Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices

7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices

1/98

Appendix A: Flow Accumulation Maps Lewis Creek Watershed

May 2012 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan

APPENDIX A

Flow Accumulation Grid Maps

prepared by:

Reed Sims

USDA-NRCSGeographic Information Systems

ph: 802.951.6796 [email protected]

Note: Higher-resolution images are available on the Project CD


2/98




3/98




4/98




5/98




6/98

Appendix B: Phase 2 Stream Assessment (T3.02) Lewis Creek Watershed


Attachment B

Phase 2 Stream Assessment Reach T3.02

Addendum to Lewis Creek Watershed:River Corridor Conservation & Management Plan (SMRC, 2010)


7/98



South Mountain RCS B- 7

B.1 Pond Brook (T3)

T3.02

Reach T3.02 is a relatively short reach of Pond Brook that extends from just downstream of the

Tyler Bridge Road culvert crossing to just upstream of the Silver Street culvert crossing. Theentire reach is underlain by sediments of glaciolacustrine origin; glacial till and bedrock

outcrops are mapped along the high relief areas to the northeast and southwest of the channel.

Soils along the southwest boundary of the channel are identified as hydric.

On average, the channel is Semi-Confined by moderate to high terraces of generally greater

than 25% slope. These terraces range in height from 9 to more than 25 feet above the channel

thalweg (or approximately 4 to more than 11 times the maximum depth of the channel). Valley

widths vary from 35 to 260 feet, or one to five times the channel width. The average valley

width is 100 feet, or 2.2 times the channel width.

There is one short section of channel that exhibits somewhat different channel and floodplain

characteristics but was deemed too short to segment. It is located near the mid-point of the

reach in the vicinity of the confluence of an unnamed tributary, T3.2S1.01, that drains a small

catchment to the north of the channel. Within this short section, the valley confinement opens

up to approximately 5 times the channel width (Narrow confinement, unconfined condition),

and terraces range from a thalweg height of 4 to 6, or 1.8 to 2.7 times the maximum depth of

the channel. Riparian buffers are absent or negligible in this short stretch, and the channel has

a narrower and deeper profile resembling an E stream type.

The upstream half of the reach is largely forested with occasional residential land use and

indicators of historic pasturing (such as barbed wire fencing, and regenerating forests). Theoverall valley confinement and relatively low gradient (0.9%) suggest a Bc stream type. The

dominant sediment size in the channel bed is cobble, though all particle sizes, from sand to

boulder are well represented. The boulders are subangular and are likely derived locally from

glacial till and glaciolacustrine deposits, and are not likely to be mobile in a normal bankfull

flow. Some boulders are very large. The upper end of the reach is transitional from upstream

wetlands and has riffle/pool bedform, while the lower half of the reach is characterized by very

shallow pools and riffles, almost a natural plane bed form. The short section of highly sinuous

channel near the mid-point of the reach has a more gravel-dominated dune/ripple bedform and

lower width/depth ratio (E stream type). Abundant freshwater mussels, fish, and crayfish were

noted in the upstream half of the reach. A beaver dam was noted at the upstream end of the

reach. This structure had a control height of approximately 1.5 feet, and was impounding flows

for an approximate distance of 200 feet into the next upstream reach. Abandoned bank beaver

dens were observed mid-reach.

Encroachments within the reach are very minor. A segment of an improved path was indexed

along the right bank near the middle section of the reach; this is a gravel farm road connecting

fields. A small water withdrawal was noted in this area, used for irrigation of the nearby organic


8/98




vegetable farm. At one time Murray Road used to cross the Pond Brook near the downstream

end of the reach (Beers, 1871); this is no longer a through road. The historic topographic map

(USGS, 1895) depicts a small impoundment upstream of this former road crossing. Remnants of

an earthen/ stone dam were observed in the narrow floodplain upstream of this crossing; an

old grist stone was observed nearby. Abandoned approaches are evidence of a second historic

crossing site at the mid-point of the reach - no crossing structure remains.

Stormwater & sediment inputs were evident from five gullies developed in the right-bank valley

wall in downstream half of reach (draining from a hay field up on the high terrace). Deposits of

coarse sediment were noted at the confluence of these gullies with Pond Brook.

Cross sections completed within the segment indicate good connection to the floodplain

(IR=1.0) except for a small degree of historic incision just upstream of historic dam remnants

in the lower half of the reach. A stream type of Bc3-riffle/pool was assigned, consistent with

the reference stream type. The reach is characterized by minor (localized) aggradation. The

channel planform and surrounding buffer widths are very similar on historic aerial photographsdated 1980, 1974, 1962 and 1942. A V[F] channel evolution stage is inferred. The Good RGA

condition rating suggests a Moderate sensitivity for this Bc3 channel.


9/98




Figure B-1. Reach T3.02, Pond Brook tributary to Lewis Creek. Yellow line indicates valley walls.

Base image: 1995.


10/98




Table B-1. Results of Phase 2 Geomorphic Assessments, 2008, 2012.

Pond Brook tributary draining to Lewis Creek lower main stem Monkton, Hinesburg

Pond Brook (T3) - Monkton, Hinesburg

Reach

Seg-

ment

Channel

Length

(ft)

Channel

Slope

(%)

Drainage

Area

(sq mi)

Stream

Type

Incision

Ratio

Width

Depth

Ratio

RGA

Condition Active Adjustment Process

Channel

Evolution

Stage

Stream

Type

Departure? Sensitivity

T3.02 -- 3,617 0.88 17.0 Bc3-R/P 1.0 [RAF] 17.8 0.79 Good Min aggr V[F] No ModerateT3.01 C 4,363 1.4 C4-R/P 1.0 [RAF] 29.3 0.60 Fair Mod PF; Local wid, aggr I [F] No Very High

B * 1,840 0.1 C4-R/P 1.4 [RAF] 16.4 0.51 Fair Mod PF; Min aggr; hist wid III [F] E to C Very High

A * 3,199 0.06 18.3 E5-D/R 1.0 [RAF] 10.4 0.68 Good Mod PF; Local aggr I [F] No High

Notes / Abbreviations:

Channel Slope: Values in italic bold have been updated since the Phase 1 SGA, due to field-truthing and/or segmentation.

Stream Type: S/P = Step/Pool; R/P = Riffle/Pool; R/D = Ripple/Dune; PB = Plane Bed; Br = Braided; Casc = Cascade; Ref = Reference

Incision Ratio: RAF = Recently Abandoned Floodplain; HEF = Human-elevated Floodplain (following protocols, VTANR, 2007).

Condition: RHA = Rapid Habitat Assessment; RGA = Rapid Geomorphic Assessment (VTANR, 2007).

Adjustment : PF = Planform Adjustment; A ggr = Aggradation; W id = Widening; Deg = Degradat ion; NM = Not Measured.

Channel Evolution Stage: F = F-stage model; D = D-stage model (see Appendix C of protocols, VTA NR, May 2007).

Sensitivity - assigned as per updates communicated by VTANR in Nov 2008 DRAFT River Corridor Protection Guide.

* Subreach of alternate reference stream type.


11/98




Attachment B-1. Valley Wall Documentation

Valley walls have been delineated in support of the Phase 2 Stream Geomorphic Assessment of reach

T3.02 on the Pond Brook (Lewis Creek). The primary purpose of this valley wall delineation is to support

valley width determinations (Step 1.5) and stream type designations (Step 2) in Phase 2 Stream

Geomorphic Assessments (VTANR, 2009) by: (1) documenting the position of the natural valley wall that

constrains lateral movement of the channel (over human time scales); and (2) identifying locations

where human infrastructure has encroached within the natural valley wall to theoretically constrain

hydraulics of the channel and floodplain and/or change the confinement of the channel.

Methods

Valley wall delineation has been completed in accordance with guidance contained in the Corridor

Protection Guide and Technical Appendices (VTANR, 2008a, 2008b). Remote sensing resources utilized

in this interpretation included soils data, surficial geologic data, NWI & VSWI wetlands coverage, 2003

NAIP color imagery, 1:5000 black & white orthophotographs (dated 2006), and 1:24000 USGS

topographic maps. Valley wall delineations were also informed by GPS mapping (GarminTM

76CSx

model) and field observations conducted on 6 July 2012. In the downstream half of the reach, valley

wall delineation relied primarily on2-foot topographic contours derived from 2004 high-resolution LiDAR data downloaded from VCGI

(ElevationContours_CN2T, updated April 2009, downloaded September 2010).

Deliverables

vw_ph1_t302.shp

- the Phase 2 valley wall, representing the natural valley wall, except where modified by significant

human infrastructure. The natural valley wall was adjusted to fall along the following roads considered

to be significant human infrastructure:

Lincoln Hill Road (TH-33, class 3) along the upper end of Hollow Brook reach T4.05; Hollow Road (TH-5, class 2) along Hollow Brook reach T4.02; Hollow Road and VT Route 116 (class 30) along Hollow Brook reach T4.01; and a short section of Silver Street (TH-1, class 2) along Pond Brook reach T3.01.

Limitations

1. SMRC is aware that these Phase 2 valley walls may be utilized by others in the process of defining

what are termed Fluvial Erosion Hazard (FEH) corridors or areas, following procedures prescribed by VT

Agency of Natural Resources. The Phase 2 valley wall positions delineated by SMRC do not necessarily

represent lateral extents of fluvial erosion hazard along these river reaches. Often the natural valley

wall has been delineated along high terraces inferred to be of glacial or post-glacial age and origin. In

these cases, the terrace defines a valley side slope (and valley width) of the reference (and existing)

channel under the current hydrologic and sediment regimes for purposes of assigning stream types.

However, sediments comprising these terraces may be subject to fluvial erosion hazards and/or

landslide hazards where scour velocities exceed the threshold for erosion and/or where bank heights or

slopes exceed stable conditions. No detailed assessments (such as subsurface geologic investigations,

geotechnical evaluations, licensed land surveys, hydrologic or hydraulic assessments) have been

conducted to estimate the degree to which these valley walls will constrain the channel or to define the


12/98




susceptibility of these mapped valley walls to fluvial erosion. The potential for sudden channel avulsion

and/or stream capture may exist outside of these valley walls.

According to the VTANR River Corridor Protection Guide (p. 16, 2008a), significant human-constructed

features, such as engineered levees and major road and railroad embankments placed on fill, are

treated as confining features to lateral stream migration and are mapped as valley walls. Such

encroachments may theoretically be significant enough to constrain the channel or floodplain hydraulics

and/or cause a change in confinement that affects stream type designations - thus warranting

delineation as the human-modified (or artificial) Phase 2 valley wall. However, this human

infrastructure may still be susceptible to erosion. No detailed assessments (such as subsurface geologic

investigations, geotechnical evaluations, licensed land surveys, hydrologic or hydraulic assessments)

have been conducted to estimate the degree that human encroachments will laterally constrain the

channel or the degree that human encroachments will change hydraulics of channel and floodplain flow

during a flood event of given magnitude. Nor have detailed assessments been conducted to define the

susceptibility of these artificial valley walls to fluvial erosion.

2. In some remote, forested sections of reach T3.02, the Vermont Hydrography Dataset (VHD) coverage

of surface waters (s05swfinaldslv.shp) was offset from actual channel positions (as revealed by GPSpositions during field assessment and by the LiDAR-derived 2-ft contours). The VHD lines cross valley

walls and extend outside of the actual floodplain surrounding the channel. If the true valley walls had

been delineated in these locations, the resulting valley wall shape file would cause operational errors

within the Stream Geomorphic Assessment Tool software, during generation of river corridors (and

Fluvial Erosion Hazard zones). Therefore, in these few sections, the valley wall was delineated outside

the true valley to correspond to the available VHD coverage. These valley wall locations are not ideal,

since they do not reflect the actual valley wall position with respect to the actual channel position.

Areas where this was an issue were located within the downstream 600 feet of the reach.

3. In general, terraces of unconsolidated materials were not delineated as the natural valley wall unless

they were more than 3 times the bankfull depth of the channel for the given reach.

4. Generally, segments of the farm road where it followed the channel were not identified toconstitute significant human infrastructure.

References

VT Agency of Natural Resources, 2008a (November), River Corridor Protection Guide: Fluvial

Geomorphic-Based Methodology to Reduce Flood Hazards and Protect Water Quality. Available at:

http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/rivers/docs/rv_RiverCorridorProtectionGuide.pdf

VT Agency of Natural Resources, 2008b, November), Vermont River Corridor Protection Guide: Technical

Appendix. Available at:

http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/rivers/docs/rv_CorridorProtectionGuideAppendix.pdf

VT Agency of Natural Resources, 2009, Stream Geomorphic Assessment Protocol Handbooks, Remote

Sensing and Field Surveys Techniques for Conducting Watershed and Reach Level Assessments.

Available at:http://www.vtwaterquality.org/rivers/htm/rv_geoassesspro.htm
http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/rivers/docs/rv_RiverCorridorProtectionGuide.pdfhttp://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/rivers/docs/rv_RiverCorridorProtectionGuide.pdfhttp://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/rivers/docs/rv_CorridorProtectionGuideAppendix.pdfhttp://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/rivers/docs/rv_CorridorProtectionGuideAppendix.pdfhttp://www.vtwaterquality.org/rivers/htm/rv_geoassesspro.htmhttp://www.vtwaterquality.org/rivers/htm/rv_geoassesspro.htmhttp://www.vtwaterquality.org/rivers/htm/rv_geoassesspro.htmhttp://www.vtwaterquality.org/rivers/htm/rv_geoassesspro.htmhttp://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/rivers/docs/rv_CorridorProtectionGuideAppendix.pdfhttp://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/rivers/docs/rv_RiverCorridorProtectionGuide.pdf


13/98

Appendix C: Bridge & Culvert Assessments Lewis Creek Watershed


APPENDIX C

Bridge & Culvert AssessmentSummary Reports

Seehttps://anrnode.anr.state.vt.us/SGA/datasets/structures/reports.aspx?did=96


14/98

Appendix D: Climate Data Lewis Creek Watershed


Attachment D

Climate and Hydrology Data


15/98



Table D-1. Monthly / Annual Precipitation at climate stations located in vicinity of Addison County.

Data Time

Source Period Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

Burlington, VT (Airport) 1 1971-2000 2.22 1.67 2.32 2.88 3.32 3.43 3.97 4.01 3.83 3.12 3.06 2.22 36.05

330 ft amsl 2 2009 1.76 1.81 1.90 1.86 5.25 5.25 4.62 2.32 3.67 2.98 2.98 3.02 37.42

20 miles N 2 2010 2.41 2.13 2.85 3.08 1.52 5.87 2.25 3.51 4.17 6.24 3.10 3.60 40.73

2 2011 1.44 3.02 3.39 7.88 8.67 3.52 3.68 6.11 6.06 3.49 1.43 2.23 50.92

2 2012 1.96 0.89 0.98 2.84 4.41 3.22 3.78 2.92 5.36 5.04 1.24 3.30 35.94

South Lincoln, VT 1 1971-2000 2.92 2.10 3.14 4.20 4.31 4.58 4.24 5.22 4.44 4.39 3.98 3.13 46.65

1,370 ft amsl 2 2009 3.05 2.91 2.14 2.55 8.71 5.52 9.07 3.03 2.25 4.52 4.76 3.80 52.31

13.6 miles SE 2 2010 2.88 3.69 4.65 4.17 2.21 7.50 7.18 5.61 3.36 11.56 2.13 3.08 58.02

2 2011 1.26 2.04 4.04 1.23 3.95 1.22 2.06 10.71 1.66 1.09 2.19 2.83 34.28

2 2012 2.19 0.83 1.90 3.64 6.29 3.12 2.88 4.77 4.94 7.02 1.38 3.92 42.88

Rutland, VT 1 1971-2000 2.70 1.97 2.59 2.80 3.52 3.85 4.58 4.18 3.91 3.21 3.08 2.73 39.12

620 ft amsl 2 2009 2.29 1.98 2.04 1.96 4.43 3.86 9.30 7.71 2.27 4.76 3.64 3.00 47.24

40 miles SSE 2 2010 2.22 2.83 4.69 3.04 2.87 3.00 5.35 4.14 1.95 9.76 2.28 3.66 45.79

2 2011 2.93 3.76 3.61 5.69 4.40 4.38 4.88 11.24 4.88 3.48 1.29 2.80 53.34

2 2012 1.69 0.69 1.12 3.32 5.26 3.66 3.62 3.42 4.58 4.57 0.71 4.08 36.72

Total precipitation in inches, including liquid equivalent of snow, sleet.

Values for 1971-2000 period reflect averages for the time period. Values for individual years are totals.

Data Sources: 1 National Climatic Data Center, 2002, Climatography of the United States No. 81 - 43 (Vermont), Monthly Station Normals of

Temperature, Precipitation, and Heating and Cooling Degree Days: 1971-2000

2NOAA Online Weather Data, http://www.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=btv


16/98



Table D-2. Monthly / Seasonal Snowfall Totals at climate stations located in vicinity of Addison County.

Time

Period Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Season

So. Burlington, VT 1971-2000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 7.2 17.1 20.9 15.3 15.4 5.8 0.0 0.0 81.9

(Airport) 2009-2010 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.7 48.4 24.0 0.9 5.5 0.0 0.0 96.52010-2011 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 27.9 26.9 43.1 29.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 128.4

2011-2012 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 5.0 6.9 13.4 6.4 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.7

South Lincoln, VT 1981-2000 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 13.9 26.9 29.6 22.8 24.5 10.5 0.7 0.0 131.1

2009-2010 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.1 26.0 22.5 33.0 3.2 10.0 1.0 0.0 96.9

2010-2011 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 4.0 39.5 42.3 40.2 26.2 1.8 0.0 0.0 156.2

2011-2012 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 4.9 24.3 18.4 12.0 11.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 73.6

Rutland, VT 1971-2000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 5.6 13.5 16.7 13.9 12.4 3.6 0.0 0.0 66.0

2009-2010 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 15.9 19.9 0.1 2.1 0.0 0.0 56.2

2010-2011 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 21.3 26.8 37.2 14.6 0.9 0.0 0.0 101.7

2011-2012 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 2.9 5.0 8.9 2.7 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.2

Total snowfall in inches. Values for 1971-2000 period reflect averages for the time period. Values for seasons are totals.

Source: http://www.weather.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=btv data available as of Jan 2013


17/98



Table D-3. Flows recorded in Addison County rivers, 2012

River Little Otter Ck Lewis Creek New Haven River Otter Ck MB

USGS Gage # #04282650 #04282780 #04282525 #04282500

Drainage Area (sq mi) 57.1 77.4 115 630

Sample Dates 4/4/2012 20 47 112 666

(Daily Mean Flows) 4/23/2012 374

(cfs) 5/2/2012 84 154 275 1,400

5/16/2012 396

5/17/2012 478

6/6/2012 60 53 163 1,680

7/11/2012 2.7 18 53 279

8/1/2012 4.6 22 41 343

9/5/2012 22 71 168 227

10/20/2012 758

10/22/2012 165

12/18/2012 143

12/19/2012 192

Peak Flows Q2 1,120 2,280 4,410 4,270

(Olson, 2002; Table 2) Q5 1,640 2,990 6,980 5,840

Q10 1,990 3,420 8,870 6,970

Q25 2,440 3,920 11,500 8,480

Q50 2,790 4,270 13,500 9,680

Q100 3,130 4,590 15,700 10,900

Q500 3,950 5,290 21,200 14,200


18/98



Figure D-1. Cumulative Mean Annual Flow (million cubic feet) in Lewis Creek (USGS gaging station #04282780),

Water Years 1991 2000.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1 31 61 91 121 151 181 211 241 271 301 331 361

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Water Year

1996

1995


19/98





0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1 31 61 91 121 151 181 211 241 271 301 331 361

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010


Water Year

2008

2006

2002


20/98





0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1 31 61 91 121 151 181 211 241 271 301 331 361

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020


Water Year

2011

2012


21/98

Appendix E: Discharge Data Lewis Creek Watershed


APPENDIX E

Discharge DataPond Brook


22/98



Figure E-1. Site Location Map, Temporary Gaging Station, Pond Brook (Lewis Creek)

(water quality stations identified by red triangles)


23/98



Figure E-2. Temporary Flow Gaging Station, Parren property, Pond Brook (Lewis Creek)

(view upstream, 13 April 2012)


24/98



Figure E-3. Temporary Flow Gaging Station, Parren property, Pond Brook (Lewis Creek), 19 April 2012.


25/98



Figure E-4. Stage/ Discharge Rating Curve, Temporary Flow Gaging Station, Pond Brook (Lewis Creek).


26/98



LAT/LON: 44.27165302 / -73.11404645 Velocity Equation Coefficients 0. 9604 0.0312

S tream Name: P ond B k (Lewi s Ck) Dat e: 4 /13/ 2012 Neares t P ermanent Gage: USGS Gage #04282780

Cross Section: P arren prop; temp staff gage Instantaneous Flow: 47 cfs

Observers: K. Underwood, B. O'Shea Daily Mean Flow: 47 cfs

Weather: 55 , s unny, dry W ater T: NM Flow Gage Used: Pygmy Stage: 0.64 ft

Recent P recip : B TV : 4/ 11: 0. 07" , 4/ 10 : 0. 16" , 4/ 09: 0. 07" B egi n Ti me: 11: 10 End Ti me: 11: 45

Fixed Pt = LPIN Depth (d) >2.5 ft, Obs Depth = 0.2xd and 0.8xd, otherwise, 0.6xd

Angle Distance from Obs Total Adjusted for Discharge, q

Notes Coeff. fi xed point ( ft ) Depth Depth ( ft ) Rev (#) Time (sec) R ( rev/sec) at pt mean angle coeff. Area (ft2) (ft3/sec) Check

1 LEW 1.02 1.0 1.3 0.6 0.45 51 60 0.85 0.848 0.848 0.18 0.153 1.2%

3 1.0 1.8 0.6 0.55 19 55 0.35 0.363 0.363 0.275 0.100 0.8%

4 1.0 2.3 0.6 0.5 56 60 0.93 0.928 0.928 0.25 0.232 1.9%

5 1.0 2.8 0.6 0.45 81 55 1.47 1.446 1.446 0.225 0.325 2.6%

6 1.0 3.3 0.6 0.3 112 55 2.04 1.987 1.987 0.15 0.298 2.4%

7 1.0 3.8 0.6 0.45 113 60 1.88 1.840 1.840 0.225 0.414 3.4%

8 1.0 4.3 0.6 0.55 102 55 1.85 1.812 1.812 0.33 0.598 4.9%

9 1.0 5.0 0.6 0.4 123 55 2.24 2.179 2.179 0.3 0.654 5.3%

10 1.0 5.8 0.6 0.6 64 55 1.16 1.149 1.149 0.42 0.482 3.9%

11 1.0 6.4 0.6 0.5 34 55 0.62 0.625 0.625 0.325 0.203 1.6%

12 1.0 7.1 0.6 0.5 98 55 1.78 1.742 1.742 0.375 0.653 5.3%

13 1.0 7.9 0.6 0.5 132 55 2.40 2.336 2.336 0.375 0.876 7.1%

14 1.0 8.6 0.6 0.5 79 55 1.44 1.411 1.411 0.4 0.564 4.6%

15 1.0 9.5 0.6 0.55 38 55 0.69 0.695 0.695 0.44 0.306 2.5%

16 wake of boulder 1.0 10.2 0.6 0.6 15 55 0.27 0.293 0.293 0.45 0.132 1.1%

17 1.0 11.0 0.6 0.55 60 65 0.92 0.918 0.918 0.44 0.404 3.3%

18 1.0 11.8 0.6 0.5 49 55 0.89 0.887 0.887 0.425 0.377 3.1%

19 1.0 12.7 0.6 0.5 73 55 1.33 1.306 1.306 0.525 0.686 5.6%

20 1.0 13.9 0.6 0.35 20 60 0.33 0.351 0.351 0.315 0.111 0.9%

21 1.0 14.5 0.6 0.4 116 55 2.11 2.057 2.057 0.22 0.452 3.7%

22 1.0 15.0 0.6 0.35 48 55 0.87 0.869 0.869 0.2275 0.198 1.6%

23 1.0 15.8 0.6 0.4 62 55 1.13 1.114 1.114 0.32 0.356 2.9%

24 1.0 16.6 0.6 0.4 105 55 1.91 1.865 1.865 0.38 0.709 5.8%25 1.0 17.7 0.6 0.55 65 55 1.18 1.166 1.166 0.6325 0.738 6.0%

26 1.0 18.9 0.6 0.35 33 55 0.60 0.607 0.607 0.3325 0.202 1.6%

27 1.0 19.6 0.6 0.45 67 55 1.22 1.201 1.201 0.3375 0.405 3.3%

28 1.0 20.4 0.6 0.55 59 55 1.07 1.061 1.061 0.44 0.467 3.8%

29 1.0 21.2 0.6 0.4 26 55 0.47 0.485 0.485 0.32 0.155 1.3%

30 1.0 22.0 0.6 0.45 67 55 1.22 1.201 1.201 0.3825 0.459 3.7%

31 1.0 22.9 0.6 0.3 74 60 1.23 1.216 1.216 0.495 0.602 4.9%

32 REW 1.0 25.3 0.6

33 1.0 0.6

34 1.0 0.6

35 1.0 0.6

MAX 0.6 TOTAL 10.5125 12.311 100.0%

Mean 0.46

Velocity (fps)


27/98



LAT/LON: 44.27165302 / -73.11404645 Velocity Equation Coefficients 0.9604 0.0312

Stream Name: Pond Bk (Lewis Ck ) Date: 5/2/2012 Neares t Permanent Gage: USGS Gage #04282780

Cross Section: P arren prop; temp staff gage Instantaneous Flow: 146 cfs (slowly falling)

Observers: K. Underwood (w/ digital recorder) Daily Mean Flow: 259 cfs

Weather: mstly overcast, low 60s Water T: NM Flow Gage Used: Pygmy Stage: 0.90 - 0.89 ft

Recent Prec ip: 5/1: 0.25in at NHR; dry otherwise for prev 6 days Begin Time: 14:07 End Time: 14:58

1.0 = Fixed Pt = LPIN Depth (d) >2.5 ft, Obs Depth = 0.2xd and 0.8xd, otherwise, 0.6xd


Notes Coeff. fixed point ( ft ) Depth Depth ( ft ) Rev (#) Time (sec) R (rev/sec) at pt mean angle coeff. Area ( ft2) ( ft3/sec) Check

1 LEW 1.52 1.0 2.4 0.6 0.4 42 55 0.76 0.765 0.765 0.3 0.229 0.8%

3 1.0 3.0 0.6 0.4 77 55 1.40 1.376 1.376 0.22 0.303 1.1%

4 1.0 3.5 0.6 0.55 45 55 0.82 0.817 0.817 0.3575 0.292 1.1%

5 1.0 4.3 0.6 0.7 105 57 1.84 1.800 1.800 0.525 0.945 3.4%

6 1.0 5.0 0.6 0.7 102 56 1.82 1.781 1.781 0.525 0.935 3.4%

7 1.0 5.8 0.6 0.75 92 55 1.67 1.638 1.638 0.6 0.983 3.6%

8 1.0 6.6 0.6 0.75 102 55 1.85 1.812 1.812 0.6 1.087 4.0%

9 1.0 7.4 0.6 0.75 104 55 1.89 1.847 1.847 0.6 1.108 4.0%

10 1.0 8.2 0.6 0.75 114 55 2.07 2.022 2.022 0.6 1.213 4.4%

11 1.0 9.0 0.6 0.75 118 55 2.15 2.092 2.092 0.6 1.255 4.6%

12 1.0 9.8 0.6 0.75 108 55 1.96 1.917 1.917 0.6 1.150 4.2%

13 1.0 10.6 0.6 0.75 87 55 1.58 1.550 1.550 0.6 0.930 3.4%

14 1.0 11.4 0.6 0.9 116 55 2.11 2.057 2.057 0.675 1.388 5.1%

15 1.0 12.1 0.6 0.85 109 55 1.98 1.935 1.935 0.595 1.151 4.2%

16 1.0 12.8 0.6 0.85 130 55 2.36 2.301 2.301 0.5525 1.271 4.6%

17 1.0 13.4 0.6 0.8 118 55 2.15 2.092 2.092 0.52 1.088 4.0%

18 1.0 14.1 0.6 0.9 101 55 1.84 1.795 1.795 0.675 1.212 4.4%

19 shadow of u/s cob 1.0 14.9 0.6 0.9 85 55 1.55 1.515 1.515 0.72 1.091 4.0%

20 shadow of u/s cob 1.0 15.7 0.6 0.75 35 55 0.64 0.642 0.642 0.6375 0.410 1.5%

21 1.0 16.6 0.6 0.75 99 58 1.71 1.671 1.671 0.675 1.128 4.1%

22 1.0 17.5 0.6 0.9 98 55 1.78 1.742 1.742 0.765 1.333 4.9%

23 1.0 18.3 0.6 1.05 120 55 2.18 2.127 2.127 0.6825 1.451 5.3%24 1.0 18.8 0.6 0.95 91 55 1.65 1.620 1.620 0.6175 1.000 3.6%

25 1.0 19.6 0.6 0.9 89 55 1.62 1.585 1.585 0.81 1.284 4.7%

26 1.0 20.6 0.6 0.45 94 55 1.71 1.673 1.673 0.405 0.677 2.5%

27 1.0 21.4 0.6 0.55 95 65 1.46 1.435 1.435 0.4675 0.671 2.4%

28 1.0 22.3 0.6 0.4 81 55 1.47 1.446 1.446 0.38 0.549 2.0%

29 1.0 23.3 0.6 0.3 96 55 1.75 1.708 1.708 0.315 0.538 2.0%

30 1.0 24.4 0.6 0.3 75 55 1.36 1.341 1.341 0.3 0.402 1.5%

31 1.0 25.3 0.6 0.25 58 55 1.05 1.044 1.044 0.3375 0.352 1.3%

32 REW 1.0 27.1 0.6

33 1.0

34 1.0

MAX 1.05 TOTAL 16.2575 27.428 100.0%

MEAN 0.69

Velocity (fps)


28/98




Stream Name: Pond Bk (Lewis Ck) Date: 5/11/2012 Nearest Permanent Gage: USGS Ga ge #04282780

Cross Section: P arren prop; temp staff gage Instantaneous Flow: 335, 322 cfs (falling)

Observers: K. Underwood Daily Mean Flow: 314 cfs

Weather: c lear, 60s Water T: NM Flow Gage Used: Pygmy Stage: ~1.19 ft

Recent P rec ip: NHR: 5/ 8, 0. 85in; 5/ 9, 0. 01in; 5/ 10, 0. 14in Begin Time: 16: 15 End Time: 17: 10

1.0 = Fixed Pt = LPIN Depth (d) >2.5 ft, Obs Depth = 0.2xd and 0.8xd, otherwise, 0.6xd


Notes Coeff. fixed point (ft ) Depth Depth (ft ) Rev (#) Time (sec) R (rev/sec) at pt mean angle coeff. Area (ft2) (ft3/sec) Check1 LEW 1.3

2 shadow, u/s bank 1.0 2.0 0.6 0.6 33 55 0.60 0.607 0.607 0.51 0.310 0.6%

3 1.0 3.0 0.6 0.7 100 55 1.82 1.777 1.777 0.665 1.182 2.1%

4 1.0 3.9 0.6 0.85 100 55 1.82 1.777 1.777 0.765 1.360 2.4%

5 1.0 4.8 0.6 1.05 127 55 2.31 2.249 2.249 0.945 2.125 3.8%

6 1.0 5.7 0.6 0.95 137 55 2.49 2.423 2.423 0.855 2.072 3.7%

7 1.0 6.6 0.6 0.95 140 55 2.55 2.476 2.476 0.855 2.117 3.8%

8 1.0 7.5 0.6 1.0 135 60 2.25 2.192 2.192 0.9 1.973 3.5%

9 1.0 8.4 0.6 1.0 151 55 2.75 2.668 2.668 0.9 2.401 4.3%

10 1.0 9.3 0.6 1.05 141 55 2.56 2.493 2.493 0.945 2.356 4.2%

11 1.0 10.2 0.6 1.0 136 55 2.47 2.406 2.406 0.9 2.165 3.9%

12 1.0 11.1 0.6 1.15 143 55 2.60 2.528 2.528 1.035 2.617 4.7%

13 1.0 12.0 0.6 1.15 159 55 2.89 2.808 2.808 0.9775 2.744 4.9%

14 1.0 12.8 0.6 1.1 156 55 2.84 2.755 2.755 0.88 2.425 4.3%

15 1.0 13.6 0.6 1.15 165 55 3.00 2.912 2.912 0.8625 2.512 4.5%

16 1.0 14.3 0.6 1.1 174 55 3.16 3.070 3.070 0.77 2.364 4.2%

17 1.0 15.0 0.6 1.15 140 55 2.55 2.476 2.476 0.8625 2.135 3.8%

18 1.0 15.8 0.6 1.05 173 55 3.15 3.052 3.052 0.945 2.884 5.1%

19 1.0 16.8 0.6 1.15 113 55 2.05 2.004 2.004 1.0925 2.190 3.9%

20 1.0 17.7 0.6 1.2 142 55 2.58 2.511 2.511 1.08 2.712 4.8%21 TW 1.0 18.6 0.6 1.25 157 55 2.85 2.773 2.773 1.0625 2.946 5.3%

22 1.0 19.4 0.6 1.2 116 55 2.11 2.057 2.057 1.02 2.098 3.7%

23 1.0 20.3 0.6 1.2 164 55 2.98 2.895 2.895 1.14 3.300 5.9%

24 1.0 21.3 0.6 0.85 121 55 2.20 2.144 2.144 0.85 1.822 3.2%

25 1.0 22.3 0.6 0.7 146 55 2.65 2.581 2.581 0.77 1.987 3.5%

26 1.0 23.5 0.6 0.6 122 55 2.22 2.162 2.162 0.69 1.491 2.7%

27 1.0 24.6 0.6 0.65 71 55 1.29 1.271 1.271 0.65 0.826 1.5%

28 1.0 25.5 0.6 0.65 52 55 0.95 0.939 0.939 0.455 0.427 0.8%

29 1.0 26.0 0.6 0.4 84 55 1.53 1.498 1.498 0.36 0.539 1.0%

30 REW 1.0 27.3

MAX 1.25 TOTAL 23.7425 56.081 100.0%

Mean 0.96

Velocity (fps)


29/98




Stream Name: Pond Bk (Lewis Ck) Date: 12/19/2012 Neares t Permanent Gage: USGS Gage #04282780

Cross Section: P arren prop; temp staff gage Instantaneous Flow: 184 cfs

Observers: K. Underwood Daily Mean Flow: 192 cfs

Weather: overcast, 30s, occ sprinkle Water T: 32.5 Flow Gage Used: Pygmy Stage: 1.00 ft

Recent P rec ip: Begin Time: 14:35 End Time: 15 :30

Fixed Pt = LPIN Depth (d) >2.5 ft, Obs Depth = 0.2xd and 0.8xd, otherwise, 0.6xd


Notes Coeff. fixed point (ft ) Depth Depth ( ft ) Rev (#) Time (sec) R (rev/sec) at pt mean angle coeff. Area ( ft2) ( ft3/sec) Check1 LEW 1.3

2 1.0 2.0 0.6 0.4 16 55 0.29 0.311 0.311 0.3 0.093 0.2%

3 1.0 2.8 0.6 0.5 70 55 1.27 1.254 1.254 0.4 0.501 1.3%

4 1.0 3.6 0.6 0.6 82 55 1.49 1.463 1.463 0.48 0.702 1.9%

5 1.0 4.4 0.6 0.75 125 55 2.27 2.214 2.214 0.6 1.328 3.6%

6 1.0 5.2 0.6 0.75 123 55 2.24 2.179 2.179 0.6 1.307 3.5%

7 1.0 6.0 0.6 0.8 101 55 1.84 1.795 1.795 0.64 1.149 3.1%

8 1.0 6.8 0.6 0.65 116 55 2.11 2.057 2.057 0.52 1.070 2.9%

9 1.0 7.6 0.6 0.8 94 55 1.71 1.673 1.673 0.64 1.070 2.9%

10 1.0 8.4 0.6 0.8 142 55 2.58 2.511 2.511 0.64 1.607 4.3%

11 1.0 9.2 0.6 0.75 110 55 2.00 1.952 1.952 0.6 1.171 3.1%

12 1.0 10.0 0.6 0.95 83 55 1.51 1.481 1.481 0.76 1.125 3.0%

13 1.0 10.8 0.6 0.9 118 55 2.15 2.092 2.092 0.72 1.506 4.0%

14 1.0 11.6 0.6 1 132 55 2.40 2.336 2.336 0.8 1.869 5.0%

15 1.0 12.4 0.6 0.95 129 55 2.35 2.284 2.284 0.76 1.736 4.7%

16 1.0 13.2 0.6 0.95 154 55 2.80 2.720 2.720 0.76 2.067 5.5%

17 1.0 14.0 0.6 0.9 161 55 2.93 2.843 2.843 0.63 1.791 4.8%

18 1.0 14.6 0.6 0.85 177 55 3.22 3.122 3.122 0.68 2.123 5.7%

19 avoid rock 1.0 15.6 0.6 0.75 179 55 3.25 3.157 3.157 0.75 2.368 6.3%

20 1.0 16.6 0.6 0.8 169 55 3.07 2.982 2.982 0.72 2.147 5.8%

21 in shadow u/s rock 1.0 17.4 0.6 0.9 88 55 1.60 1.568 1.568 0.765 1.199 3.2%22 1.0 18.3 0.6 1.15 126 55 2.29 2.231 2.231 0.92 2.053 5.5%

23 on rock 1.0 19.0 0.6 0.9 162 55 2.95 2 .860 2.860 0.675 1.931 5.2%

24 1.0 19.8 0.6 1.05 108 55 1.96 1.917 1.917 0.84 1.610 4.3%

25 1.0 20.6 0.6 0.85 106 55 1.93 1.882 1.882 0.765 1.440 3.9%

26 1.0 21.6 0.6 0.7 70 55 1.27 1.254 1.254 0.84 1.053 2.8%

27 1.0 23.0 0.6 0.5 39 55 0.71 0.712 0.712 0.6 0.427 1.1%

28 1.0 24.0 0.6 0.3 57 55 1.04 1.027 1.027 0.3 0.308 0.8%

29 1.0 25.0 0.6 0.3 42 60 0.70 0.703 0.703 0.27 0.190 0.5%

30 1.0 25.8 0.6 0.35 55 55 1.00 0.992 0.992 0.3675 0.364 1.0%

31 REW 1.0 27.1

32 RPIN 1.0 28.0

MAX 1.15 TOTAL 18.3425 37.307 100.0%

Mean 0.75

Velocity (fps)


30/98

Appendix F: Water Quality Data Lewis Creek Watershed


Attachment F

Water Quality Data

Abbreviations:

TN = Total NitrogenTP = Total Phosphorus

DP = Dissolved Phosphorus

TSS = Total Suspended Sediments

mpn/100 mL = organisms per 100 milliliters

mg/L = milligrams per liter

ug/ L = micrograms per liter

NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units

-- = No Data

NS = Not SampledNA = Not Analyzed (insufficient sample volume)

NM = Not Measured

J = estimated value; constituent was present in an associated field blank and the concentration

of constituent in the primary sample was more than 5 times the value detected in the

field blank, and/or the calculated relative percent difference for an associated field

duplicate pair exceeded target value.

R = rejected value; constituent was present in an associated field blank and the concentration of

constituent in the primary sample was within 5 times the value detected in the field

blank.

Note: QA/QC issues further detailed in separate QA Summary Report


31/98



Lewis Creek

Location Date Final E. Coli. TN TP DP TSS Turbidity

(mpn/100ml) (mg-N/l) (ug P/L) (ug P/L) (mg/L) (NTU)

LCR3.7 4/4/2012 21.1 3.45

LCR9.9 4/4/2012 17.8 4.2

LCR14 4/4/2012 12.7 3.38

LCR17.2 4/4/2012 7.49 0.78

LCR18.6 4/4/2012 6.36 0.46

LCR19.5 4/4/2012 5.88 0.53

LCR27.8 4/4/2012 < 5 0.55

LCT3D.5 4/4/2012 0.44 46.2 16.8 5.07 3.08

LCT3-3.9 4/4/2012 0.38 44.9 21.5 4.13 1.89

LCT3-8.7 4/4/2012 0.56 34.2 15.2 6.67 3.31

LCT3-10.5 4/4/2012 0.55 27.8 9.65 6.13 2.6

LCR3.7 5/1/2012 39.8 8.37

LCR9.9 5/1/2012 56.3 13.4

LCR14 5/1/2012 107 13.2

LCR17.2 5/1/2012 31.9 6.35

LCR18.6 5/1/2012 21.9 3.25

LCR19.5 5/1/2012 25.7 2.11

LCR27.8 5/1/2012 8.76 0.59

LCT3D.5 5/1/2012 0.47 44 22.2 7.73 4.64

LCT3-3.9 5/1/2012 0.45 42.5 21.9 3.6 1.73

LCT3-8.7 5/1/2012 0.61 45.2 20 9.6 5.99

LCT3-10.5 5/1/2012 0.5 23.4 8.83 3.47 2.01

LCR3.7 6/6/2012 46 24.4 4.77

LCR9.9 6/6/2012 28.8 5.09

LCR14 6/6/2012 148 10.2 1.46

LCR17.2 6/6/2012 11.9 0.75

LCR18.6 6/6/2012 9.28 0.45

LCR19.5 6/6/2012 10.8 0.48

LCR27.8 6/6/2012 5.9 0.58

LCT3D.5 6/6/2012 81 0.43 78.9 60 6.67 5.24

LCT3-3.9 6/6/2012 166 0.38 73.2 57.4 1.87 1.18

LCT3-8.7 6/6/2012 517 0.66 49.9 26.3 8.43 5.55

LCT3-10.5 6/6/2012 99 0.57 34.6 16.6 3.6 2.58

Shaded cells represent values that exceed the relevant VT Water Quality Standard:

E.coli = 77 MPN/100 mL; Turbidity (cold water Class B) = 10 NTUs


32/98



Lewis Creek (continued)



LCR3.7 7/11/2012 35 28.1 6.19

LCR9.9 7/11/2012 38.9 7.04

LCR14 7/11/2012 517 20.7 4.76

LCR17.2 7/11/2012 9.01 0.59

LCR18.6 7/11/2012 7.3 0.38

LCR19.5 7/11/2012 6.88 < 0.2

LCR27.8 7/11/2012 5.28 < 0.2

LCT3D.5 7/11/2012 43 0.64 109 80.9 3.6 3.65

LCT3-3.9 7/11/2012 45 0.64 106 86.9 1.6 1.17

LCT3-8.7 7/11/2012 613 0.84 51.3 36.9 5.6 3.26

LCT3-10.5 7/11/2012 313 0.81 39.7 28.8 4.6 2.4

LCR3.7 8/1/2012 111 29.9 7.08

LCR9.9 8/1/2012 48 8.21

LCR14 8/1/2012 866 21.4 4.82

LCR17.2 8/1/2012 9.26 0.43

LCR18.6 8/1/2012 8.52 < 0.2

LCR19.5 8/1/2012 8.46 < 0.2

LCR27.8 8/1/2012 5.05 < 0.2

LCT3D.5 8/1/2012 1046 0.72 143 103 7.73 6.3

LCT3-3.9 8/1/2012 166 0.59 162 112 2.67 2.08

LCT3-8.7 8/1/2012 517 1.03 63.4 48.4 6.6 4.91

LCT3-10.5 8/1/2012 488 0.9 50.1 31.6 11.6 5.08

LCR3.7 9/5/2012 > 2419.6 153 47.6

LCR9.9 9/5/2012 130 61.4

LCR14 9/5/2012 > 2419.6 169 18.5

LCR17.2 9/5/2012 282 33.7

LCR18.6 9/5/2012 169 29.9

LCR19.5 9/5/2012 165 22.3

LCR27.8 9/5/2012 65.9 14.2

LCT3D.5 9/5/2012 > 2419.6 0.78 148 66.4 35.4 18.7

LCT3-3.9 9/5/2012 > 2419.6 0.92 168 79.6 6.8 6.06

LCT3-8.7 9/5/2012 411 0.91 140 81.5 6 3.01

LCT3-10.5 9/5/2012 > 2419.6 1.02 85.2 54.5 11.2 6.17

Shaded cells represent values that exceed the relevant VT Water Quality Standard:

E.coli = 77 MPN/100 mL; Turbidity (cold water Class B) = 10 NTUs


33/98



Lewis Creek (continued)Flow Study



LCT3D.5 4/23/2012 0.65 85.6 49.2 24.2 12.6

LCT3-3.9 4/23/2012 0.53 66.6 39.8 12.4 4.08

LCT3-8.7 4/23/2012 1.25 101 37 25.4 14.8

LCT3-10.5 4/23/2012 0.49 28.5 10.1 3.87 2.47

LCT3D.5 5/16/2012 1.33 499 74.3 464 225

LCT3-3.9 5/16/2012 0.62 84.9 47.1 12.6 10.3

LCT3-8.7 5/16/2012 3.58 1330 186 1030 1320

LCT3-10.5 5/16/2012 0.61 35.4 13.6 11.2 2.13

LCT3D.5 5/17/2012 0.5 69.6 41.6 17.7 9.93

LCT3-3.9 5/17/2012 0.42 66.5 46.2 5.33 3.59

LCT3-8.7 5/17/2012 0.72 115 59.8 14.2 19.3

LCT3-10.5 5/17/2012 0.58 33.9 NA 4.2 2.09

LCR14 10/20/2012 0.53 106 14.9 81.2 31

LCT3D.5 10/20/2012 0.57 81.1 47.1 13 6.74

LCT3-3.9 10/20/2012 0.54 60.9 36.3 5.6 3.44

LCT3-8.7 10/20/2012 1.37 320 146 34 90

LCT3-10.5 10/20/2012 0.71 34.9 12.6 6.4 2.19

LCR14 10/22/2012 0.46 19.2 9.4 8 3.67

LCT3D.5 10/22/2012 0.57 53.6 35 7.2 6.38

LCT3-3.9 10/22/2012 0.56 42.9 31.5 4 3.03

LCT3-8.7 10/22/2012 0.72 109 77.8 3.25 4.77

LCT3-10.5 10/22/2012 0.65 22.5 11.2 3 1.18

LCR14 12/18/2012 0.63 34.6 12.1 17.2 8.77

LCT3D.5 12/18/2012 0.56 48.1 23.5 12.4 11.6

LCT3-3.9 12/18/2012 0.56 33.3 19.2 4 4.82

LCT3-8.7 12/18/2012 1.21 109 55.3 7.2 8.97

LCT3-10.5 12/18/2012 0.71 22.2 7.33 2.8 2.16

LCR14 12/19/2012 0.51 20.1 8.76 9 5.01

LCT3D.5 12/19/2012 0.49 36.2 21.3 6.4 7.72

LCT3-3.9 12/19/2012 0.53 31.9 18.8 5.6 4.2

LCT3-8.7 12/19/2012 1.14 78.7 43.3 6 12.9

LCT3-10.5 12/19/2012 0.71 23.6 8.39 3 2.78

Shaded cells represent values that exceed the relevant VT Water Quality Standard:E.coli = 77 MPN/100 mL; Turbidity (cold water Class B) = 10 NTUs


34/98

Appendix G: Instantaneous Load Rating Curves Lewis Creek Watershed


Attachment G

Instantaneous Load Rating Curves


35/98




36/98




37/98

APPENDIX H Outreach / Project DevelopmentLewis Creek WatershedPond Brook Water Quality Management Plan

May 2013


38/98

Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed


Appendix H - Page 1 of 61

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

Monkton / Hinesburg Reach T3.01 Russell, Phil ............................................................................................. 2Monkton 03.217.001.000 Reach T3.02 Last Resort Farm Property .............................................................. 8Monkton 104.109.000 Reach T3.02 Tracy Property ...................................................................................... 15Monkton 104.106.000 Reach T3.02 Phillips Property ................................................................................... 18Monkton 104.020.000 Reach T3.02 Cota Farm ............................................................................................. 21

Monkton 06.206.057.001 Reach T3.03 Dion Property .................................................................................. 24Monkton 05.225.001.000 Reach T3.03 Hoag Property................................................................................. 26Monkton 05.225.001.000 Reach T3.03 Willowell Property........................................................................... 29

Monkton 227.024.000 Reach (n/a) Little Hogback Community Forest....................................................... 35Monkton 227.024.000 Reach T3.04 New Leaf Organic Farm ...................................................................... 42

Monkton 206.106.000 Reach T3.03 Regier Property.................................................................................... 46

Monkton 103.059.000 Reach T3.04 Layn Farm field, Church Rd ................................................................ 48Monkton 103.059.000 Reach T3.04 Layn Farm ............................................................................................. 52Bristol/ Monkton (various parcels) Reach T3.05 Mierop Farm..................................................................... 59Bristol/ Monkton (various parcels) various reaches Four Hills Farm ........................................................... 61


39/98




Monkton / Hinesburg Reach T3.01 Russell, Phil

Implementation Table Project #1

Landowner: Phil & Marlene RussellStreet Address: 3661 Silver Street, Monkton, VT

Mailing Address:

Description: Agricultural parcels along right and left banks including corridor lands and upslopeareas west of Silver Street (see Figure 1).

Background

The Russell property is a 227-acre farm located along the low gradient downstream section of PondBrook, a tributary to the Lewis Creek. This site was selected as a high priority for river corridorprotection due to its ability to attenuate the known upstream nutrient enrichment, its history of beingstraightened and its recent history of having livestock within the channel. Segments being considered for

river corridor protection are T3.01 A & B (Figure 1). These segments were found to have the followingattributes during the stream geomorphic assessment completed by South Mountain Research and

Consulting (SMRC):

T3.01 A Good condition, High sensitivity no major adjustment, in regime T3.01 B Fair condition, Very High sensitivity with aggradation and planform adjustment.

Phil Russell is grazing grass-fed beef cattle on pasture lands surrounding the Brook. At present hemaintains a herd of 26 (+/-) Angus cows. Mr. Russell converted the farm to grass-fed beef cattle from aconventional dairy farm of 55 head in the late 1980s. He pastures the Angus herd on fields on his land,

as well as lands of Iverson and VT Fish & Wildlife to the north of the property. Although most of the landhas gone fallow there is one section that is a wetland with old meander scars that is still being activelygrazed. That section is in the south western portion of the property.

A channel length south of the culvert crossing was straightened by Mr. Russell in the 1980s.

Steve Parren lives nearby and tracks wood turtles through the reach. Mr. Parren has communicated toMr. Russell the habitat value of a forested wetland on the southern boundary of the Russells Monkton

parcel (west side of Pond Brook).

Mr. Russell has had an engineer conduct soil tests on the eastern margins of his northern (Hinesburg)

parcel. Results indicated a number of sites suitable for in-ground septic systems and some for moundsystems.

Land uses and long-term commitments within the corridor:Grazing beef cattle, hay production, possible reserve for future residential development.

River Corridor ConstraintsInstream culvert crossing; small volume water withdrawals for watering the cattle.

Current Concerns of the LandownerSustainable and economically viable farmingBeaver activities leading to culvert jams and flooding.


40/98




River Corridor Alternatives Acceptable to LandownerMr. Russell is open to conservation and wetland restoration options. Would like to maintain presentculvert crossing for current farming use, and possible future residential development.

Project Development

From 2010 to present, LCA members facilitated several meetings between the Russells and Vermont LandTrust (Bob Heiser), VACD (Michelle Smith) and USDA FSA staff (re: CRP/CREP).

In June 2011, the Russells signed a commitment letter to proceed with steps necessary to evaluate

potential river corridor conservation options facilitated by LCA. These options included:

A conservation easement along the river corridor (approximately 21.4 acres) with partial fundingfrom a VTANR Ecosystem Restoration Grants (FY2011 application to ERP was turned down).

A farm conservation easement through the Vermont Land Trust with the river corridor area(approximately 13 acres) defined as a Special Treatment Area (negotiations are still underway).(see Figure 2).

In the meantime, the Russells have enrolled in the CRP/CREP program CREP program to plant a 50

buffer along the channel in segment T3.01-B (segment T3.01 A has an adequate buffer). Planting isscheduled for May of 2013 (see Figure 3).


41/98




Figure 1. Location ofRussell properties,Pond Brook, Monkton

& Hinesburg.

Yellow line denotesvalley wall. Tealhatches denoteVermont Significant

Wetland Inventorywetlands.


42/98




Figure 2. Vermont Land Trust proposed easement


43/98




Figure 3. CRP/CREP planting plan (used with permission from Phil Russell)


44/98




Photo 1. Viewdownstream of PondBrook on RussellFarm.

Photo 2. View tosouth of culvertinlet, farm accessroad, Russell Farm.


45/98




Monkton 03.217.001.000 Reach T3.02 Last Resort Farm Property


Contacts: Sam Burr and Eugenie DoyleStreet Address: 2246 Tyler Bridge Road, Monkton, VTMailing Address:

Background

Last Resort Farm (www.lastresortfarm.com) is a family-owned certified organic berry, vegetable, and hayfarm. The farm includes 208 acres of land along the east side (right bank) of Pond Brook. Streamgeomorphic assessments of the Pond Brook (carried out in the Summer of 2012 under a FY12 ERP grant)

have identified five gullies draining the northern steep valley slopes along the channel in reach T3.02 (Fig2A,B,C). Soils in the area are Melrose fine sandy loams and Raynham silt loams of glaciolacustrine origin(NRCS). Concentrated runoff from fields at the top of the valley wall (Photos 1 and 2) has eroded thesegullies, loading fine particulates (clays, silts, and fine sands) to the Pond Brook. During storm events and

moderate spring flows sampled in 2012, a jump in turbidity has been observed between stations at rivermile 3.9 and 1.5 on the Pond Brook a river section that receives drainage from these gullies. During a16 May 2012 thunderstorm, turbidity increased from 10.3 to 225 NTUs between these stations.

Land uses and long-term commitments within the corridor:

Certified organic vegetables and hay are grown within and adjacent to the river corridor. At the gullysites, a wide forested buffer is maintained to the top of a steep valley wall; maple trees are tapped forsyrup.

River Corridor Constraints

Farm access road passes within one bankfull width of the channel at the mid-point of reach T3.02.

Current Concerns of the Landowner

Erosion of the valley wall with gullies that migrate upslope into the hay field.

River Corridor Alternatives Acceptable to Landowner

Sam Burr is open to hearing about various restoration / conservation options.

Summary of Outreach

The landowner, Sam Burr, has expressed strong interest in participating in a project to stabilize the

gullies. Design will include landowner input and strive to incorporate aquaculture components of the farmmanagement plan. Proposed solutions involve slope drains with upstream detention and downstreamenergy dissipation.

In the Fall of 2012, Sam Burr signed up for EQIP through the USDA Farm Service Agency in Middlebury.

Pete Lossmann and Marybeth Whitten from the USDA offices have met with Sam several times. A landsurvey was completed by Pete Lossmann and conceptual engineering designs and budgetary costestimates were developed. The gullies will be stabilized with an NRCS stone-lined swale practice. The

project ranked reasonably high within the forest practices pool of FY2014 EQIP funding but has not
http://www.lastresortfarm.com/http://www.lastresortfarm.com/http://www.lastresortfarm.com/http://www.lastresortfarm.com/


46/98




been selected for funding. Results from a third round of funding allocations under EQIP are scheduled tobe announced on or about 1 May 2013. To increase potential for funding, USDA reduced the number oftreated gullies from five to two.

FY13 ERP funding was secured by Lewis Creek Association to support design and installation of the gullystabilization as a demonstration project; LCA is funded to help coordinate this effort and supply materials,

ultimately relying on USDA for detailed engineering design, construction oversight, and documentation.LCA had intended to apply separately for 319 funds to monitor the effectiveness of implementedmeasures in comparison to untreated (control) gullies. However, we were informed on 28 March 2013that 319 funds will for the second year in a row not be made available to municipalities and NGOs.Instead these EPA funds will be held for internal use at VTDEC to fill budget gaps that have resulted fromincreased staff-related expenses and given the uncertainty of federal allocations to the State budget (dueto sequestration, etc).

Current status of this project as of 20 March 2013 is summarized in Attachment 1.


47/98




Figure 1. Vicinity Map, Last Resort Farm property.


48/98




Figure 2. Gully Stabilization Project, Last Resort Farm


49/98




Photo 1. View to west

to swale in hay field

which leads to top of

Gully G3.

Photo 2. View to

southwest from top of

Gully G3. Headcuts

extend from the

gully up into the hay

field.


50/98




Photo 3. Sediment accumulation at base ofGully, G3, in reach T3.02 of Pond Brook.

Photo 4. View

downstream in Pond

Brook from the Last

Resort Farm.


51/98




Attachment 1. Last Resort Farm Project Status as of 20 March 2013

Phase 1 - (These costs are contained in pending EQP application for FY13 - Round 3 notifications by ~May 1)

ERP Costs

Rock-lined swale Total EQIP pymnt LO Share Total

Land Survey completed completed

Conceptual Design & Budget completed completed

Detailed Engineering Estimate included TBD - Norm Smith

Permitting/ Oversight/ Documentation included TBD

Construction

G3 $16,621.16 $14,294 $2,327 $16,621

G4 $6,334.73 $5,448 $887 $6,335

$22,956 $19,742 $3,214 $22,956

Phase 2 -

ERP Costs

Rock-lined swale Total EQIP pymnt LO Share TotalLand Survey completed completed

Conceptual Design & Budget completed completed

Detailed Engineering Estimate included TBD - Norm Smith

Permitting/ Oversight/ Documentation included TBD

Construction

G5 $5,908 $4,727 $1,182 $5,908

G2 $11,228 $8,870 $2,358 $11,228

G1 $9,096 $7,368 $1,728 $9,096

$26,232 $20,965 $5,268 $26,232

Notes:

1 March 27 - If Washington DC approves a Continuing Resolution, NRCS programs (EQIP) will continue to be funded

2 May 1 (or within days of this date) - NRCS will hear if Sam's project (Phase 1) was funded in Round 3 EQIP awards.

a

b

3 Pete Lossmann noted that conditions of gully G1 may not warrant construction of a rock-lined swale.

Disturbance of the channel / valley wall might do more harm than good. Erosion in this gully is minor compared

to the others, and could be addressed through bioengineering techniques (willow waddles, riparian plantings,

introduction of stabilizing large woody debris). Thus, the construction costs for G1 may be overstated.

NRCS Costs

NRCS Costs

plus engineering design,

oversight, permitting,

documentation

plus engineering design,

oversight, permitting,

documentation

If EQIP funds the project, Sam's share will be approx $ 3,200 (or total project costs less $19,742 - the amount of

the EQIP award). LCAs FY13 ERP grant could potentiall y be used to cover Sam's share, and/or Sam can contribute

in-kind services. Considerable funds exist in LCA's FY13 ERP grant to contribute to purchase of materials, some

photodocumentation of the project, and Underwood support to the NRCS detailed design. These funds would

be sufficient to enable i mplementation of rock-lined swales in two additional gullies (with detailed design

completed by NRCS).

If EQIP does NOT fund the project, LCAs FY13 ERP funds could be used to implement Phase 1 of the project

(pending sufficient budget). If so, there will be additional expenses (TBD) associated with a detailed

engineering design, project & contractor coordination, permitting, and documentation. These services would

normally be provided by NRCS for an EQIP-funded project, but would not be offered otherwise given current

demands on NRCS staff time for other priority projects. These services would need to be carried out by LCA

subcontractors and/or Sam Burr. Also, if project detailed engineering design becomes funded through ERP, this

will trigger additional insurance requirements under the State of Vermont contract - requiring $2 Million

aggregate professional liabil ity insurance coverage. The LCA grant agreement with State of Vermont will need

to be modified. LCA could seek additional funding through a 319 grant to afford Phase 2 of gully stabil ization

work.


52/98




Monkton 104.109.000 Reach T3.02 Tracy Property


Contacts: Cary & Shirley TracyStreet Address: 3084 States Prison Hollow Road, Monkton, VTMailing Address:

Description: 191 (+/-) acres along southwest side (left bank) and small area along northeast site

(right bank) of Pond Brook.

Figure 1. Vicinity Map, Tracy Farm. Parcels outlined in red. Blue lines represent surface waters.

Turquoise hatched lines indicate VSWI wetlands. Light teal solid coloring indicates hydric soils.


53/98




Background

The Tracys operate a conventional dairy farm on 191 acres largely on the southwest side of the PondBrook between States Prison Hollow Road and Tyler Bridge Road. Reportedly, most of their cows weresold in 2012.

The abundance of hydric soils on the Tracy lands suggests a potential for wetland restoration particularlyin areas immediately adjacent to the Pond Brook. This area is frequently inundated and beaver activity isprevalent.

Until 2012, approximately 50 cows were pastured on lands adjacent to the Pond Brook and along

tributaries that drain from the south to Pond Brook. Some riparian lands have absent vegetation andcows have (had) direct access to the stream (Figure 2).


Farming


None known


Unknown.


Summary of Outreach

The landowners replied to a letter of inquiry sent by April Moulaert (Ducks Unlimited), that they are notinterested in participating in the Wetland Reserve Program.

Based on discussions at an agricultural work group meeting held in March 2012, OCNRCD (Pam Stefanik)and/or Rico Balzano (UVM Extension) will reach out to the Tracys to understand their potential interest inbuffer enhancements, and livestock exclusion if they plan to build their livestock herd in coming years.

As of 2013, Norm Smith has been hired as a subcontractor to OCNRCD to conduct outreach to small

farms in the northern Addison County region. In the Spring of 2013, The Tracys will be invited to a local(Monkton area) farming community meeting to be sponsored by the Monkton Agricultural and NaturalAreas Committee (ANAC) and attended by Norm Smith.


54/98




Figure 2. Tracy Farm


55/98




Monkton 104.106.000 Reach T3.02 Phillips Property


Contacts: Jeffrey & Olive PhillipsStreet Address: 2069 States Prison Hollow Road, Monkton, VTMailing Address:

Description: >210 acres along northeast site (right bank) of Pond Brook.

Figure 1. Vicinity Map, Phillips Farm. Parcels outlined in red. Blue lines represent surface waters.Turquoise hatched lines indicate VSWI wetlands. Light teal solid coloring indicates hydric soils.


56/98




Background

The Phillips operate a dairy farm on more than 500 acres along States Prison Hollow Road. A portion oftheir farm lands drain west to the Pond Brook, while the remaining land area drains north and east to the

Lewis Creek main stem.

The abundance of hydric soils on the Phillips lands suggests a potential for wetland restorationparticularly in areas immediately adjacent to the Pond Brook.

Approximately 80 cows are pastured on lands adjacent to the Pond Brook and have direct access to the

stream. Forested riparian vegetation is absent from much of the Pond Brook at the Phillips Farm(Photo 1; Figure 2).

Land uses and long-term commitments within the corridor:Farming


States Prison Hollow box culvert crossing


Unknown.

River Corridor Alternatives Acceptable to LandownerUnknown

Summary of Outreach

Based on discussions at an agricultural work group meeting held in March 2012, OCNRCD (Pam Stefanik)will reach out to the Phillips to understand their potential interest in buffer enhancements and livestock

exclusion. The Phillips did not respond to April Moulaert (Ducks Unlimited) regarding their potentialinterest in Wetland Reserve Program.

As of 2013, Norm Smith has been hired as a subcontractor to OCNRCD to conduct outreach to smallfarms in the northern Addison County region. In the Spring of 2013, The Phillips will be invited to a local(Monkton area) farming community meeting to be sponsored by the Monkton Agricultural and NaturalAreas Committee (ANAC) and attended by Norm Smith.

Photo 1. Pond Brook, View downstream fromStates Prison Hollow Road. Phillips cow pasture

to picture right.


57/98




Figure 2. Phillips Farm in vicinity of Pond Brook.


58/98




Monkton 104.020.000 Reach T3.02 Cota Farm


Contacts: Cota Brothers FarmStreet Address: 3817 States Prison Hollow Road, Monkton, VTMailing Address:

Description: 315 acres to south and west of Pond Brook spanning unnamed perennial streams(tributaries to Pond Brook).

Figure 1. Vicinity Map, Cota Farm. Parcels outlined in red. Blue lines represent surface waters.Turquoise hatched lines indicate VSWI wetlands. Light teal solid coloring indicates hydric soils.


59/98




Background

The Cotas operate a dairy farm on 315 acres along States Prison Hollow Road. Their farm lands drain viaperennial and intermittent streams primarily to the north and east to Pond Brook. A portion of their

southernmost fields drain to the south and east to upper reaches of the Pond Brook.

The abundance of hydric soils on the Cota lands suggests a potential for wetland restoration (Figure 1).

Approximately 200 cows are pastured on lands adjacent to the Pond Brook tributaries and have directaccess to the stream. Forested riparian vegetation is absent from much of these tributaries.


Farming


Current Concerns of the LandownerUnknown.

River Corridor Alternatives Acceptable to LandownerUnknown

Summary of Outreach

Based on discussions at an agricultural work group meeting held in March 2012, OCNRCD (Pam Stefanik)and UVM Extension (Rico Balzano) will reach out to the Cotas to understand their potential interest invarious cost share programs available through UVM Extension, VT Agency of Agriculture and the Farm

Service Agency. Potential projects and practices may include livestock exclusion, buffer enhancements,barnyard improvements (e.g., roof runoff & diversion, irrigation pond improvements, provision foralternate water supply), nutrient management planning. ARS funds could possibly be paired with VTAABMP funds. Lewis Creek Association could potentially offer additional matching funds. If CRP/CREP wasrelevant and the landowner was interested in program assistance, Michelle Smith (VACD) could attend afollow-up visit to the landowner.

The Cotas did not respond to April Moulaert (Ducks Unlimited) regarding their potential interest inWetland Reserve Program.

As of 2013, Norm Smith has been hired as a subcontractor to OCNRCD to conduct outreach to smallfarms in the northern Addison County region. In the Spring of 2013, the Cotas will be invited to a local(Monkton area) farming community meeting to be sponsored by the Monkton Agricultural and Natural

Areas Committee (ANAC) and attended by Norm Smith.


60/98




Figure 2. Cota Farm


61/98




Monkton 06.206.057.001 Reach T3.03 Dion Property

Contacts: Kirk DionStreet Address: Mountain Road, Monkton, VTMailing Address: 130 Georgetown Rd, Barnstead, NH 03225-3320

Description: 31 acres along east side (right bank) of Pond Brook potential wetland restoration.

Figure 1. Vicinity Map, Dion property. Dion parcel outlined in red. Blue lines represent surface waters.Turquoise hatched lines indicate VSWI wetlands. Light teal solid coloring indicates hydric soils.


62/98




Background

This property was first identified by April Moulaert, Ducks Unlimited, as a potential candidate for WetlandRestoration Program. Mr. Dion did not respond to Aprils letter in 2011. Mr. Dion lives out of state andLCA attempts to reach him have been unsuccessful to date.


Unknown. Review of aerial photographs indicates that the lower (west) end of this parcel was previouslyin hay, and has gone fallow in recent years. A single-family residence accessed off Mountain Road islocated on the eastern half of the parcel.


Unknown; no structures visible within the corridor on aerial photography.


Unknown.


Unknown.

Summary of Outreach

8/20/2012 - During site visit at the Willowell property on the west side of Pond Brook, the Dion propertywas viewed from across the channel by April Moulaert, Marty Illick, Michelle Smith and KristenUnderwood (Photo 1). Based on this cursory review, the Dion property does not appear to be a goodcandidate for WRP, due to the absence of significant hydrologic alterations. Based on the VHD andtopographic maps, one ditched tributary skirts the northern boundary of the parcel but crosses adjacent

lands (Figure 1).

Photo 1. Dion riparian property

viewed from the across PondBrook on the Willowell property.

View to southeast.


63/98




Monkton 05.225.001.000 Reach T3.03 Hoag Property

Contacts: James & Elizabeth HoagStreet Address: Tracy Rd, Monkton, VT 05469Mailing Address: PO Box 56, Monkton, VT 05469

Description: 40.6 acres along west side (left bank) of Pond Brook potential wetland restoration.

Figure 1. Vicinity Map, Hoag property. Subject parcel outlined in red. Blue lines represent surfacewaters. Turquoise hatched lines indicate VSWI wetlands. Light teal solid coloring indicates hydric soils.


64/98




Figure 2. Location of Hoag parcel relative to Willowell

conservation easement and restoration areas.1995 base image.


65/98




Background

The Hoag property was identified by LCA as a potential candidate for Wetland Restoration Program,based on its proximity to the wetland restoration/ conservation project at Williowell on the adjacentproperty (Figure 2), and the abundance of hydric soils. Williowell Foundation staff have taken the lead to

contact the Hoags for permission to access the property, and report that the Hoags are willing to hearabout potential restoration / conservation activities.


Unknown. Review of aerial photographs indicates that the lower (west) end of this parcel was previously

in hay, and has gone fallow in recent years. A single-family residence, outbuildings and a horse barn arelocated on the parcel.



Unknown.


Unknown.

Summary of Outreach

8/20/2012 - During a site visit at the Willowell property, the Hoag property was viewed by AprilMoulaert, Marty Illick, Michelle Smith and Kristen Underwood. Three tributary channels draining lands ofthe Cota Bros. Farm (including pasture), Mumma, and Willowell come together in one single channel on

Hoag lands and drain via a partly ditched channel through the Willowell lands (Fields H and I, therestoration area, and easement area) to the Pond Brook.

Hay is harvested from these Willowell fields by the Hoags - as well as from a narrow strip of land-lockedparcel owned by Murray and Goss of Rhode Island, located just north of Willowell Field I and south ofHoag (Figure 2).

Based on a cursory review, the Hoag property does not appear to be a good candidate for WRP, due toits relatively small size, absence of major hydrological modifications, and likelihood that at least part ofthese lands will be maintained either for residential use or in hay production. Ideally, treatment of Hoag

lands to enhance or preserve wetland functions should be undertaken in combination with treatments onimmediately upgradient lands (Cota Farm pasture, Mumma and Willowell).

Based on Willowell staff conversations with the Hoags, there may be potential for a change in use ofFields H and I. If they were considering no longer maintaining these fields in hay production, it may be

feasible to expand buffer plantings on these lands to connect to the present treatment area on Willowelllands with landowner willingness. Further discussions with the Hoags and Willowell are warranted.


66/98




Monkton 05.225.001.000 Reach T3.03 Willowell Property


Contacts: Willowell FoundationStreet Address: off Bristol Rd, Monkton, VT

Mailing Address: 564 WILD APPLE RD, New Haven, VT

Description: 221 (+/-) acres along west side (left bank) of Pond Brook.

Figure 1. Vicinity Map, Willowell property. Subject parcel outlined in red. Blue lines represent surface

waters. Turquoise hatched lines indicate VSWI wetlands. Light teal solid coloring indicates hydric soils.


67/98




Figure 2. Location of Willowell parcel relative to

adjacent Mumma and Hoag lands and Cota Bros Farm.1995 base image.


68/98




Background

The Willowell Foundation (www.willowell.org) is a non-profit educational organization that owns 230acres along the west side of Pond Brook. The Willowell property was originally identified as a potentialcandidate for the Wetland Restoration Program, by April Moulaert, based on its proximity to mapped

VSWI wetlands contiguous to the Pond Brook, and the abundance of hydric soils on the property. Inrecent years the Willowell Foundation has placed approx 109 acres of riparian forest and wetlands into aconservation easement held by the The Nature Conservancy. They have planted an additional 14 acres(+/-) restoration area with young tree species funded in part by WHIP and ERP with a goal of restoringclayplain forest habitat.

Photo 1. View to the south west from Field I (on Willowell property) toward the restoration and wetland

conservation easement areas.


Hay is harvested from Willowell fields on the lower elevations at the property (within the riparian corridor

along Pond Brook). Fields and forestlands are utilized in the outdoor education curriculum of this school,which is based out of a barn on the western boundary of the property accessed by Bristol Road.

http://www.willowell.org/http://www.willowell.org/http://www.willowell.org/http://www.willowell.org/


69/98






Summary of Outreach

8/20/2012 - Site visit of Willowell property by April Moulaert, Marty Illick, Michelle Smith and KristenUnderwood. The headwaters of three separate tributaries drain to the east on Willowell property, crosslands of the Cota Bros. Farm (including pasture) and Mumma, come together in one single channel on

Hoag lands and then drain via a partly ditched channel through lower Willowell lands (Fields H and I, therestoration area, and easement area) to the Pond Brook.

Field equipment fords these streams in two separate locations - opportunities for stabilized streamcrossings to reduce sedimentation in the stream (Figure 3).

Photo 2. Field equipment crosses the Pond Brook tributaries between hay fields on the Willowellproperty. These sites could benefit from stabilized crossings.

One culvert on the property (just upstream of the ford pictured in Photo 2b) appears to be undersized forthe upstream drainage area (0.27 sq mi, or 170 acres).

Based on a cursory review, the Willowell property (outside of existing restoration / conservation areas)

does not appear to be a good candidate for WRP, due to moderately-steep gradients, the absence ofmajor hydrological modifications, and likelihood that at least part of these lands will be maintained eitherfor residential use or in hay production. Reasonably wide forested buffers are present along parts of

these tributaries, though not where they cross the hay fields.

As of 2013, Norm Smith, PE formerly with NRCS has been contracted by OCNRCD to reach out tosmall farms in northern Addison County and assist with project implementation. LCA is working withNorm and will contribute funds from a FY13 ERP grant to support implementation of up to two stabilized

crossings on the Willowell Found

Documents

Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices