Low Flow Inventory

Ipswich River Basin

Observations

In 1995, the entire upper half of the Ipswich River ran dry, causing fish kills and other negative impacts (see photo below) (7). In 1999, the river ran dry for approximately two miles near the Reading / North Reading town line accompanied, again, by extensive fish kills (4). Numerous other sources have noted low flow conditions in the Ipswich River and its tributaries as well. For example, according to DEP’s Nonpoint Source Action Strategy for the Ipswich River Basin, Maple Meadow Brook and Lubber Brook in Burlington and Wilmington Brook and Bear Meadow Brook in Reading and Ipswich all have low flow problems, presumably due to excessive water withdrawals (8).

During data collection for a study of relationships between streamflow and habitat availability (9), USGS staff observed barely perceptible flow velocity at 9 sites:

• the Ipswich River downstream of Martin’s Brook in North Reading,
• the Ipswich River downstream of the South Middleton dam in South Middleton,
• the Ipswich River at Middleton Colony in Middleton,
• the Skug River at Harold Parker Rd. near the Andover / North Andover town line,
• Martin’s Brook upstream of Park St. in Wilmington,
• Boston Brook at Peabody St. in Middleton below Curtis Pond,
• Fish Brook downstream of Lost Pond Rd. in Boxford,
• Fish Brook at Lockwood Lane in Boxford, and
• Howlett Brook in the wetland reach downstream of Ipswich Rd in Topsfield.

One resident reports that Fish Brook in Boxford has dried completely for the last several years and now dries up for a longer period each summer. The photo above shows the Fish Brook dry streambed at Brookview Road in Boxford on September 17, 2002 (17).

The Miles River Task Force was created by conservation officials from Hamilton, Wenham, Ipswich, and Beverly in 2002 to address the problem of low flows in the Miles River. The Salem News reported that "in recent decades, the river has grown shallower, wider and choked with vegetation."(18) The task force intends to address this problem of rapid eutrophication by examining nutrient inputs from nearby fertilized lawns as well as water withdrawals for golf course irrigation. (18)

Suspected Causes

Water Withdrawals The Ipswich River at South Middleton is listed by the Office of Water Resources as a high stress river based on its low discharge per square mile of watershed compared to other rivers in the state (3). The causes of this low flow have been investigated both on a site-by-site basis and in several watershed-wide studies by the USGS. For example, the results of the pump test for site #1-86 at the 100-Acre Meadow Wellfield in Reading indicated that water from the Ipswich River at least partially recharges the well and reduces water levels in the nearby wetlands (6). The Zone II delineation report for the same wellfield also stated that the river is a primary source of recharge to the wellfield. Furthermore, this study reported that average baseflow during the worst drought year on record was 7 million gallons per day (mgd). The Town of Wilmington exports about 1 mgd of sewage to the MWRA system. The report concluded that “... about 6 mgd is available at the 100-Acre Wellfield during a prolonged drought for induced stream flow infiltration. This value is roughly equal to Reading ’s maximum daily pumpage.” (5)

Basin-wide effects of water withdrawals are described in the USGS Water Resources Investigation Report #00-4029. Not surprisingly, the report found that withdrawals from groundwater wells in several headwater reaches commonly exceeded stream flow by 50 percent or more, especially during summer months.

Land Use The USGS Water Resources Investigations Report stated that in the headwaters of the Ipswich River above South Middleton, 1991 land-use conditions resulted in reduced baseflow to the Ipswich River (1), presumably by reducing infiltration and percolation to groundwater.

Consequences

Aquatic Flora and Fauna In the Nonpoint Source Action Plan, DEP staff suggested that additional studies be conducted to determine if aquatic habitats have been altered in the lower Ipswich River below the Salem-Beverly Water Supply Canal in Topsfield due to low flow conditions (8).

In addition to multiple fish kills during extreme low flow events, the Ipswich River fish community now consists of 91% habitat generalists, or pond-like species, as opposed to the target community which consists of 28% habitat generalists and 67% fluvial specialists/dependents, or flow-dependent species (11). The Ipswich River Fisheries Restoration Workgroup has come up with minimum flow recommendations for the river based on the results of the USGS habitat assessment report. The Workgroup’s draft suggestions for minimum flows to provide enough quality riverine habitat to support a healthy target fish community are (12):

• June to October: 0.49 cubic feet per square mile of watershed area (cfsm)
• November to February: 1.0 cfsm
• March to May: 2.5 cfsm

The Workgroup further recommended that water within the basin be managed so as not to let the river fall below these thresholds. Water restrictions, alternate supplies or other management tools may need to be implemented before the river reaches the minimum threshold. These measures would provide a buffer to account for delayed effects on the reduction of water levels in the river.

Current Events

The Ipswich River Watershed Management Council is a group of concerned citizens, water suppliers, environmental activists, and local and state agency personnel that was formed to address water issues in the Ipswich River Basin. To date, the Council has been the driving force supporting scientific studies of the issues and is currently working on a draft Ipswich River Watershed Management Plan (14), as well as a regional water conservation plan (for more information about the water conservation plan, contact the Ipswich River Watershed Association (13).

References & Resources

1. Zarriello, Phillip J. and Kernell G. Ries, III. 2000. A Precipitation-Runoff Model for Analysis of the Effects of Water Withdrawals on Streamflow, Ipswich River Basin, Massachusetts. USGS Water Resources Investigation Report 00-4029.
2. Armstrong, Dave. Summary of Habitat Assessment Data. Unpublished data received 11/6/01.
3. Stressed Basins in Massachusetts . Final draft, OWR version 3. 12/01.
4. Mackin, Kerry. Ipswich River Watershed Association. Personal communication February, 2002.
5. Weston and Sampson, Engineers, Inc. July 1996. Town of Reading, MA. Report on 100 Acre Wellfield Zone II Study.
6. D.L. Mahler Co. January 1990. The Results of a Prolonged Pump Test at Site T.W. #1-86 Within the 100 Acre Meadow Wellfield, Reading , Massachusetts.
7. Draft Ipswich River Watershed Management Plan. June 30, 2001. Horsley & Witten.
8. Barber, Rosalia. April 24, 2001. Nonpoint Source Action Strategy, Ipswich River Basin. MA DEP.
9. Armstrong, David S., Richards, Todd A., and Gene W. Parker. 2001. Assessment of Habitat, Fish Communities, and Streamflow Requirements for Habitat Protection, Ipswich River, Massachusetts, 1998-99. USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 01-4161.
10. Zarriello, Phillip J. 2002. Effects of Water-Management Alternatives on Streamflow in the Ipswich River, Massachusetts. Open-File Report 01-483.
11. Lang, Vernon , Abele, Ralph, Armstrong, David, Richards, Todd, Phillips, Brady, Iwanowicz, Rusty, Maietta, Robert, Wagner, Louis, MacDougall, James, and Kerry Mackin. May 2001. Ipswich River Target Fish Community.
12. Mackin, Kerry, Lang, Vernon, Richards, Todd , Pelto, Karen. May 6, 2002 draft. Ipswich River Fisheries Current Status and Restoration Approach.
13. Ipswich River Watershed Association webpage
14. Ipswich River Watershed Management Plan by Horsley & Witten, Inc.
15. USGS real-time stream gage data for the Ipswich River at South Middleton
16. USGS real-time stream gage data for the Ipswich River near Ipswich
17. Peter Morbeck. Riverways Low Flow Checklist Response Form. September 16, 2002 .
18. Bensen, Amanda. The Salem News. Monday, August 19, 2002 . "Communities of region rally to save miles River ".