Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
Post on 03-Apr-2018
215 Views
Preview:
Transcript
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 x243Reed.Sims@vt.usda.gov
Note: Higher-resolution images are available on the Project CD
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
2/98
Appendix A: Flow Accumulation Maps Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2012 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
3/98
Appendix A: Flow Accumulation Maps Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2012 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
4/98
Appendix A: Flow Accumulation Maps Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2012 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
5/98
Appendix A: Flow Accumulation Maps Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2012 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
6/98
Appendix B: Phase 2 Stream Assessment (T3.02) Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Attachment B
Phase 2 Stream Assessment Reach T3.02
Addendum to Lewis Creek Watershed:River Corridor Conservation & Management Plan (SMRC, 2010)
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
7/98
Appendix B: Phase 2 Stream Assessment (T3.02) Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
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
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
8/98
Appendix B: Phase 2 Stream Assessment (T3.02) Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
South Mountain RCS B- 8
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.
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
9/98
Appendix B: Phase 2 Stream Assessment (T3.02) Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
South Mountain RCS B- 9
Figure B-1. Reach T3.02, Pond Brook tributary to Lewis Creek. Yellow line indicates valley walls.
Base image: 1995.
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
10/98
Appendix B: Phase 2 Stream Assessment (T3.02) Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
South Mountain RCS B- 10
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.
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
11/98
Appendix B: Phase 2 Stream Assessment (T3.02) Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
South Mountain RCS B- 11
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
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
12/98
Appendix B: Phase 2 Stream Assessment (T3.02) Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
South Mountain RCS B- 12
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.pdf7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
13/98
Appendix C: Bridge & Culvert Assessments Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2012 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
APPENDIX C
Bridge & Culvert AssessmentSummary Reports
Seehttps://anrnode.anr.state.vt.us/SGA/datasets/structures/reports.aspx?did=96
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
14/98
Appendix D: Climate Data Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Attachment D
Climate and Hydrology Data
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
15/98
Appendix D: Climate Data Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
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
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
16/98
Appendix D: Climate Data Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
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
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
17/98
Appendix D: Climate Data Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
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
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
18/98
Appendix D: Climate Data Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
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
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
19/98
Appendix D: Climate Data Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Figure D-2. Cumulative Mean Annual Flow (million cubic feet) in Lewis Creek (USGS gaging station #04282780),
Water Years 2001 2010.
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
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Water Year
2008
2006
2002
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
20/98
Appendix D: Climate Data Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Figure D-3. Cumulative Mean Annual Flow (million cubic feet) in Lewis Creek (USGS gaging station #04282780),
Water Years 2011 2012.
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
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Water Year
2011
2012
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
21/98
Appendix E: Discharge Data Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
APPENDIX E
Discharge DataPond Brook
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
22/98
Appendix E: Discharge Data Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Figure E-1. Site Location Map, Temporary Gaging Station, Pond Brook (Lewis Creek)
(water quality stations identified by red triangles)
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
23/98
Appendix E: Discharge Data Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Figure E-2. Temporary Flow Gaging Station, Parren property, Pond Brook (Lewis Creek)
(view upstream, 13 April 2012)
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
24/98
Appendix E: Discharge Data Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Figure E-3. Temporary Flow Gaging Station, Parren property, Pond Brook (Lewis Creek), 19 April 2012.
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
25/98
Appendix E: Discharge Data Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Figure E-4. Stage/ Discharge Rating Curve, Temporary Flow Gaging Station, Pond Brook (Lewis Creek).
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
26/98
Appendix E: Discharge Data Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
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)
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
27/98
Appendix E: Discharge Data Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
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
Angle Distance from Obs Total Adjusted for Discharge, q
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)
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
28/98
Appendix E: Discharge Data Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
LAT/LON: 44.27165302 / -73.11404645 Velocity Equation Coefficients 0.9604 0.0312
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
Angle Distance from Obs Total Adjusted for Discharge, q
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)
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
29/98
Appendix E: Discharge Data Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
LAT/LON: 44.27165302 / -73.11404645 Velocity Equation Coefficients 0.9604 0.0312
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
Angle Distance from Obs Total Adjusted for Discharge, q
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)
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
30/98
Appendix F: Water Quality Data Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
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
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
31/98
Appendix F: Water Quality Data Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
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
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
32/98
Appendix F: Water Quality Data Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Lewis Creek (continued)
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 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
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
33/98
Appendix F: Water Quality Data Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Lewis Creek (continued)Flow Study
Location Date Final E. Coli. TN TP DP TSS Turbidity
(mpn/100ml) (mg-N/l) (ug P/L) (ug P/L) (mg/L) (NTU)
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
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
34/98
Appendix G: Instantaneous Load Rating Curves Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Attachment G
Instantaneous Load Rating Curves
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
35/98
Appendix G: Instantaneous Load Rating Curves Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
36/98
Appendix G: Instantaneous Load Rating Curves Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
37/98
APPENDIX H Outreach / Project DevelopmentLewis Creek WatershedPond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
May 2013
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
38/98
Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
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
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
39/98
Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H - Page 2 of 61
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.
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
40/98
Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H - Page 3 of 61
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).
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
41/98
Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H - Page 4 of 61
Figure 1. Location ofRussell properties,Pond Brook, Monkton
& Hinesburg.
Yellow line denotesvalley wall. Tealhatches denoteVermont Significant
Wetland Inventorywetlands.
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
42/98
Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H - Page 5 of 61
Figure 2. Vermont Land Trust proposed easement
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
43/98
Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H - Page 6 of 61
Figure 3. CRP/CREP planting plan (used with permission from Phil Russell)
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
44/98
Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H - Page 7 of 61
Photo 1. Viewdownstream of PondBrook on RussellFarm.
Photo 2. View tosouth of culvertinlet, farm accessroad, Russell Farm.
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
45/98
Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H - Page 8 of 61
Monkton 03.217.001.000 Reach T3.02 Last Resort Farm Property
Implementation Table Project #2
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/7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
46/98
Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H - Page 9 of 61
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.
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
47/98
Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H - Page 10 of 61
Figure 1. Vicinity Map, Last Resort Farm property.
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
48/98
Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H - Page 11 of 61
Figure 2. Gully Stabilization Project, Last Resort Farm
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
49/98
Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H - Page 12 of 61
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.
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
50/98
Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H - Page 13 of 61
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.
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
51/98
Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H - Page 14 of 61
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.
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
52/98
Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H - Page 15 of 61
Monkton 104.109.000 Reach T3.02 Tracy Property
Implementation Table Project #3
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.
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
53/98
Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H - Page 16 of 61
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).
Land uses and long-term commitments within the corridor:
Farming
River Corridor Constraints
None known
Current Concerns of the Landowner
Unknown.
River Corridor Alternatives Acceptable to Landowner
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.
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
54/98
Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H - Page 17 of 61
Figure 2. Tracy Farm
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
55/98
Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H - Page 18 of 61
Monkton 104.106.000 Reach T3.02 Phillips Property
Implementation Table Project #4
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.
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
56/98
Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H - Page 19 of 61
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
River Corridor Constraints
States Prison Hollow box culvert crossing
Current Concerns of the Landowner
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.
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
57/98
Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H - Page 20 of 61
Figure 2. Phillips Farm in vicinity of Pond Brook.
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
58/98
Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H - Page 21 of 61
Monkton 104.020.000 Reach T3.02 Cota Farm
Implementation Table Project #5
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.
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
59/98
Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H - Page 22 of 61
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.
Land uses and long-term commitments within the corridor:
Farming
River Corridor Constraints
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.
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
60/98
Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H - Page 23 of 61
Figure 2. Cota Farm
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
61/98
Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H - Page 24 of 61
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.
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
62/98
Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H - Page 25 of 61
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.
Land uses and long-term commitments within the corridor:
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.
River Corridor Constraints
Unknown; no structures visible within the corridor on aerial photography.
Current Concerns of the Landowner
Unknown.
River Corridor Alternatives Acceptable to Landowner
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.
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
63/98
Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H - Page 26 of 61
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.
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
64/98
Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H - Page 27 of 61
Figure 2. Location of Hoag parcel relative to Willowell
conservation easement and restoration areas.1995 base image.
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
65/98
Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H - Page 28 of 61
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.
Land uses and long-term commitments within the corridor:
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.
River Corridor Constraints
Current Concerns of the Landowner
Unknown.
River Corridor Alternatives Acceptable to Landowner
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.
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
66/98
Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H - Page 29 of 61
Monkton 05.225.001.000 Reach T3.03 Willowell Property
Implementation Table Project #6
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.
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
67/98
Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H - Page 30 of 61
Figure 2. Location of Willowell parcel relative to
adjacent Mumma and Hoag lands and Cota Bros Farm.1995 base image.
7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
68/98
Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H - Page 31 of 61
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.
Land uses and long-term commitments within the corridor:
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.
River Corridor Constraints
http://www.willowell.org/http://www.willowell.org/http://www.willowell.org/http://www.willowell.org/7/28/2019 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan: Appendices
69/98
Appendix H. Outreach / Project Development Lewis Creek Watershed
May 2013 Pond Brook Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H - Page 32 of 61
Current Concerns of the Landowner
River Corridor Alternatives Acceptable to Landowner
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
top related