimilate acids. Although no single measiire of a water body can express its true
sensitivity to acidification (Sullivan et aL 1989; Heinond 1990), alkalinity values do provide a
reasonable basis for determining spatial patterns of relative sensitivity. Therefore, the low
alkalinity areas displayed on Figure 8 indicate where sensitive surface waters are most
likely to be found.
4.2 METHODS
The alkalinity map of Massachusetts (Figure 8) is extracted from the northeastern
regional alkalinity map (Griffith and Omernik 1988). The methods used to prepare the
northeastern region map were based on those developed by Omernik and'Powers (1983) and
refined in the compilation of the various regional alkalinity maps. The mqjor differences in
methodology for the northeastern map were the larger-scale maps on which the data were
plotted (1:250,000-scale topographic maps), availability of a geographic information system to
plot some of the more recent data on .overlays, use of a correction factor for alkalinity values
determined by methods other than Gran titration or potentiometric titration for low
alkalinity (double endpoint), and the use of some larger-scale maps of factors such as
geology, soils, and land use to help in the delineation of alkalinity patterns. We acquired
31
-------
alkalinity data from a variety of sources and used values for nearly 8000 sites in the map
compilation for the northeast. Data from approximately 2,563 sites in Massachusetts were
used for compilation of the 1988 map. These data were primarily from the Massachusetts
Acid Rain Monitoring Project (Paul Godfrey, UMWRRC, personal communication; Layzer et
al. 1988; Ruby et al. 1988) and the EPA Eastern Lake Survey (Linthurst et al. 1986), plus
eight other sites gathered from STORET and from Hemond and Eshleman (1984). This data
set was also compared to approximately 90 Massachusetts alkalinity values, such as from
Haines and Akeilaszek (1983) and other data cooperators, that were used to compile the
Omemik and Kinney (1985) map.
Because the alkalinity data were acquired from many sources, there were some
differences in their analytical methodologies. The most accurate methods of analysis for
alkalinity, Gran titration and potentiometric titration for low alkalinities (double endpoint),
were used for 99.8% of the data in Massachusetts. Only 5 of the 2,563 alkalinity values
were determined by single endpoint potentiometric titration, which is less precise and tends
to overestimate alkalinity (Henriksen 1982; Kramer and Tessier 1982; Church 1984; Kramer
1986). For these single endpoint data, we adjusted the values in an attempt to compensate
for the probable bias and overestimation. To acjjust the data, we used a nomograph
developed by Church (Robbins Church, U.S. EPA ERL-C, personal communication) based on
the work of Henriksen (1982). Using this graph, we were able to obtain corrected alkalinity
values since the original fixed endpoint alkalinity values and the titration pH endpoints
were known for the 5 measurements.
From a list of preliminary data collected in July 1992 for the Acid Rain Monitoring
Project by UMWRRC, we randomly selected 60 of 601 alkalinity values and we compared
these visually to the previously plotted data from the 1988 map to determine if revisions
were necessary. With few exceptions, these new values were similar to the earlier data or
fell within the designated classes on the 1988 alkalinity map. We decided that the time and
effort required to plot all 601 values would result in only minor changes to the map, and
was not warranted.
4.3 RESULTS
The alkalinity map of Massachusetts (Figure 8) provides a synoptic illustration of the
patterns of surface water alkalinity. In many of the areas represented by a specific
alkalinity class, an even greater range of values was observed in the water quality data.
The shading on the map indicates the range of alkalinity within which the mean annual
values of most of the surface waters of the area fall.
In Massachusetts, the spatial distribution of surface water alkalinity values is complex,
although there are some regional patterns. Comparing Figures 1 and 8, one can see
relatively homogeneous alkalinity values in some of the subregions. The largest area of low
alkalinity surface waters occurs in the Worcester/Monadnock Plateau subregion. Extensive
areas with average annual alkalinity values less than 50 peq/l occur here, with lower or
negative values occuring seasonally. The other large areas of surface water alkalinity less
than 50 peq/1 are found in the Narragansett/Bristol Lowland and Cape Cod subregions.
Areas of high alkalinity (>400 peq/1) have a close correspondence to the Western New
England Marble Valleys, Vermont Piedmont, Connecticut Valley and Boston Basin
32
-------
TOTAL ALKALINITY (ueg/l)
p o ni 10 20
20 0 km 2D 40
Abers epi creo projection
Figure 8. Total alkalinity of surface waters of Massachusetts
-------
subregions. There exists also a small area of high alkalinity within the Nashua River basin
centered near its confluence with the Squannacook River.
Similar to the northeast region as a whole, the low alkalinity waters are associated
generally with resistant, "hard rocks" in highland areas, whereas.high alkalinity areas tend
to be found in the limestone, shale, and valley-related complexes. However, one can also
find granitic rocks at low elevations, such as on Cape Ann or more extensively in Maine, or
sand and gravel materials with,, low surface water alkalinity such as on Gape Cod.
Generalizations on a regional basis can' be useful, but locally they may not apply. The
correlation, or lack of correlation, of mapped factors such as geology or soils with surface
water alkalinity is often influenced >by the spatial scale of the analysis. Although a'.regional
approach is not always accurate for - predicting acid-sensitivity of an individual lake or
stream, a watershed by watershed assessment, as suggested by David (1986), is not always
feasible or affordable. Mattson et al. (1992) demonstrated that regional analysis is a simple,
flexible, and powerful classification system, and can. explain the variance in {the acid-
neutralizing capacity of lakes in Massachusetts better than a six-variable general linear
modeL The distributions in inorganic lake chemistry described by Mattson et aL (1992) are
in agreement with the general spatial patterns shown by our alkalinity map. Regional
frameworks' of acid-sensitive aquatic areas-have proven to be useful in assessing critical
loads of sulfate deposition and in.. other lake acidification studies (Holdren et' al. 1993;
Griffith and Omernik 1990).
Our alkalinity map is similar to the sensitivity map shown by Walk et al. (1992), in
terms of the general patterns. The differences in the two maps, however, illustrate the
problem < of extrapolating environmental- data to political' unit boundaries • such as towns.
Such units do not correspond to patterns of soils, landforms, land use, or vegetation that
control or reflect spatial variations in surface water sensitivity (Omernik and Griffith 1991).
The'alkalinity map shown in Figure'8 has been given to DEP in digital format. The
map can be updated or revised after additional data are analyzed and converted to GIS
coverages.
34
-------
SECTION 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The general ecoregion/subregion framowork developed for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts is a useful framework for environmental resource assessment and
management. It is a formalization of some commonly recognized regions in Massachusetts
and has similarities to other frameworks of the area. Regions are mental constructs (no
matter which methods or tools are used), with boundaries defined with certain purposes in
mind. The interest in such a framework should be in its potential usefulness, rather than
the absolute truth of boundary line placement on the ground, or the correspondence of any
one ecological component. We believe that the maps and frameworks included in this report,
along with the selection of reference sites, can provide a better understanding of the spatial
variations of water resource quality and chemistry in Massachusetts, and build a foundation
for assessing attainable conditions. Modifications of the framework might be warranted,
however, as more information and understanding is gained. Coastal areas might need
separation, the three Berkshire subregions (58c, 58d, 58e) could be lumped, or the southern
extent of the Worcester/Monadnock Plateau (58g) could be revised. Our intent was to
consider the New England area as a whole, however, and to make the framework compatible
with existing or potential ecoregion frameworks in surrounding states. We encourage the
DEP and other Commonwealth agencies to consider the analysis of compatible data from
these neighboring states that share ecological regions to help clarify regional conditions and
characteristics.
The hypothesis that a regional framework and sets of regional reference sites can give
managers and scientists a better understanding of the spatial variations in the chemical,
physical, and biological components of water bodies in Massachusetts is intuitive but must
be tested. Significant time and effort will be required for the collection and creative
analysis of data to develop biological criteria and lake phosphorus standards, or to more
fully understand attainable water conditions. The proposed pilot project in three subregions
by the DEP in cooperation with the USGS will be an important start. The process of
selecting regional reference sites requires considerable time, conscientious map analysis, and
thorough field reconnaissance. Candidate stream sites could also be evaluated based on
habitat conditions, resident fish species diversity and presence of indicator fish species
(Halliwell 1989). Consideration of sampling methods is important for data comparison
among agencies, across political boundaries, and through time. Part of the challenge will be
to analyze and integrate the data in meaningful ways, with the desirable longer-term goal of
developing potential indexes of ecological integrity.
While the ecoregion framework and certain specific-purpose maps may be useful for
developing stream biocriteria, other potential uses include lake classification and
development of eutrophication criteria; development of nonpoint-source pollution management
goals; a framework for reporting on status or attainment of water use goals; or to assist
programs addressing wetland classification and management. It has also been suggested
that identifying management areas for biological diversity requires an analysis of the
distribution of biodiversity from the perspective of ecoregions rather than political units
(Scott et al. 1993).
The president of the North American Lake Management Society has recently suggested
35
-------
that a regional approach is needed in the development of lake quality standards with respect
to eutrophication:
"Standards should be specific to regions, subregions, and if warranted, even
individual lakes. Because of bedrock character and soil type, some areas are
naturally richer in nutrients than others. Therefore, standards should be
based on attainable quality for that region, or subunit. That approach is
consistent with the ecoregion concept and would assist the difficult task, of
allocating the always limited funds for remediation." (Welch 1993).
Recognition of lake regions provides a first step in partitioning variation and estimating the
range of quality in lakes in a given area. The lake phosphorus framework places a lake in
a context where attainable quality can be defined by all lakes in a region: that are
influenced by the same general combination of landscape characteristics and factors that
cause chemical, physical, and biological variations. Wisconsin has used the lake phosphorus
regions of Omernik et al. (1988b) to refine regional modelling and predictive equations.
Equations representing the association among trophic state index parameters were developed
for specific regions and for specific lake types to predict responses in water 'clarity or
chlorophyll-a concentration to changes in total phosphorus concentrations (Lillie et, aL 1993).
Other states have found the national level ecoregions (Omernik 1987) to be useful for lake
classification. . Minnesota ecoregions were used as a component in a program to estimate
lake conditions and identify "problem" lakes (Wilson and Walker 1989). Ecoregions have
been used in Ohio to estimate attainable reservoir phosphorus concentrations ; and help
prioritize reservoir restoration efforts (Fuliner and Cooke 1990).
Although Massachusetts does not appear to have the distinct natural regional
phosphorus differences that are found in states such as Minnesota or Wisconsin, a regional
assessment is still a valuable process that can increase our understanding of the phosphorus
patterns. The lake phosphorus region map should be considered as a start in this process,
but it will need improvements and refinements with additional data. It is important that
the DWPC find a way to rebuild a database of validated summertime lake phosphorus
values. After such data are obtained, more extensive analysis of the variability within lake
regions will be useful. The similarities between the ecological subregion map, lake
phosphorus region map, and alkalinity map should encourage the use now, however, of a
regional perspective for water quality management.
Improving the quality of aquatic ecosystems in Massachusetts will require the
cooperation and coordination of federal, state, and local interests. It is our hope that a
consistent hierarchical ecoregion framework will help improve communication and
assessment within and among different agencies. Although pollution of water bodies,
fragmentation or loss of habitat, and degradation of landscapes have many causes, regional
assessment tools can be valuable to both resourced managers and researchers for stratifying
natural variability and addressing the nature of these problems.
36
-------
37
-------
REFERENCES
Ackerman, M.T. 1989. Compilation of lakes, ponds, reservoirs and impoundments relative to
the Massachusetts clean lakes program. Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control,
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering: Westborough, MA. 158p.
American Public Health Association. 1985. Standard methods for the examination of water
and wastewater, 16th ed. American Public Health Association, Inc., New York. 1193p.
Anderson, J.R. 1970. Mag or land uses. Map scale 1:7,500,000. In:. The'national atlas of the
United States of America. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. pp. 158-159.
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology. 1988. Regulation establishing water
quality standards for surface waters of the State of Arkansas: Little Rock, AR. 77p.
Bailey, R.G. 1976. Ecoregions of the United States. (Map). U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Ogden, UT.
Bailey, R.G., S.C.Zoltai, and E.B; Wiken. 1985. Ecological regionalization in Canada and the
United States. Geoforum 16(3):265-275.
Baldwin, J.L. 1973. Climates of the United States. U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 113p.
Barnes C.P. and F.J. Marschner. 1933. Natural land-use areas of the United States. Map
scale 1:4,000,000. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics.
Bazata, K. 1991. Nebraska stream classification study. Water Quality Division, [Nebraska
Department of Environmental Control, Lincoln, NE. 342p.
Beaumont, A. B. 1954. The soils of Massachusetts. Special Circular No. 64. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, and County. Extension Services. 32p.
Best, M.D., L.W. Creelman, S.K. Drouse, and D.J. Chaloud. 1987. National surface water
survey, eastern lake survey-phase I, quality assurance report. EPA-600/4-86-011. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, Nevada. 180p.
Bickford, W.E. and U.J. Dymon (eds.). 1990. An atlas of Massachusetts • river' systems:
environmental designs for the future. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst. 87p.
Biggs, B.J.F., M.J. Duncan, I.G. Jowett, J.M. Quinn, C.W. Hickey, RJ. Davies-Colley, and
M.E. Close. 1990. Ecological characterization, classification, and modelling of New Zealand
livers: ah introduction and synthesis. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater
Research 24:277-304.
Bondelid, T.R., SA Hanson, and P.L. Talyor. 1990. Technical description of the reach file
report. U;S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.
Braun, E.L. 1950. Deciduous forests of eastern North America. The Blakiston Co.,
Philadelphia, PA. 596p.
Bromley, S.W. 1935. The original forest types of southern New England. Ecological
Monographs 5(l):61-89.
Brownlow, A.H. (ed.). 1979. Cape Cod environmental atlas. Boston University, Boston, MA
62p.
38
-------
Cherry, L. 1992. A river ran wild: an environmental history. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
New York. 28p.
Church, M.R. 1984. Analysis of trends based on historic measurements of surface water
quality. In: The acidic deposition phenomenon and its effects: Critical assessment review
papers, Volume II. Effects Sciences, Chapter 4 ~ Effects on Aquatic Chemistry. EPA-600/8-
83-016BF.
Ciolkosz, E.J., W.J. Waltman, T.W. Simpson, and R.R. Dobos. 1989. Distribution and genesis
of soils in the northeastern United States. Geomorphology 2:285-302.
Cronon, W. 1983. Changes in the land: Indians, colonists, and the ecology of New England.
Hill and Wang, New York. 241p.
Day, G.M. 1953. The Indian as an ecological factor in the northeastern forest. Ecology
34(2):329-346.
David, M.B. 1986. Chemistry differences in two streams entering an acidic lake in the
Adirondack Mountains, New York. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 29(1986):415-426.
Denevan, W.M. 1992. The pristine myth: the landscape of the Americas in 1492. Annals of
the Association of American Geographers 82(3):369-385.
Denny, C.S. 1982. Geomorphology of New England. U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 1208. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 18p.
Dowhan, J.J. and R.J. Craig. 1976. Rare and endangered species of Connecticut and their
habitats. Report of Investigations No. 6. Connecticut Geological and Natural History Survey,
Department of Environmental Protection.
Egler, F.E. 1940. Berkshire plateau vegetation, Massachusetts. Ecological Monographs
10:145-192.
Emerson, B.K. 1917. Geology of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. U.S. Geological Survey
Bulletin 597.
Environment Canada. 1989. Canada committee on ecological land classification: achievements
(1976-1989) and long term plan. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Canada. 6p.
Fenneman, N.M. 1938. Physiography of eastern United States. McGraw-Hill, New York.
714p.
Fulmer, D.G. and G.D. Cooke. 1990. Evaluating the restoration potential of 19 Ohio
reservoirs. Lake and Reservoir Management 6(2):197-206.
Gallant, A.L., T.R. Whittier, D.P. Larsen, J.M. Omernik, and R.M. Hughes. 1989.
Regionalization as a tool for managing environmental resources. EPA/600/3-89/060. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon. 152p.
Griffith, G.E. and J.M. Omernik. 1988. Total alkalinity of surface waters: northeastern
region. Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
(Map).
Griffith, G.E. and J.M. Omernik. 1990. Mapping and regionalizing acid-sensitive surface
waters of the United States. (Abstract). International Conference on Acidic Deposition: Its
Nature and Impacts. Royal Society of Edinburgh. Edinburgh, Scotland, p.447.
39
-------
Haines, T.A., and J.J. Akielaszek. 1983. A regional survey of chemistry of headwater lakes
and streams in New England: vulnerability to acidification., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Eastern Energy and Land Use Team, FWS/OBS-80/40.15, 141p!
Halliwell, D.B. 1989. A classification of streams in Massachusetts. Ph.D. Dissertation.
University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 234p.
Halliwell, D:B., W.A. Kimball, and A.J. Screpetis. 1982. Massachusetts stream classification
program. Part; I- Inventory of rivers and breams. Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and
Recreational Vehicles and Department of Environmental Quality Engineering. Westborough,
MA. 126p.
Hammond, E.H. 1970. Classes of land-surface form. Map scale 1:7,500,000. In: The national
atlas of the United States of America. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. pp.62-63.
Hanna, M. . and R.H. Peters; 1991. Effect of sampling protocol on estimates . of phosphorus
and chlorophyll concentrations in lakes of low to moderate trophic status. Canadian Journal
of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48:1979-1986.
Hawley, R.C. and A.F. Hawes. 1912. Forestry in New England. John Wiley & Sons. New
York. 479p. + maps.
Heeley, R.W. 1972. Surficial geologic map of Massachusetts. Map scale 1:500,000. University
of Massachusetts.
Heeley, RW. 1973. Hydrogeology of wetlands in Massachusetts. M.S. Thesis. Department of
Geology. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 129p.
Heiskary, S.A. and C.B: Wilson. 1989. The regional nature of lake water quality across
Minnesota: an analysis for improving resource management. Journal of the Minnesota
Academy, of Sciences 55(l):71-77.
Hemond, H.F. 1990. Acid neutralizing capacity, alkalinity, and acid-base status of natural
waters containing organic acids. Environmental Science and Technology 24(10):14867l489.
Hemond, H.F. and KN. Eshleman. 1984. Neutralization of acid deposition by nitrate
retention at Bickford watershed, Massachusetts. Water Resources Research 20(11):1718-1724.
Henriksen, A. 1982. Alkalinity and acid precipitation research. Vatten 38:83-85.
Holdren, G.R., Jr., T.C. Strickland, B. Rosenbaum, R.S.-Turner, P.F. Ryan, M.K. McDowell,
G.D. Bishop, G.E. Griffith, K Smythe, And P.L. Ringold. 1993. Comparison of selected
critical loads estimation approaches for assessing the effects , of sulfate deposition on lakes .in
the northeastern United States. EPA/600/R-93/074. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Corvallis, OR 128p.
Hughes, RM. 1989. Ecoregional biological criteria. In: Proceedings of an EPA Conference,
Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century, Dallas, TX, March 1989. pp. 147-151
Hughes, RM. In Press. Defining acceptable condition. In: Biological Assessment and Criteria:
Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making; T.P. Simon and W. Davis (eds.).
Lewis Publishing, Chelsea, MI.
Hughes, R.M., D.P. Larsen, and J.M. Omeraik. 1986. Regional reference sites: a method for
assessing stream potentials. Environmental-Management 10(5): 629-635.
40
-------
Hughes, R.M., E. Rexstad, and C.E. Bond. 1987. The relationship of aquatic ecoregions, river
basins, and physiographic provinces to the ichthyogeographic regions of Oregon. Copeia
1987(2):423-432.
Hughes, R.M., T.R. Whittier, C.M. Rohm, and D.P. Larsen. 1990. A regional framework for
establishing recovery criteria. Environmental Management 14(5):673-683.
Hughes, R.M., and 15 coauthors. 1993. Development of lake condition indicators for EMAP-
1991 pilot. In: EMAP-Surface Waters 1991 Pilot Report. D.P. Larsen and S.J. Christie (eds.).
EPA/620/R-93/003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. pp.7-90.
Hughes, R.M., S.A. Heiskary, W.J. Matthews, and C.O. Yoder. 1994. Use of ecoregions in
biological monitoring. In: Biological Monitoring of Aquatic Systems. S.L. Loeb and A. Spacie
(eds.). Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. pp.125-151.
Hunt, C.B. 1979. Surficial geology. Map scale 1:7,500,000. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston,
VA.
James, P.E. 1929. The Blackstone valley: a study in chorography in southern New England.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers 19(2):67-109.
Jorgensen, N. 1977. A guide to New England's landscape. Globe Pequot Press, Chester, CT.
256p.
Kanciruk, P., J.M. Eilers, R.A. McCord, D.H.Landers, D.F. Braake, and R.A. Linthurst. 1986.
Characteristics of lakes in the eastern United States, vol. III. Data compendium of site
characteristics and chemical variables. EPA/600/4-86/007a, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. 439p.
Kiilsgaard, C.W., J.M. Omernik, and C.M. Rohm. 1993. Regional patterns of lake total
phosphorus in the northeastern United States. North American Lake Management Society,
13th International Symposium, November 29-December 4, Seattle, WA.
King, P.B., and H.M. Biekman. 1974. Geologic map of the United States. Map scale
1:2,500,000. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
Kingsley, N.P. 1974. The timber resources of southern New England. USDA Forest Service
Resource Bulletin NE-36. Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Upper Darby, PA. 50p. +
map.
Knowlton, M.F., M.V. Hoyer, and J.R. Jones. 1984. Sources of variability in phosphorus and
chlorophyll and their effects on use of lake survey data. Water Resources Bulletin 20(3):397-
407.
Kramer, J.R. 1986. Reevaluation of trends in surface water alkalinity in New York and New
Hampshire. McMaster University, Department of Geology. Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 34p. +
appendices.
Kramer, J., and A. Tessier. 1982. Acidification of aquatic systems: a critique of chemical
approaches. Environmental Science and Technology 16(11):606A-615A.
Kuchler, A.W. 1964. Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States. Map
scale 1:3,168,000. American Geographical Society, Special Publication No. 36.
Kuchler, A.W. 1970. Potential natural vegetation. Scale 1:7,500,000. In: The National Atlas
of the United States of America. U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, D.C. pp.89-91.
41
-------
Landers, D.H., J.M. Eilers, D.F. Brakke, W.S. Overton, P.E. Kellar, M.E. Silverstein, R.D.
Schonbrod, RE. Crowe, R.A. Linthurst, J.M. Omernik, S.A. Teague, and E.P. Meier. 1987.
Characteristics of lakes in the western United States. Volume I. Population descriptions and
physico-chemical relationships. EPA/600/3-86/054a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, D.C...176p.
Larsen, D.P. and S.J. Christie (eds.). 1993. EMAP-Surface Waters 1991 Pilot Report.
EPA/620/R-93/003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 201p.
Larsen,1 D.P., R.M. Hughes, J.M. Omernik, D.R Dudley, C.M. Rohm, T.R. Whittier, A.J.
Konney, and .A.L. Gallant. 1986. The correspondence between spatial patterns in fish-
assemblages ¦ in Ohio streams and aquatic' ecoregions. Environmental Management 10:815-
828.
Larson, G.J. 1982. Nonsynchronous retreat' of ice lobes from southeastern Massachusetts. In:
Late - Wisconsinan Gladation of New England. G.J Larson and B.D. Stone (eds.).
Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, LA. pp.101-114.
Larson, J.S. 1973. Freshwater wetlainds of'Massachusetts: Scale 1:500,000. In: A1 guide to
important characteristics and values of fireshwater wetlands in the northeast. J.S. Larson
(ed). Publication No. 31. Water Resources Research Center. University of Massachusetts,
Amherst. 35p.
Layzer, N., M. Walk, P.J. Godfrey. 1988. A listing of the sensitivity of all surface waters
Sampled by the acid riain monitoring project. Water Resources Research Center Publication
157. Amherst, MA; 107p.
Leak, W.B. 1982. Habitat mapping and interpretation in New England. Research Paper NE-
496. Northeastern' Forest Experiment Station. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service. Broomall, PA. 28p.
Lillie, RA., S. Graham, and P. Rasmussen. 1993. Trophic state index equations and regional
predictive equations for Wisconsin lakes. Research Management Findings, No. 35. Bureau of
Research, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Madison, WI. 4p.
Linthurst, RA./D.H. Landers, J.M. Eilers, D.F. Brakke, W.S. Overton, E.P. Meier,j and R.E.
Crowe. 1986. Characteristics of lakes in the eastern United States. Volume I. Population
descriptions and physico-chemical relationships. EPA/600/4-86/007a. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. 136p.
Loveland, T.R, J.W. Merchant, D.O. Ohlen, J.F. Brown. 1991. Development of a land-cover
characteristics database for the conterminous U.S. Photogrammetric Engineering and
Remote' Sensing 57(11):1453-1463.
Lull, H.W. 1968. A forest atlas of the northeast.' Northeastern Forest Experiment Station.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Upper Darby, PA. 46p.
Lyons, J. 1989; Correspondence between the distributions of fish assemblages in Wisconsin
streams and Omernik's ecoregions. American Midland Naturalist 122(1):163-182.
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. 1990. Natural community fact sheet,
wetlands of ^Massachusetts: calcareous fens. Natural Heritage' and Endangered Species
Program. Boston. 2p.
Mattson, M.D., P.J. Godfrey, M.F. Walk, and O.T. Zajicek: 1992. Regional chemistry of lakes
in Massachusetts. Water Resources Bulletin 28(6):1045-1056.
42
-------
Meeks, H.A. 1975. The geographic regions of Vermont: a study in maps. Geography
Publications at Dartmouth, No. 10. 182p.
Motts, W.S. and A.L. O'Brien. 1981. Geology and hydrology of wetlands in Massachusetts.
Publication No. 123, Special Report. Water Resources Research Center, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst. 147p.
Ohio EPA 1988. Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life. Volume 1. The role of
biological data in water quality assessment. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
Columbus, OH. 44p.
Omernik, J.M. 1977. Nonpoint source - stream nutrient level relationships: a nationwide
study. EPA-600/3-77-105. Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Corvallis, OR. 151p.
Omernik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 77(1):118-125.
Omernik, J.M. In press. Ecoregions: a spatial framework for environmental management. In:
Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making.
T.P. Simon and W. Davis (eds.). Lewis Publishing, Chelsea, MI.
Omernik, J.M. and A.L. Gallant. 1990. Defining regions for evaluating environmental
resources. In: Global Natural Resource Monitoring and Assessments. Proceedings of the
International Conference and Workshop, Venice, Italy, pp.936-947.
Omernik, J.M., and G.E. Griffith. 1985. Total alkalinity of surface waters: a map of the
Upper Midwest region of the United States. Environmental Management 10(6):829-839.
Omernik, J.M., and G.E. Griffith. 1986. Total alkalinity of surface waters: a map of the
western region. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 41(6):374-378.
Omernik, J.M. and G.E. Griffith. 1991. Ecological regions versus hydrologic units:
frameworks for managing water quality. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 46(5):334-
340.
Omernik, J.M. and A.J. Kinney. 1985. Total alkalinity of surface waters: a map of the New
England and New York region. EPA-600/D-84-216. Corvallis Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Corvallis, OR. 12p.
Omemik, J.M. and C.F. Powers. 1983. Total alkalinity of surface waters: a national map.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers 73(1):133-136.
Omernik, J.M., G.E. Griffith, J.T. Irish, and C.B. Johnson. 1988a. Total alkalinity of surface
waters: a national map. Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR. (Map).
Omernik, J.M., D.P. Larsen, C.M. Rohm, S.E. Clarke. 1988b. Summer total phosphorus in
lakes: a map of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, USA. Environmental Management
12(6):815-826.
Omernik, J.M., C.M. Rohm, R.A. Lillie, and N. Mesner. 1991. Usefulness of natural regions
for lake management: analysis of variation among lakes in northwestern Wisconsin, USA.
Environmental Management 15(2):281-293.
Plotnikoff, R.W. 1992. Timber/fish/wildlife ecoregion bioassessment pilot project. Washington
Department of Ecology. Olympia, WA. 57p.
43
-------
Prindle, L.M. and E.B. Knopf. 1932. Geology of the Taconic quadrangle. American Journal of
Science 24(142):257t302.
Rohm, C.W., J.W. Giese, and C.C. Bennett. 1987. Evaluation of an aquatic ecoregion
classification of streams in Arkansas. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 4(1):127-140.
Ruby HI, A., P.J. Godfrey, O.T. Zauicek. 1988., The Massachusetts acid rain monitoring
project, phase II. Vol. I. Water Resources Research Center Publication 159. Amherst, MA.
145p.
Scott, J.M., and 11 coauthors. 1993. Gap analysis: a geographic approach to protection of
biological1 diversity. Wildlife Monographs 123:1-41.
Sczerzenie, P.J. 1981. An ecological approach to deer management in Massachusetts. PhD.
Dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Simcox, A.C. 1992. Water resources of Massachusetts. Water Resources Investigations Report
90-4144. U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Management, Division of.Water Resources. Boston,. MA. 94p.
Skougstad, M.W., M.J. Fishman, L.C. Friedman, D.E. Erdman, and S.S. Duncan (eds.). 1979.
Methods for determination of inorganic substances in water and fluvial sediments:
Techniques of water resources investigations of the United States Geological Survey, Book 5,
Chapter Al. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 626p.
Smith, H. 1984: General soil map of the northeastern United States. Map scale 1:2,500,000.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Agricultural Experiment
Stations of the Northeastern States.
Stone, B.D. and J.D. Peper. 1982. Topographic control of the deglaciation of eastern
Massachusetts: ice lobation and the marine incursion. In: Late Wisconsinan. Glaciation of
New England: G.J. Larson and BD. Stone (eds.). Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, IA. pp. 145-165.
Sullivan, T.J.. C.T. Driscoll, S.A. Gherini, R.K Munson, R.B. Cook, D.F. Charles; and C.P.
Yatsko. 1989. Influence of aqueous aluminum and organic acids on measurement of acid
neutralizing capacity in surface waters. Nature 338:408-410.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1956. Mqjor forest types of Massachusetts. Map scale
unknown. Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, U.S. Forest Service. Upper Darby. PA.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1977. Water and related land resources of the! Berkshire
region, Massachusetts. Soil Conservation Service, Economic Research Service, Forest Service,
in cooperation with Massachusetts Water Resources Commission.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1978a. Water and related land resources of, the coastal
region, Massachusetts. Soil Conservation Service; Economic, Statistics, and Cooperatives
Service; Forest Service; in cooperation with Massachusetts Water Resources Commission.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1978b. Water and related land resources of the Connecticut
River region, Massachusetts. Soil Conservation Service; Economic, Statistics, and
Cooperatives Service; Forest Service; in cooperation with Massachusetts Water Resources
Commission.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1981. Land resource regions and m^jor land resource areas
of the United States. Soil Conservation Service. Agriculture Handbook 296. Washington, D.C.
156p. + map.
44
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board. 1991. Evaluation of the
ecoregion concept. Report of The Ecoregions Subcommittee of The Ecological Processes and
Effects Committee. EPA-SAB-EPEC-91-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 25p.
U.S. Forest Service. 1970. Major forest types. In: The national atlas of the United States of
America. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. pp. 154-155.
Walk, M.I., P.J. Godfrey, A Ruby IH, O.T. Zajicek, and M. Mattson. 1992. Acidity status of
surface waters in Massachusetts. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 63:237-251.
Warry, N.D. and M. Hanau. 1993. The use of terrestrial ecoregions as a regional-scale screen
for selecting representative reference sites for water quality monitoring. Environmental
Management 17(2):267-276.
Weatherbee, P.B., and G.E. Crow. 1990. Phytogeography of Berkshire County,
Massachusetts. Rhodora 92(872):232-256.
Welch, E. 1993. The case for lake quality standards. Lake Line 13(3):4.
Westveld, M. 1956. Natural forest vegetation zones of New England. Journal of Forestry
54(5):332-338.
Whittier, T.R., R.M. Hughes, and D.P. Larsen. 1988. The correspondence between ecoregions
and spatial patterns in stream ecosystems in Oregon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 45:1264-1278.
Wiken, E. 1986. Terrestrial ecozones of Canada. Environment Canada. Ecological Land
Classification Series No. 19. Ottawa, Canada.
Wilkie, R.W. and J. Tager (eds.). 1991. Historical atlas of Massachusetts. The University of
Massachusetts Press, Amherst. 152p.
Wilson, C.B. and W.W. Walker, Jr. 1989. Development of lake assessment methods based
upon the aquatic ecoregion concept. Lake and Reservoir Management 5(2):ll-22.
Woodworth, J.B. and E. Wigglesworth. 1934. Geography and geology of the region including
Cape Cod, the Elizabeth Islands, Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard, No Man's Land, and Block
Island. Harvard University Museum of Comparative Zoology Memoirs. Vol. 52. 322p.
Wright, J.K 1933. Regions and landscapes of New England. In: New England's Prospect.
J.K. Wright (ed.). American Geographical Society Special Publication No. 16. pp. 14-49.
Zen, E. (ed.). 1983. Bedrock geologic map of Massachusetts. Map scale 1:250,000. U.S.
Geological Survey. 3 sheets.
45
-------
ERL-C/US EPA
Massachusetts
Ecoregion
Stream Name/Location
58A Taconic Mountains
58A01 Upper Hemlock Brook
Hudson (Hoosic) Basin
Willi amstown
Albany 1:100,000
58A02 East Branch Green River
Hudson (Hoosic) Basin
Williamstowri/New Ashford
Albany 1:100,000
58A03 Berry Pond Creek
Hudson (Kinderhook) Basin
Hancock
Albany 1:100,000
58A04 Shaker Brook above Hwy. 20
Housatonic Basin
Hancock
Pittsfield 1:100,000
58A05 Karner Brook
Housatonic Basin
Egremont
Pittsfield 1:100,000
58A06 Bashbish Brook
Hudson (Bashbish) Basin
Mt. Washington
Pittsfield 1:100,000
APPENDIX A
Candidate Stream Reference Sites
58 - Northeastern Highlands
12-28-92
Aoprox. Size
4 mi2
12 mi*
3 mia
3 mi2
3 mi2
9 mi2
Comments
Near region boundary. Need to be
upstream (Buckley Street?) to
avoid limestone.
Too small?
Marginal. Not good looking at
marked site on Route 7, may be
better walking upstream. NPDES
from high school at Green River
RtL? Salt from Route 7?
Goodrich Hollow Rd. Very small.
New house may be pumping from
creek. Better at upstream crossing.
Probably too small, although
supported native I brook trout.
Subregion boundary about .3 mi.
up from hwy.
Probably too small!
Need to move upstream to be in
subregion. NPDES near Fenton
Brook?
Above falls, below Wright Brook.
58B Western New England Marble Valleys
There are very few streams with watersheds entirely within this subregion; most streams have
headwaters in the surrounding mountainous subregions. Consequently, there are only a few reference
sites listed here. For streams that cross subregion boundaries, additional research is needed to understand
the relative contributions and influencing characteristics from each region.
58B01 Yokun Brook 6 mi2 Headwaters on Lenox Mtn.
Housatonic Basin probably similar to Taconic Mtns.
Lenox
Pittsfield 1:100,000
46
-------
Stream Name/Location
Approx. Size
Comments
58B02 Fairfield Brook
Housatonic Basin
Richmond
Pittsfield 1:100,000
<3 mi2
Probably too small. Cone Brook
downstream would be better, but
it has headwaters in the Taconic
Mtns. subregion.
58C Green Mountains/Berkshire Highlands
58C01 Dunbar Brook
Deerfield Basin
Monroe
Keene/Albany 1:100,000s
58C02 Pelham Brook
Deerfield Basin
Rowe/Charlemont
Keene 1:100,000
58C03 Cold River
Deerfield Basin
Florida/Savoy
Albany/Keene 1:100,000s
58C04 Mill Brook
Deerfield Basin
Charlemont/Heath
Keene 1:100,000
58C05 Chickley River at Mill Brook
Deerfield Basin
Hawley
Keene 1:100,000
58C06 Westfield River
Westfield Basin
Windsor/Savoy
Keene/Albany 1:100,000s
58C07 Swift River at Hwy 116
Westfield Basin
Ashfield
Keene 1:100,000
58C08 Windsor Brook
Housatonic Basin
Windsor
Pittsfield/Albany 1:100,000
6 mi2
12 mi2
7 & 27 mi2
10 mi2
25 mi2
15 mi2
11 mi2
7 mi2
Or move downstream if accessible.
May be disturbed at road crossing
near mouth.
Two possible sites: above Tower
Brook and Hwy 2 near Black
Brook.
Disturbance downstream, better
upstream. Mine on Davis Mine
Brook?
Rt. 8A follows stream channel. Mill
Brook could be suitable site.
Below Windsor State Forest. 22
mi2 above Hampshire Co. line
47
-------
Stream Name/Location
58C09 .Trout Brook at Hwy 143
Westfield Basin
Worthington
Holyoke/Pittsfield 1:100,000s
58C10 Washington Mountain Brook
Housatonic Basin
Lee/Washington
Pittsfield 1:100,000
58C11 Shaker Mill Brook
Westfield Basin
Becket/Washington
Pittsfield 1:100,000
58C12 Factory Brook
Westfield Basin
Middlefield
Pittsfield 1:100,000
58C13 West Branch Westfield River
Westfield Basin
Middlefield/Becket
Pittsfield 1:100,000
58D Lower Berkshire Hills
58D01 West Brook
Housatonic. Basin
Great Barrington
Pittsfield 1:100,000
58D02 Benton Brook
Farmington Basin
Sandisfield/Otis
Pittsfield 1:100,000
58D03 Unnamed Brook
(Tributary to Peebles Br.)
Westfield Basin
Blandford
Holyoke/Pittsfield l;100,000s
58D04 Harm an Brook
Housatonic Basin
Monterey/New Marlborough
Pittsfield 1:100,000
Approx. Size Comments
6 mi2
9 mi8
7 mi2
9 mia
32 mi2
6 mi2
5 mi2
10 mis
5 mi3
48
-------
Stream Name/Location
Approx. Size
Comments
58D05 Buck River at Hwy 57
Farmington Basin
Sandisfield
Pittsfield 1:100,000
58D06 Umpachene River
Housatonic Basin
New Marlborough
Pittsfield 1:100,000
58D07 Whiting River
Housatonic Basin
New Marlborough
Pittsfield 1:100,000
58D08 Sandy Brook
Farmington Basin
Sandisfield
Pittsfield 1:100,000
58D09 Silver Brook
Farmington Basin
Sandisfield
Pittsfield 1:100,000
58D10 Hubbard River
Farmington Basin
Granville/Tolland
Holyoke/Pittsfield 1:100,000s
6 mi2
8 mi2
11 mi2
10 mi2
5 mi2
11 mi2
(Clam River NE of Montville has
recent[?] large dam.)
Lower gradient, more sandy.
Some algae, sediment. Higher
alkalinity, mixed land use.
58E Berkshire Transition
58E01 East Branch Mill River 10 mi2
Connecticut Basin
Williamsburg/Conway
Holyoke 1:100,000
58E02 Dead Branch 15 mi2 Several ponds/reservoirs
Westfield Basin
Chesterfield/Goshen
Holyoke 1:100,000
58E03 Roberts Meadow Brook 8 mi2
Connecticut Basin
Northampton
Holyoke 1:100,000
49
-------
Stream Name/Location Approx. Size Comments
58E04 North Branch Manham River 15 mi2
Connecticut Basin
Northampton/Westhampton
Holyoke 1:100,000
58E05 Roaring, Brook e. of Huntington 7 mi2
Westfield Basin
Montgomery/Huntington
Holyoke 1:100,000
58E06 Unnamed Brook 4 mi3 Too small?
Chester-Blandford State For.
Westfield Basin
Chester/Blandford
Holyoke 1:100,000
58E07 Munn Brook at.Hwy 57 6 mi2 Better habitat, woody debris
Westfield Basin upstream of hwy. Some sediment
Granville and algae.
Holyoke 1:100,000
58F Vermont Piedmont
58F01 Foundry Brook 3 mi9 Too small?
Deerfield Basin
Colrain
Keene 1:100,000
58F02 Clark Brook 3 mi2
Deerfield Basin
Buckland
Keene 1:100,000
58F03 Bear River 10 mi2
Deerfield Basin
Conway/Ashfield
Keene 1:100,000
58F04 Roaring Brook 6 mi3 Two dams?
Connecticut Basin
Whately/Conway
Holyoke 1:100,000
50
-------
Stream Name/Location
Approx. Size Comments
58G Worcester/Monadnock Plateau
Southern boundary of this subregion may be revised
59B.
58G01 Dry Brook above Hwy 10
Connecticut Basin
Bernardston
Keene 1:100,000
58G02 Mill Brook
Connecticut Basin
Northfield
Keene 1:100,000
58G03 Jacks Brook/Keyup Brook
Millers Basin
Erving/Northfield
Keene 1:100,000
58G04*Sawmill River
Connecticut Basin
Leverett/Mon tagaie
Keene/Holyoke 1:100,000s
58G05*West Branch Swifl River
Chicopee Basin
Shutesbury
Holyoke/Keene 1:100,000s
58G06*Amethyst Brook
Connecticut Basin
Pelham
Holyoke 1:100,000
58G07*Middle Branch Swift River
Chicopee Basin
New Salem
Keene 1:100,000
58G08 West Branch Tully River
Millers Basin
Orange/Warwick
Keene 1:100,000
58G09 Lawrence Brook
Millers Basin
Royalston
Keene 1:100,000
putting some of these reference sites (*) in subregion
4 mi2
7 mis Road crossing at site marked is at
or below ecoregion boundary. Move
upstream if accessible.
6 mis Was this site deleted after October
reconnaissance?
16 mi2
7 mi2
7 mi2 Dam upstream?
5 mi2 At North New Salem.
13 mi2
28 mi2 Headwaters in NH.
51
-------
Stream Name/Location
58G10 Priest Brook/Scott Brook
Millers Basin
Royalston
Keene 1:100,000
58Gll*East Branch Swift River
Chicopee Basin
PetersHam/Phillipston
Holyoke/Keene 1:100,000s
58G12*Canesto -Brook at Hwy 62
Chicopee Basin
Barre/Hubbardston
Holyoke/Keene 1:100,000s
58G13 South Branch Souhegan River
Merrimack Basin
Ashby/Ashburnham
Lowell 1:100,000
58G14 Tributary to Squannacook R.
Nashua Basin
Townsend/Ashby
Lowell 1:100,000
58G15 Whitman River
Nashua Basin
Westminster/Ashburnham
Lowell 1:100,000
58G16*South Wachuset Brook
Nashua Basin
Princeton
Boston 1:100,000
58G17*Stillwater River
Nashua Basin
Princeton/Sterling
Boston/Lowell 1:100,000s
Approx. Size Comments
19 mia Headwaters in NH.
18 mi3 Near Moccasin Brook.
13 mi5
6 mi2
12 mi2 Impacts? More dense road network.
19 mi2
7 mi2 Backed up near bridge.
11 mia
52
-------
Stream Name/Location
Ecoregion 59 - Northeastern Coastal Zone
Aporox. Size
Comments
59A Connecticut Valley
59A01 Bloody Brook
Connecticut Basin
Deerfield
Holyoke/Keene 1:100,000s
59A02 Unnamed Tributary to Fort R.
Connecticut Basin
Amherst
Holyoke 1:100,000
59A03 Stony Brook at Hwy 202
Connecticut Basin
Granby
Holyoke 1:100,000
59A04 Watchaug Brook at Hwy 83
Connecticut Basin
East Longxneadow
Holyoke 1:100,000
59A05 Kellog Brook
Westfield Basin
South wick
Holyoke 1:100,000
5 mi
2 mi2
14 mi2
3 mi2
3 mi2
May have severe impacts. NPDES
site. Channelized?
At Hwy 116, South Amherst. May
be too small.
59B Lower Worcester Plateau/Eastern Connecticut Upland
59B01 Scantic River 22 mi2
Connecticut Basin
Hampden/Monson
Holyoke 1:100,000
59B02 Foskett Mill Stream 7 mi2
Chicopee Basin
Brimfield
Holyoke 1:100,000
59B03 Kings Brook at Hwy 67 4 mi2 Too small?
Chicopee Basin
Palmer
Holyoke 1:100,000
59B04 Unnamed Tributary to 7 mi2
Quaboag River
Chicopee Basin
W. Brookfield/N.Brookfield
Holyoke 1:100,000
53
-------
Stream Name/Location
Approx. Size
Comments
59B05 Fivemile River 19 mi2
Chicopee Basin
North Brookfield
-Holyoke 1:100,000
59B06 Sevenmile River 26 mi2 At Hwy 31 or at Lower Wire
Ghicopee Basin Village n. of Spencer (17 mi2).
Spencer
Holyoke/Boston 1:100,000s
59B07 Stevens Brook 4 mi2
Quihebaug Basin
Holland
Holyoke 1:100,000
59C Southern New England Coastal Plains
59C01 Unkety Brook
Nashua Basin
Dunstable
Lowell 1:100,000
59C02 Bowers Brook above Hwy 2
Nashua Basin
Harvard
Lowell/Boston 1:100,000s
59C03 Keyes Brook
Merrimack Basin
Westford
Lowell 1:100,000
59C04 Fish Brook
Merrimack Basin
Andover
Lowell 1:100,000
59C05 Parker River
Parker Basin
Newbuiy/Groveland/Georgetown
Gloucester/Lowell 1:100,000s
59C06 Mill River
Parker Basin
Rowley
Gloucester 1:100,000
Hills
5 mi2
7 mi2
4 mi2 Outlet of Keyes (Keys) Pond.
6 mi2 Community water supply. Some
developed headwaters.
21 mi2 Near Byefield.
8 mi2 May want to move up from
pasture/cropland.
54
-------
Stream Name/Location
Approx. Size Comments
59C07 Fish Brook
Ipswich Basin
Boxford/North Andover
Lowell 1:100,000
59C08 Boston Brook
Ipswich Basin
Middleton/North Andover
Lowell 1:100,000
59C09 Elizabeth Brook
Concord Basin (Assabet)
Stowe
Boston 1:100,000
59C10 North Brook
Concord Basin (Assabet)
Berlin
Boston 1:100,000
8 mi2
6 mi2
13-17 mi2
12 mi2
Where is better habitat: Above or
below Wheeler Pond, above 117, or
on Assabet Brook near Lower
Village?
Rail line active or abandoned?
59C11 West River?
Are portions of the West River (Blackstone Basin) suitable for candidate reference site status? On the
1:100,000 scale maps the area below Upton/West Upton is indicated as an "area to be submerged", however
other sources show no reservoir. The West River and tributaries with the Upton State Forest lands appear
less disturbed than other nearby areas.
59C12 Mumford River ab. E. Douglas
Blackstone Basin
Douglas
Boston 1:100,000
59C13 Emerson Brook
Blackstone Basin
Uxbridge
Boston 1:100,000
59C14 Muddy Brook
Blackstone Basin
Mendon
Boston 1:100,000
59C15 Hopping Brook
Charles Basin
Medway/Holliston
Boston 1:100,000
22 mi2
6 mi2
7 mi2
8 mi2
Outlet from Lee Pond.
Well named?
Several power line corridors.
55
-------
Stream Name/Locatior
59C16 Bogastow Brook
Charles Basin
Millis/Holliston
Boston 1:100,000
59C17 Mine Brook'
Boston Harbor (Neponset)
Medfield
Boston 1:100,000
59C18 Accord Brook
Boston Harbor (Weir)
Hingham
Provincetown 1:100,000
59C19 Bound Brook
South Coastal Basin
Cohasset
Provincetown 1;100,000
59C20 Third Herring Brook
South Coastal Basin
Norwell/Hanover
Provincetown 1:100,000
Approx. Size
18 mi*
4 mi2
Comments,
5 mi2
7 mi2
7 mis
59E Narragansett/Bristol Lowland
59E01 Black Brook at Hwy 106
Taunton Basin
Easton
Boston 1:100,000
59E02 West Branch Palmer River
Narragansett Bay Basin
Rehoboth
Providence 1:100,000
59E03 Rocky Run
Narragansett Bay Basin
Rehoboth
Providence 1:100,000
S9E04 Cole River at Hortonville
Mount Hope Bay Basin
Swansea
Providence 1:100,000
4 mi2
8 mi2
5 mi2
8 mi2
Size? Headwaters in subregion
59C, but within fuzzy boundary.
Any less impacted than Palmer R.
sites looked at in Oct.?
56
-------
Stream Name/Location
Approx. Size
Comments
59E05 Segreganset River
Taunton Basin
Dighton
Providence 1:100,000
59E06 Cedar Swamp River
Taunton Basin
Lake ville/Fr e etown
Providence/New Bedford 1:100,000s
59E07 Bread and Cheese Brook
Buzzards Bay Basin
Westport/Fall River
Providence 1:100,000
59E08 Jones River Brook
South Coastal Basin
Kingston/Plympton
New Bedford 1:100,000
59E09 Winnetuxet River
Taunton Basin
Halifax/Plympton
New Bedford 1:100,000
59E10 Fall Brook
Taunton Basin
Middleborough
New Bedford 1:100,000
59E11 Mattapoisett River
Buzzards Bay Basin
Rochester
New Bedford 1:100,000
59E12 Sippican River
Buzzards Bay Basin
Marion/Rochester
New Bedford 1:100,000
10 mi2 Community water supply.
13 mi2 Large cranberry bog on tributary.
Cedar Swamp "protected"?
4 mi2 May be too small, but the name
was too good to pass up.
Downstream looks more impacted.
4 mi2
18 mi2
8 mi2 Swampy?
12 mi2
15 mi2 Several cranberry bogs,
disturbances.
57
-------
Stream Name/Location Approx. Size Comments
59F Cape . Cod/Long Island
59F01 Quashnet River
Cape Cod Basin
MnQnnpp
New Bedford 1:100,000
59F02 Childs River
Cape. Cod Basin
Falmouth/Mashpee
New Bedford 1:100,000
59F03 Mashpee River
Cape Cod Basin
Miiflnnpp
New Bedford 1:100,000
59F04 Herring River
Cape Cod Basin
Harwich
New. Bedford 1:100,000
59F05 Herring River
Cape Cod Basin
Wpllflppt
New Bedford 1:100,000
58
-------
ADDENDUM
This section of the report was written by Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection staff representing the Division of Water Pollution Control (DWPC). Its purpose
is twofold: one reason is to describe in general terms a proposed pilot project to verify the
two ecoregions, and three of thirteen subregions, that have been delineated, mapped, and
described in the preceding report by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Environmental Research Laboratory (EPA/ERL). The second purpose is to describe in more
detail a few of the potential applications of the EPA/ERL ecoregion framework, namely to
improve surface water quality standards and the state-wide management of lakes. Warren
A Kimball wrote on the utility of the framework for improving standards, and Robert C.
Haynes wrote the remaining sections on biocriteria, the proposed pilot project, and lake
management. Both the Preface and Addendum were reviewed and edited by Russell A Isaac
and Richard S. McVoy of DWPC, as well as Arthur Johnson and Arthur Screpetis
representing DEP's Office of Watershed Management (OWM). Gregory DeCesare (DWPC)
and Robert Nuzzo (OWM) provided additional comments on specific sections of the
Addendum.
A1
-------
Proposed Pi}ot Project for Verifying Ecological Subregions
The regionalization framework presented in this report by the team of Griffith, Omernik,
Kiilsgaard, and Pierson is based; in part, on their collective expert judgements in the
selection; quality, and analysis of data, and on their assumptions. Their delineation of
ecoregions and. subregions for Massachusetts has been reviewed by many; technical
professionals representing state iuid federal agencies, both within and outside of
Massachusetts. Although one boundary was modified by staff'from the Department of
Environmental Protection's Division of Water Pollution Control (DEP/DWPC) during that
period of critical review, the framework developed by EPA/ERL will still be subject to
revision over time as new information becomes available and/or as it is critically reviewed
by a wider audience upon publication of this document. However, before the
ecoregion/subregion framework is adopted for various uses, a pilot project should be
undertaken to test the framework, as recommended by the EPA/ERL authors (p. 36) and,
for ecoregions in general, by the Ecoregions Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board
(Loehr and Dickson 1991). DEP 6taff that have worked on the development of ecological
regions advocate a well planned research project with a strong quality assurance program.
A general , overview of a pilot project proposed by DEP is presented in the paragraphs that
follow.
The main purposes of the pilot project are to verify 1) that each selected subregion is a
distinctive ecological unit exhibiting relative homogeneity, and 2) that variability for the
measured parameters and indices within a subregion' are significantly different when
compared to other subregions. The same' comparisons should Ihold between the two
ecoregions. A further purpose of the pilot project is to demonstrate , that the
ecoregion/subregion framework is useful in Massachusetts for describing attainable water
quality in streams (and. eventually, lakes) of each subregion, thereby facilitating the
evaluation of impaired surface water. Ultimately,' such an understanding can be projected
to set management and use-attainability goals for the Commonwealth's natural resources,
including its surface waters, based on ecological variation.
The pilot project would entail measurements of selected biological, chemical, anid physical
parameters, and indices derived therefrom, at least-disturbed stream reference sites in three
subregions: the Vermont Piedmont, Worcester/Monadnock Plateau, and Narragansett/Bristol
Lowland. Limiting the selection to three subregions allows for within-ecoregion and between-
ecoregion comparisons, and comparisons among subregions, under conditions of limited
resources, both in terms of personnel and funding. Also, knowledge gained from the pilot
project will facilitate'subsequent assessments of the few abutting subregions with less
distinctive attributes; that is, the Worcester/Monadnock Plateau and Lower Worcester
Plateau/Eastern Connecticut Upland, and the Green Mountains/Berkshire Highlands and
Lower Berkshire Hills (Fig. 1). Two of the subregions selected for testing, the
Worcester/Monadnock Plateau and the Vermont Piedmont, are located at the same latitude
in the Northeastern Highlands Ecoregion, exhibit the same range of elevations, and are
A2
-------
separated in space only by the narrow Connecticut Valley 6ubregion. However, these two
subregions do exhibit differences in topography (piedmont vs. upland plateau), bedrock, and
soils, which should result in different stream flow patterns and basic surface water chemistry.
Their surface waters should be alkaline and acidic, respectively. The Narragansett/Bristol
Lowland in the Northeastern Coastal Zone Ecoregion (Fig. 1) stands in contrast to these two
subregions. Its topography is neither hilly nor mountainous, but rather a lowland of glacial
till and outwash deposits. Its bedrock is comparatively distinct as are its soils and vegetative
cover.
Candidate reference streams selected by the EPA/ERL (Appendix A) within these three
subregions, and several additional streams added by DEP/DWPC, were carefully screened by
DWPC and OWM staff through field reconnaissance of each stream's watershed and the
proposed sampling site (i.e., "reference site"). Although the land-based ecoregion framework
is comparatively complex, few parameters need to be monitored to evaluate within-subregion
and between-subregion variability so that the hypothesis of no differences between these
units can be rejected. Chemical parameters would include the metals iron, copper,
aluminum, calcium, and magnesium; total alkalinity, total phosphorus; total dissolved organic
carbon; pH and specific conductance; and dissolved oxygen. The principal physical
measurements are water temperature, flow, and annual discharge at each reference stream
monitoring site. An analysis of each reference stream's macroinvertebrate community and
its fish community, and indices derived therefrom, would complete the suite of evaluation
"tools" as the project is presently conceived. The analysis of these data may be based, at
least in part, on the "Ohio Case Study" (Larsen e,t al. 1988), in which the "...spatial patterns
of water quality variables..." did match the delineated ecoregions for that state. Patterns of
water quality were evaluated by this team of researchers first as box plots, then as spatial
distributions of certain mapped parameters, and finally as two groups of variables for
multivariate analysis (those associated with ionic strength and those associated with nutrient
richness).
Approximately 14 reference streams covering the 3 selected ecological subregions would be
monitored over a period of 3 years. The frequency of sampling would necessarily be a
function of the specific parameter in question and, no doubt, project budget. The frequency
of flow measurements would be a function of anticipated and/or antecedent weather, as well
as the need for sufficient data to calculate annual discharge accurately for each reference
stream. In addition, flow measurements are necessary at the time of sampling for certain
chemical parameters so flow-weighted concentrations can be determined.
One example of the importance of calculating flow-weighted concentrations is that of total
phosphorus. Accurate estimates of annual loads of phosphorus in reference streams can be
determined in this manner, and these data can be used to refine mathematical models of
phosphorus loading to lakes for each subregion. A baseline for attainable phosphorus
conditions could then be established. In turn, this would be useful as a management tool
for predicting improvements to impaired lakes if best management practices were
implemented in particular watersheds or sub-drainage areas. Similarly, models can also be
refined for predicting probable degradation of a lake if there is a change in land use within
a particular watershed.
A3
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards (314 CMR 4.00; hereafter referred to as
Standards) consist of three elements: water use classifications; criteria to support those uses;
and antidegradation provisions that provide high levels of protection for sensitive resources.
The delineation of ecoregions and subregions in Massachusetts has direct application to the
development of improved water quality standards, and 6ome examples are provided in the
paragraph's that follow.
The Federal Clean Water Act (Public Law 95-217) mandates that state standards include the
protection of aquatic life and recreation as water uses. Currently, Massachusetts
distinguishes between cold water and warm water aquatic life, and specific designations, are
made based on known or predicted annual temperature patterns. Since these patterns vary
with latitude and elevation, the ecoregionframework may. be useful in defining aquatic life
habitats worthy of classification in the Standards. Also, temperature and slope can be used
to define potential recreational activities, since temperature is important for primaiy contact
recreation, while slope may be used to determine various secondary contact activities (white
water rafting versus fktwater boating). Thus, there may be further application of the
ecoregion framework for designation of recreational uses of water.,
In the application of water quality standards, criteria are used as the primary regulatoiy tool
to support designated water uses and, in Massachusetts, criteria include specific chemicals,
laboratory toxicity tests, and biological criteria, or "bioqiteria." Currently, specific chemical
criteria for metals are of primaiy concern for regulators. Metals in aqueous solutions have
a complex chemistry and their toxicity to aquatic life is known tovary with alkalinity, pH
and hardness: These latter attributes typically reflect regional patterns, as is evident in
Figure 8, and the delineation of ecoregions and subiregions in Massachusetts would be useful
for the development of site-specific metals criteria.
One purpose of the antidegradation provisions is to single out "unique" or "sensitive" areas
for high levels of protection. Alkaline bogs and habitats for endangered species are a few
examples of unique areas. Similarly ^ streams, lakes, or embayments sensitive to acid rain or
to nutrient enrichment from either phosphorus or nitrogen may be subject to specific
protective criteria. Many of these unique and/or sensitive areas can be identified from
detailed ecoregion, subregion, and lake phosphorus region maps for their potential
designation in tlie Standards, which is a further, application of the framework.
Perhaps the most direct application of the regional framework to the development of
improved water quality standards: involves biocriteria. These are narrative expressions or
numerical values that can be used to measure the condition, or integrity, of the resource at
risk; in this instance, aquatic life. Thus, biocriteria provide a direct assessment of the
designated water use that is being protected; Language in the Clean Water Act directs the
EPA"... to develop programs that will evaluate, restore and maintain the chemical, 'physical,
A4
-------
and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." Since the focus of most state water quality
programs has been on chemical contamination, other forms of perturbation have received less
attention or have gone undetected. Consequently, EPA has set priorities for the
development of biocriteria by states. Details on this subject per se are provided in a series
of documents published by EPA (EPA-440/5-90-004; and EPA-440/5-91-003, -004, -005).
Hughes (1989) has provided a concise, yet cogent, statement about the application of
biocriteria to the ecoregion framework. Some of the information that follows, including
quotations, is derived from that reference.
Since numerical biocriteria are measurements of the cumulative biological, chemical, and
physical effects acting on aquatic communities, their application is more effective than
chemical-specific criteria or tests for toxicity in determining use support. To establish
numerical values for biocriteria, states need to establish least-disturbed surface waters as
reference conditions, and then characterize the aquatic communities inhabiting these sites.
Biocriteria can be used to compare a reference site with a test station, and reference sites
can be selected on a site-specific (upstream/downstream) or regional basis. Regional
reference sites are appealing because a single representative station, or group of stations, can
serve as the basis of comparison for a wide variety of test sites. This is a less expensive
endeavor, "...especially if nonpoint source pollution is the m£gor problem ... state-wide." Use
of biocriteria is also an effective means of demonstrating abatement of pollution, whether
from point or non-point sources. The ecoregion/subregion framework can be applied directly
to establish biological reference stations and to define areas of application for a specific
reference station, which could easily be extended to include interstate comparisons of the
same ecoregion or subregion. The establishment of least-disturbed surface waters has been
initiated in Massachusetts, as described on pages 15 and 16 as well as Appendix A, and in the
previous section of this Addendum (pages A2 and A3).
Some states have already incorporated biocriteria into their water quality standards, and a
few examples follow. North Carolina has used narrative biocriteria to define its outstanding
resource waters and high quality waters. "Arkansas has refined its biological use designation
based on the ecoregion framework," and "Ohio developed quantitative biological criteria for
different-sized streams in each of the State's five ecoregions." Maine recognized the
limitations of chemical and physical water quality assessments nearly a decade before EPA
issued its guidance document on biological criteria (Davies, Tsomides, Courtemanch, and
Drummond 1993). After building a database on macroinvertebrates following a standardized
sampling program, that state's Department of Environmental Protection has produced
numerical biocriteria that have been endorsed by a Technical Review Committee. A "rule-
making" process must now be completed before these numerical biocriteria become
incorporated in Maine's surface water quality standards (personal communication with Susan
Davies, Maine DEP). Minnesota is representative of states in the developmental stages of
establishing biocriteria. Its Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has recently submitted a
proposal to the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources to fund a two-year project
on the development of ecoregion-specific biological criteria using fish and macroinvertebrate
population data collected at stream reference sites (EPA 1994; and personal communication
with Sylvia McCollor of the MPCA).
AS
-------
Finally, EPA Region I is coordinating a cooperative effort among the six New England states
to develop biocriteria, especially regional reference conditions, based on the ecoregions and
subregions developed by the EPA/ERL team of Omernik, Griffith and others. If
implemented, this would likely expand and improve surface water quality standards
throughout New England as is evidenced in other states, such as Ohio. Ohio's' EPA has
determined, among other benefits, that its use of biological survey information reveals water
quality problems that were otherwise missed or underestimated by chemical1 or whole
effluent toxicity monitoring (EPA 1990). This is consistent with Hughes' statement that"...
ecoregional ambient biocriteria have revealed more non[-]complying sites than are suggested
by state chemical or whole-eflluent criteria." However, neither the EPA nor Hughes
advocates that biocriteria substitute for chemical and whole effluent criteria; rather, its use
should "augment" these criteria.
LAKE MANAGEMENT
There are a number of ways that this framework can be used for managing the nearly 2900
lakes and ponds of various sizes throughout the Commonwealth. The example of total
phosphorus was discussed briefly in the aforementioned "Pilot Project" (page A3), but its
importance merits further elaboration. * The productivity of most fresh water, lakes is
governed by the availability of phosphorus in the water column and, in the absence of
humans, this nutrient is not readily available. Unlike nitrogen, phosphorus exhibits no
atmospheric phase per se, and it binds to rock and soil particles. Thus, one can expect low
concentrations of phosphorus in streams discharging to lakes, essentially undetectable
concentrations in groundwater, and low concentrations in kettlehole ponds under least-
disturbed conditions. Exceptions to the aforementioned generalizations occur, of cojurse, but
these are often predictable. For example, at 1.3% phosphorus by weight limestone1 contains
more of that element than other bedrock,, and lakes formed in limestone areas tend to
exhibit higher concentrations of phosphorus, as is evident' in a comparison !of Lake
Phosphorus Region 58-03 (Figure 5) with the Total Alkalinity of Surface Waters map in
Figure 8.
The point of the discourse above is that excessive loading of phosphorus to lakes through
tributary streams, surface runoff, or seepage from inadequate on-site waste treatment
systems is usually attributable to Human activity in lake drainage areas. Also, prior loading
of phosphorus, that becomes incorporated in lake sediments can be redded within a water
column once a lake begins to exhibit symptoms of excessive nutrient loading, or
eutrophication. Fortunately, these sources of phosphorus can be controlled through effective
planning and management either to protect lake resources from degradation or tb restore
lakes. Examples of the utility of the ecoregion framework for effective lake management
planning are provided in the paragraphs that follow.
A6
-------
Since there are no pristine or unimpacted surface waters in Massachusetts, it is important
to discern least-disturbed, or attainable, water quality as both a source of reference for
protecting water resources and as a measure of improvements that can be expected following
implementation projects. The ecoregion framework and the listing of candidate reference
streams for each ecological subregion presented in Appendix A provide a basis for
establishing attainable water quality in Massachusetts given its diverse geology, landscape,
and land use patterns. There is also merit in identifying least-disturbed lakes within each
subregion. Because phosphorus is the key parameter in defining attainable water quality,
the derivation of range and mean annual phosphorus loads for the suite of least-disturbed
reference streams representative of a particular ecological subregion establishes a baseline
for comparison to tributaries discharging their flows to disturbed, or in this example
eutrophic, lakes. This framework can then be used to calibrate mathematical models to
facilitate predictions of water quality improvement in a particular lake if measures are taken
in the drainage area to reduce the inflow of phosphorus. Similarly, refined models can also
be used to predict degradation in lake water quality following m^jor land use changes in the
watershed. Development of these regionally calibrated models will allow more accurate
evaluations than the desk top calculations that are currently available for lakes throughout
North America, and which are often applied outside of the geographical areas in which they
were developed.
Wilson and Walker (1989) stated that "The development of practical lake management
strategies in Minnesota has been greatly facilitated by using the aquatic ecoregion approach
and standard assessment methodologies (models)." These authors describe the use of
ecoregion data for the purpose of modeling, and they describe a computer program that is
"... designed to predict eutrophication indices in Minnesota lakes based on area [of the]
watershed, depth, and ecoregion." Their program (MINLEAP) "... was calibrated to the
ecoregion data set by manually adjusting stream phosphorus concentrations by ecoregion to
give unbiased predictions of lake phosphorus concentration." In addition to lake phosphorus,
MINLEAP is used to predict chlorophyll a and water transparency. Values generated for all
three parameters are then evaluated to screen lakes with likely water quality problems.
Also, Wisconsin has used the lake phosphorus regions developed by Omeraik and his
colleagues to refine predictive models used in that state, and the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources is using these same regions to develop lake water quality standards for
phosphorus (Cooke, Welch, Peterson, and Newroth 1993).
As noted by Griffith, Omernik, and others in this report (p. 36) "Massachusetts does not
appear to have the distinct natural regional phosphorus differences that are found in states
such as Minnesota or Wisconsin." However, these authors noted that a validated database
of summer lake phosphorus values needs to be rebuilt in Massachusetts to improve and
refine the lake phosphorus regions map shown in Figure 5. In the interim, the ecological
subregions mapped in Figure 1 should serve as the basis for analyzing spatial patterns of
lakes in Massachusetts, and there is good correspondence between this map and Figure 5.
A7
-------
Investigation of lakes in Massachusetts will be enhanced considerably now that the
framework for regional patterns has been established by EPA/ERL. For example, the
geographic distribution of some species populations may match certain subregions, which can
then be targeted for research. Though not yet recorded in Massachusetts, the invasive zebra
mussel is-a case in point. Its reproduction is apparently limited to surface waters with a total
alkalinity > 400 jieq/L1 (> 20 mg/L) and a pH > 7.4 units (Whittier, Herlihy, and Pierson
1994). Therefore, allocation of resources for reconnaissance can largely be limited to the
Western New England Marble Valleys, Vermont Piedmont, Connecticut Valley, and Boston
Basin subregions as well as a small area within the Nashua River Basin of the Southern- New
England Coastal Plains subregion (Refer to Figures 1 and 8). As another example, the
ecoregion framework is presently being used by the Division of Water Pollution (Control to
select least-disturbed lakes in three subregions for a fish tones investigation being planned
by DEP's Office of Research and Standards.
Finally,' an effective basis for managing lake resources in the Commonwealth would include
a comprehensive policy that is adopted by all affected state agencies, as well as management
plans tailored-to individual water bodies and their watersheds. Such, a "Policy onj Lake and
Pond Management" was approved by the Water Resources Commission in June 1994. The
development of comprehensive, lake-specific watershed management plans recommended in
that policy, may be a lofty goal,, but it is entirely impractical on a state-wide basis given the
limited resources currently available and the large number of lakes in the Commonwealth.
It is quite feasible, however, to develop model lake management plans for each of the
thirteen ecological subregions in Massachusetts/ These model management plans could then
be refined by private consultants, lake associations, 6r lake districts to more closely match
individual takes! In the future, completion of a comprehensive lake management plan should
be a condition for state-funded projects, which is also a 6tated objective in the "Policy on
Lake and Pond Management"
A8
-------
ADDENDUM REFERENCES
Anonymous. 1989. Massachusetts Lake Classification Program. Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Quality Engineering (name subsequently changed to Environmental
Protection), Division of Water Pollution Control, Technical Services Branch, Westborough.
pp. 1-7.
Cooke, G. D., E. B. Welch, S. A Peterson, and P. R. Newroth. 1993. Restoration and
Management of Lakes and Reservoirs. 2nd Edition. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida,
p. 40.
Davies, S. P., L. Tsomides, D. L. Courtemanch, and F. Drummond. 1993. Maine Biological
Monitoring and Biocriteria Development Program. Maine Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Water Quality Control, Division of Environmental Evaluation and Lake
Studies, Augusta, pp. 1-6.
Hughes, R. M. 1989. Ecoregional Biocriteria. In Proceedings of an EPA Conference, Water
Quality Standards for the 21* Century, Dallas, Texas, pp. 147-151.
Larsen, D. P., D. R. Dudley, and R. M. Hughes. 1988. A Regional Approach for Assessing
Attainable Surface Water Quality: An Ohio Case Study. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation 43(2):171-176.
Loehr, R. and K Dickson. 1991. Report of the Ecoregions Subcommittee of the Ecological
Processes and Effects Committee - Evaluation of the Ecoregion Concept. A January 1991
Science Advisory Board Report submitted to EPA Administrator William Reilly by Raymond
Loehr, Chairman, Executive Committee, and Kenneth Dickson, Chairman, Ecological
Processes and Effects Committee. EPA-SAB-EPEC-91-003. 25 pages.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Water Quality Program Highlights: Ohio
EPA's Use of Biological Survey Information. 4 pages.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. The Water Monitor, February Issue, p. 5.
Wilson, C. B., and W. W. Walker, Jr. 1989. Development of Lake Assessment Methods based
upon the Aquatic Ecoregion Concept. Lake and Reservoir Management 5(2): 11-22.
Whittier, T. R., A. T. Herlihy, and S. M. Pierson. 1994. Regional Susceptibility of New
England Lakes to Zebra Mussel Invasion. A preliminaiy assessment presented by Whittier
at the New England Association of Environmental Biologist Conference held in Newport,
Rhode Island on March 3, 1994.
A9
-------
P 0 ni P 20
2D 0 km 20 40
Atws eqjd
-------
C7>
P 0 iri B 20
20 0 km 20 40
toers equd
-------
0 km 20
Alws eqid uea projection
Figure 4 Total phosphorus of lakes of Massachusetts
-------
« 20
20 0 km 20 40
Abes ajjd (tea projection
Totp (ug/l)
Hi < 5
IB 5-9
i I 10-14
I I 15-19
E~! 20-24
~ 25-29
UZ3 30-50
HZ] > 50
Figure 5. Spring/fall lake phosphorus regions of Massachusetts
-------
58-01
1W* JKEMRJ5 tpfl
WMTCRED
it = 26J
tft'P ••• •
•ISSJJS? -*SSSSS!
row. (HHHHB M
ESiwro
58-02
1)0
r
90
-
80
-
J}
-
83
§ S
tt X
~ 20
o
¦
i i i
TOT*. WfHHS M
kOffOBBD
«= 26
It,..
"Tf'SRaa "Tf'saai
TUT* FtOSHRB M
crura
58-03
ID
0
n
b
§ 2
>s n
« a
v
7
no
90
80
*)
SO
il
til JO
~ 20
"I
2JSSS?
rot* whhhjsm
KNTGKD
n = 86
:JjfnTn
-J!SSS$?
m rawus («rt
rawra
58-04
00
-
90
-
80
-
TO
-
60
-
ta »
3 40
¦
to JO
-
~ 20
-
O
-
n = 0
MI* WBWHJS M
kCHTO®
¦ = 7
Mh i
"iSXSSX* "^USSS-
ior* wshsx (jyi)
ESWB
59-01o
59-01b
59-0 2 a
59-OZb
¦
90
n
m
to
§;
to 30
~ 20
0
ro
c_r>
DO
90
a
ILjIh..
.= K
101*. IHHHHJS M
MCNICRD
iota FHSWRJS (ayl)
511*10)
CO
90
80
ID
eo
EJ SO
5 «
ft x
•• a
o
§50
40
to 30
•* 20
n
*XXttS-
TOT* PKHWUS M
MCNrtHD
"TfTSRaa
ror* ihhhhjs M
ESUHTED
DO
90
80
70
60
3S
is 30
- 20
t
• . 22
00
90
80
K>
60
IS »
3 40
SS X
- 20
V
n. 425
'TfTSBS
roi*L IHJSHKS jayl)
MDMUHD
>tthTI
TOT* (HKWRJS M
ESTW1ED
ti = t)
:xnasr
TOML MBHR6 M
M0NTCRED
585
nTf?aaas
"AiiffeAS'
IOIAL WBHHE (wfl
ESTIWID
59-02c
59 - 02<)
59-03
59-04
242
*««S5 "*xxss§*
TOT* MSKHUS (mfl
HMKHD
101*. WSHHB M
E5MUS
:*JXXSS?
mMBHRSM
MCKTOE)
:sXXJSJ
TOT*. FKBHRE («yl)
ES7MAIH}
II
90
80
M
S3
a 50
3 40
fe X
" a
a
a . V
~*xi»y!
TOT* M9HJUS M
kWKRD
n- 257
HI*
WI* (WMCRJ5 (utf
E5IHA1ED
• • I
: ¦
-J
xl
a »
*5 40
ts 30
- 50
D
n = P9
"xxxxs;
WI* MHHMJ5 M
UOMKHC
vsxxsss?
TOT* WSHHSM
ESMTH)
Figure 6 Histograms for Spring/fall lake phosphorus regions
-------
0 ton 20
Alters eqLri dec projedbi
Figure 7. Total phosphorus of streams of Massachusetts
-------
Abers equd
-------
OS
0 0 ni t 20
20 0 km 2D 40
Afos eqd ireo projectjon
NORTHEASTERN HIGHlANOS (58)
Taconic Mountain} (58a)
Western New England Marble Valleys (58b)
Green Mountains/Berkshire Highlands (58c)
Lever Berkshire Hills (58d)
Berkshire Transition (58e)
Vermont Piedmont (58t)
Worcester/Moradnock Plateau (58g)*
Ecorijion boundary
Subregion boundor7
I 1 Fuzzy boundery
NORTHEASTERN COASTAL ZONE (59)
Connecticut Valley (59a)
Lower Worcester Plateau/
Eastern Connecticut Upland (59b)*
Southern New England Coastal Plains
and Hills (59c)
Boston Basin (59d)
Narragansett/Bristol Lowland (59e)
Cape Cod/Long Island (59f)
'The ecoreaion boundary bittern 58j end 59b
Is 0 vide transition. The transitions between
590 and 59b and betweei 59b end 59c ore
relatively narrow.
Figure 2 Ecoregion and subregion boundary transition widths of Massachusetts
-------
o
n 0 m 10 20
1 . Firiii: ::T] r-"- •••" -
l ' 1 Piirirn-i" iir'ii~r:i"' riiiir.l
20 0 km 2D 40
Afcers eqti iTea projection
Figure 4 Total phosphorus of lakes of Massachusetts
-------
51-01
'j!-G4
0 km 20
Abes e
-------
58-01
DOr
»-
ao -
» -
60
g 50
1 <0
to 30
•* 20
0
i= 6
i= 268
58-02
D)
g
*
60
§ s
to X
- 2D
rai ®
1 1«
- ¦_ » r
M
—
"TffSRsa •"T»®s.R»a •" t * • a
po
w
IDT*. W0SKHJ5 W
MCNTKD
HO
»
6C -
IL 'i[i_
•C3:SSggg« "SSSggJ
•cx2Sggg«
rat*. fKJSWHB Wi
E5MIH)
IS
a
80
»
«
i «
to 30
~ 30
O
» = 32
:zssSSX^
idwmewhjsm
KNNHD
ID
50
80
a
GO
I 2
to I)
- a
o
> = ao
*• t ?
-------
20 0 km 20
Afcers equi
-------
0 km 20
Afcers equd creo projection
Figure 8 Total alkalinity of surface waters of Massachusetts
------- |