'Phase 2 Stream Geomorphic Assessment High Knob Brook Watershed', Milone and McBroom, Inc, February 2009

Phase 2 Stream Geomorphic Assessment High Knob Brook Watershed Town of Starksboro, VT
February 2009
High Knob Brook T6.06 A September 24, 2008
Prepared for: Lewis Creek Association Charlotte, VT Prepared by: Milone & MacBroom, Inc. South Burlington, VT
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... i 1.0 2.0 Project Overview ............................................................................................................................. 1 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.0 Geographic Setting ............................................................................................................. 1 Geomorphic Setting ............................................................................................................ 3 Hydrologic Setting .............................................................................................................. 3
Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 3 3.1 3.2 Field Assessment Methods ................................................................................................. 4 Quality Assurance Methods ................................................................................................ 4
4.0
Results .............................................................................................................................................. 5 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 T6.06 ................................................................................................................................... 5 T6.05 ................................................................................................................................... 9 T6.04 ................................................................................................................................. 11 T6.03 ................................................................................................................................. 13 T6.02 ................................................................................................................................. 15 T6.01 ................................................................................................................................. 17 T6.31S.01 .......................................................................................................................... 19
5.0
Summary of Results ....................................................................................................................... 21 5.1 5.2 5.3 Geomorphic Results Summary ......................................................................................... 21 Habitat Results Summary ................................................................................................. 23 Bridge and Culvert Assessments ...................................................................................... 27
6.0
Habitat Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 28 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 T6.0 ................................................................................................................................... 28 T6.05 ................................................................................................................................. 29 T6.04 ................................................................................................................................. 30 T6.03 ................................................................................................................................. 31 T6.02 ................................................................................................................................. 32 T6.01 ................................................................................................................................. 33 T6.3S1.01 .......................................................................................................................... 33
7.0
References ...................................................................................................................................... 34
Appendices Appendix A Reach Location Maps Appendix B Bridge and Culvert Assessment Reports
Acknowledgements This project was completed in partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Region, specifically with the help of Madeleine Lyttle and Nick Sibley. The project was funded by the Lewis Creek Association through its grant with the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. Marty Illick of the Lewis Creek Association coordinated this project. Technical assistance was provided by Shannon Pytlik and Shannon Bonney of the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation River Management Program.
Executive Summary A Phase 2 Stream Geomorphic Assessment was conducted on High Knob Brook (watershed area = 5.2 square miles) in Starksboro, Vermont. The assessment utilized the Vermont rapid geomorphic assessment and the newly developed reach habitat assessment protocols. The assessment covers the entire stream length of High Knob Brook from the confluence with the Lewis Creek upstream to the beginning of the defined channel (5.6 miles). High Knob Brook drains a small mountain watershed before reaching the broad Lewis Creek floodplain. The channel is dominated by wetlands, and then forms a defined channel in active pasture land. In this headwater location the meadow stream (Rosgen type E) is trampled in locations by active grazing in and along the channel and floodplain. Traveling downstream the High Knob Brook gets steeper and becomes a riffle-pool channel in places, with periodic sections of steep bedrock. Some encroachments such as homes and roadways exist in the river corridor, yet overall the corridor is mostly undeveloped. Stream reaches were segmented based on changes in channel morphology (E, C, B stream types), buffer condition (pasture, meadow, and forested land cover), valley confinement (very broad or narrower valley width), and river corridor encroachments (undeveloped or homes and roadways present). Geomorphic condition is generally similar to reference conditions. Of the 13 sites assessed, 2 were reference, 4 good, 4 fair, and 1 poor. Channel instabilities are generally caused by historic channel alteration. Preliminary stream restoration and protection recommendations were made based on results of the habitat assessment. Streams had good (7 segments) to fair (4 segments) habitat relative to the expected reference condition. River corridor protection from future development and reestablishment of buffers in pasture areas is recommended along the entire corridor. Several active restoration approaches such as riparian plantings and replacement of undersized culverts would improve the system.
1.0
Project Overview
A Phase 2 stream geomorphic assessment was completed in 2008 for the length of High Knob Brook (T6.01 to T6.06) and one section of one of its tributaries (T6.3S1.01). Stream geomorphic assessments provide a basis for understanding existing conditions relative to natural river form and processes, and can guide planning efforts for conservation and restoration. The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (VTANR), through its River Management Program (RMP) has developed a three-part Stream Geomorphic Assessment (VTANR, 2007). Phase 1 of The Protocols, a map-based watershed assessment, identifies expected stream type based on its valley. Phase 2 of The Protocols is a field exercise that identifies physical channel characteristics (e.g., width, depth, slope, meander pattern, particle size distribution) via observation and measurement, and verifies data collected during Phase 1. Phase 3 of The Protocols consists of a survey assessment where expanded observations and field survey are conducted to verify previous observations and create the detailed data set and site plan necessary for the evaluation of restoration alternatives. The Phase 1 Geomorphic Assessment for High Knob Brook was completed by South Mountain Research and Consulting, in Bristol, VT (SMRC, 2007). The Lewis Creek Association contracted with Milone & MacBroom, Inc. to complete the Phase 2 Assessment of High Knob Brook in 2008. 2.0 2.1 Background Geographic Setting
The assessment covers the entire stream length of High Knob Brook from the confluence with the Lewis Creek upstream to the beginning of the defined channel. This tributary of Lewis Creek drains a total area of 5.2 square miles (Figure 1). The High Knob Brook watershed is located entirely within the Town of Starksboro. The stream runs along Big Hollow Road, travels south through a remote area, passes under VT Route 116 and joins Lewis Creek at the upstream end of mainstem reach M20. High Knob Brook was divided into 6 reaches during the Phase 1 Assessment and covers a total stream length of 5.6 miles. One reach of an unnamed tributary (T6.3S1.01) was included in the assessment and was an additional 0.3 miles.
Figure 1: High Knob Brook, Starksboro, Vermont.
2.2
Geomorphic Setting
High Knob Brook slopes gently (S = 1.7%) downstream from its highest point at approximately 1,060 feet of elevation. Approximately 6,000 feet upstream from the confluence with Lewis Creek, the channel has a locally steep slope (S = 14.2%) (Figure 2). From the confluence with High Knob Brook, Lewis Creek flows another 26 miles before entering Lake Champlain.
Figure 2: High Knob Brook longitudinal profile is shown for all project reaches (USGS). 2.3 Hydrologic Setting
A USGS gage (watershed area = 5.3 sq mi) operated on High Knob Brook during the years 19631974 and 1999-2000 near the Route 116 crossing (04282700, Lewis Creek Tributary at Starksboro, VT). Peak flow regression analysis (Olson, 2002) indicated a 100-year flood of 704 cfs and a 10-year flood of 266 cfs. The 2-year flood, or approximate bankfull event, was determined to be 118 cfs. Current peak flow estimates from the USGS StreamStats website indicate 193, 362, and 668 cfs for the 2, 10, and 100-year floods. 3.0 Methodology
The assessment followed protocols developed by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (VTANR, 2007). Protocols were downloaded from the RMP website, and guidance for the new rapid habitat assessment (Schiff et al., 2008) was previously obtained during method development by MMI and RMP.
3.1
Field Assessment Methods
All project reaches were assessed on foot following the VTANR protocols. Segment breaks were identified during a stream walk based on cross section measurements and other reach data. A sketch of the stream was made during the stream walk. Current geomorphic condition was documented along with dominant channel processes at a representative cross section (i.e. aggradation, degradation, widening, planform change). The habitat assessment followed the 2008 protocols. Large woody debris, pools, undercut banks, and identification of refuge areas were counted and measured during the stream walk and logged on a tally sheet. Field forms were completed at the representative cross section to quantify key habitat features on condition. Bridge and Culvert assessments were completed for each structure in the project area using the protocols in Appendix G of the Stream Geomorphic Assessment. Structure width, clearance height, length and general characteristics describing the interaction of the channel and structure were recorded. Assessments were completed between August 5, 2008 and November 6, 2008. Key physical and habitat features were sketched and approximately located using a hand-held GPS unit (Garmin GPS 76). Features were documented with a digital camera. Features were indexed with reference to the Vermont Hydrography Dataset (VHD) using the Feature Indexing Tool in the SGAT (Version 4.53) GIS extension. Reach segmentation was recorded, where necessary, using the Segmentation Tool. Data was submitted online using the Data Management System (DMS). 3.2 Quality Assurance Methods
All data were thoroughly examined in-house by MMI. Geomorphic stream type and channel evolution stage were compared to various classification systems (e.g., Montgomery and Buffington, 1993; Rosgen and Silvey, 1996; Rosgen et al., 2006) to verify decision-making in the field. The data were submitted to RMP for QA review on December 8, 2008.
4.0
Results
Results of the stream geomorphic assessment for High Knob Brook reaches T6.01 T6.06, and unnamed tributary T6.3S1.01 are presented here. Reaches and segments are presented from upstream to downstream. Reference to right bank and left bank assume facing downstream. Reach mapping can be found in Appendix A and data summary reports for each reach in Appendices B and C. 4.1 T6.06
This reach marks the upstream limits of High Knob Brook, with the upper part of the reach dominated by wetland. The Phase 1 reach reference stream type was changed from C to E based on field observations of valley characteristics. This reach was divided into three segments. Segment C contained mostly wetlands and overland flow without a clearly defined channel. Segment B contained a well-defined channel with multiple encroachments in the river corridor. Segment A is largely ponded due to the presence of multiple beaver dams. Segment C The upstream-most segment on High Knob Brook is dominated by wetland characteristics and was therefore not fully assessed since the assessment protocols refer to alluvial channels. The segment was walked, sketched, photo-documented, and GPS points were taken to facilitate feature indexing. Channel dimensions were not measured, as this segment did not have a defined channel. The reach started in an herbaceous wetland field, which at the time of assessment was flooded (Figure 3). This segment occupies a corridor approximately 65 feet wide confined between the Big Hollow Road embankment on the right and a steep wooded hillside on the left. A private driveway crosses this segment with an undersized culvert, likely increasing flooding in the upstream wetland. This segment includes a short section of wooded wetland before entering the pasture downstream.
Figure 3: Wetland conditions in T6.06 segment C looking downstream. 5
Segment B This segment is the upstream limit of a defined stream channel and is dominated by pasture and occasional residential encroachments. The channel is a shallow, narrow E4 riffle-pool stream. The channel is in fair geomorphic condition relative to its expected reference stream type and in stage III of channel evolution (F model), indicating widening and aggradation due to historic incision. Cows and horses out to pasture have direct access to a significant portion of this segment both upstream and downstream of a run-of-the river residential dam (Figure 4a). At the most upstream end of the segment the channel is trampled, which appears to be leading to some localized increases in erosion and deposition, and channel braiding (Figure 4b). The small channel size and trampled channel in the pasture makes it unclear exactly where the stream would naturally transition from wetland to defined water course. Nevertheless, the entire pasture was included in Segment B due to the departure from natural reference conditions. The impoundment in the middle of this segment is dammed by a private driveway embankment. The ponded area is much wider than the channel and filled with sediment and algae. This dam appears to have one small outflow pipe that goes through the dam and into the downstream channel. There was evidence of recent work on this dam, possibly due to damage during heavy rains through July and August of this summer. The influence of cows continues downstream of the dam, but the channel maintains a more defined E stream type with less trampling than upstream. The channel flows through a short section of alder thicket just upstream of a home and barn on the right floodplain. There is possible historic filling behind this home, and evidence of minor recent filling. A new culvert for a trail crossing causes a minor constriction at the downstream end of the segment. The RHA score for this segment is in the lower end of the scale in the fair category (38 %). Poor condition rankings were assigned in parameters of woody debris cover, scour and deposition features, connectivity, and riparian area. Woody debris recruitment potential for this segment is very low due to non-forested river banks and a notable lack of woody debris. Connectivity scored low due to the large dam blocking all aquatic organism passage and due to lack of refuge areas. The riffle-pool structure was generally weak with minimal pools and very few welldefined riffles in this segment. The riparian area scored low due to lack of natural buffer and minimal tree cover in the riparian area.
a) b) Figure 4: Stream alteration in T6.06 B includes a) run-of-river impoundment and b) an active pasture area with instream trampling. Segment A This segment begins at the current upstream limit of beaver dam influence, downstream of a home and barn on the right bank and downstream of the tributary joining from the right. This segment was segmented because of historic and current beaver activity, and the absence of the residential encroachments and pasture in segment B. The downstream reach break was not obvious in the field as the Phase 1 downstream reach break was placed at the upstream end of a ponded area that no longer exists. According to local residents the ponding in this area caused by beaver dams is variable. The more natural downstream reach break would be just upstream of the confluence with T6.5S1. Beaver dams were present throughout segment A, some of which spanned the width of the valley. Some dams are currently impounding short portions of the segment or have been recently breached, while others appear to have breached some time ago and are fully vegetated creating local floodplain constrictions (Figure 5a). The beaver dams have caused the stream to change course, traveling along the length of the dam to the breached location. The cycle of beaver dam building and breaching has increased local inundation and sediment deposition of fines. This segment is an E (Rosgen) stream type with a gravel bottom and a riffle-pool morphology in good condition. This segment is in Stage I of the F channel evolution model. There is good connection to the broad, flat floodplain that lies between the toe of the steep forested valley wall on the left and the toe of the Big Hollow Road embankment against the right valley wall. Bank and floodplain vegetation is primarily thick alders and herbaceous wetland plants. Segment A has good habitat (RHA score = 73%). The bed substrate cover was scored fair due to periodic accumulations of fine sediments from breached beaver impoundments.
b) a) Figure 5: a) A typical section of T6.06A showing a breached beaver dam on the left in contrast to b) the narrowly confined section on the right side of Big Hollow Road. Mid-way along this segment, just upstream of Dugway Lane and a home located in the floodplain, the channel is diverted to the left side of Big Hollow Road. The channel flows on the left side of the road for approximately 200 feet, before traveling through another culvert back to the right side of the road. This portion of the channel is narrowly confined between the steep right valley wall and the Big Hollow Road embankment (Figure 5b). The channel is wider, very straight, and takes on plane-bed morphology in this short stretch. Both culverts are fixed constriction points, with steep riffles forming upstream of each structure. This altered portion of the channel is not accurately represented on either the USGS topography maps or the Vermont hydrogaphy data set (Figure 6). The tributary T6.6S1 enters the channel upstream of Dugway Lane and travels north to the High Knob Brook mainstem before traveling under Big Hollow Road upstream of Dugway Lane. This flow path was field verified and no channels were found on the left side of the valley as originally shown in the GIS and topography map.
Figure 6: Altered channel location in segment T6.06 A identified during the assessment. 4.2 T6.05
In Phase 1, the upstream reach break was identified according to mapping as the upstream end of a ponded area that is no longer present. The upper approximately 250 feet of this reach are similar to T6.06A, but determined not to be long enough to segment. This 1.2 mile reach has consistent valley characteristics, but was segmented due to significant differences in channel condition. The upper half of the reach (Segment B) was historically straightened and has transported most of its sediment downstream, and the downstream half of the reach (Segment A) shows has indications of channel migration and fine sediment deposition. Segment B Historic straightening occurred over almost the entire segment and sinuosity remains low. The channel was pushed against the right valley wall near Stokes Hill Road crossing, before the channel crosses the valley where it was further channelized along the left valley wall. Despite historic channelization, this channel remains in Good condition. Widening is occurring in some locations. This segment is in Stage I of the F channel evolution model.
The corridor has three rural homes along it, with minimal encroachment in the active river corridor. The Stokes Hill Road culvert is a channel constriction accumulating some sediment upstream (Figure 7b). The channel runs along a driveway armored with rip-rap and tree revetments on the valley wall for a few hundred feet. In general a good forested riparian buffer is maintained. This segment has Fair habitat condition (RHA = 63%), although it generally scored each parameter in the low end of the Good category. Local stream widening and historic channel straightening lowered habitat scores slightly, but overall habitat features were good relative to anticipated reference condition.
b) a) Figure 7: a) Typical T6.05B cross-section and b) Stokes Hill Road culvert, looking downstream. Segment A This segment begins just downstream of the last home in this reach, and downstream of the historically straightened stretch of river. This segment is migrating through its floodplain and has multiple flood chutes, avulsions, and braided areas (Figure 8). There is a large increase in depositional features compared to the upstream segment including many mid-channel and island bars. This segment is moderately incised (IR = 1.4) and more entrenched (ER = 1.4) than the upstream segment, indicating a C to B stream type departure. The observed widening and aggradation may be caused by instabilities in stream planform from upstream channelization. This segment is in Poor condition and in stage III of the F channel evolution model. There is an increase in large woody debris retention on segment A, not seen upstream. This may be due to the forested floodplains in this segment, but also due to importation of wood from forested upstream segment B. T6.06 has a wet meadow floodplain, not naturally contributing LWD to the channel. This is the first segment with a high potential to receive LWD from upstream sources. The increase in sediment deposition and LWD may be due to a decrease in channel slope.
10
The overall physical habitat on this segment is in Good condition (RHA = 70%), although scoring Fair in parameters of Bed Substrate Cover, Scour and Deposition Features, and Channel Morphology. High levels of embeddedness, fining, and riffle stability index were observed along with general evidence of sediment mobility and lack of sorting. The riffle-pool pattern was moderately formed, with small pools, non-uniform riffle spacing, and low percentage of riffle coverage. Abundant mid-channel accumulation was observed. The high incision ratio contributes to a low channel morphology score.
a)
b) Figure 8: a) Looking downstream at a typical widened section along T6.05A and b) looking upstream at a flood chute. T6.04
4.3
T6.04 is a transitional reach, where the valley width and confinement changes from upstream conditions. This reach was divided into two segments. Segment B, in the upper section of the reach, has a locally confining terrace on the left bank blocking access to the broader floodplain. This segment has experienced some incision and is classified as a B type departure from the reference C due to moderate entrenchment. Segment A is located in a broad flat floodplain, historically straightened, and is classified as an E type channel due to its low width to depth ratio. Segment A was defined as a sub-reach of the overall C reference type reach. Segment B This segment parallels Big Hollow Road that is located between 50 and 250 feet to the right of the channel over the entire segment. The stream passes by two homes, flows under Brown Hill Road, jogs away from Big Hollow road and ends just before a sharp turn at the top of a pasture. This segment has a very wide valley width, but is confined by a terrace on the left for most of its length. The existing stream type has been identified as B4 riffle-pool due to moderate width to depth ratio (W/D = 14.7) and moderate entrenchment (ER = 1.7). This is a departure from the
11
reference condition of C. This reach has experienced some incision (IR = 1.8). Stream condition has been determined to be Fair and in the channel evolution stage II of the F model. The physical habitat condition was scored as Good (RHA = 83%). Habitat parameters all were in good or reference condition with no major departure from reference condition. Encroachments include the road embankment of Big Hollow Road on the right traveling the entire length of the segment, two constrictions at crossings, and two homes on the left. The channel in proximity to each of the two homes has a decreased buffer and appears to have been straightened in the past. Channel dimensions tend to be narrower than reference conditions, than in these locally encroached and straightened areas. One private driveway bridge and the Brown Hill Road culvert are both fixed channel constrictions. A local resident reported that there may be a water quality issue related to waste from kennels at 1127 Big Hollow Road located at the upstream end of the reach. The presence of a small kennel facility was confirmed, yet water quality was not investigated as part of this assessment. A tractor crossing exists at the downstream end of the segment B.
a)
b) Figure 9: a) T6.04 segment B looking downstream with B channel characteristics and b) segment A looking downstream with E channel characteristics.
Segment A Just before the channel takes a 90 degree turn to the left, the channel flows around the end of a confining terrace and into the much wider valley. The channel narrows from a bankfull width of 18 feet to 13 feet, the width to depth ratio decreases, and the entrenchment ratio dramatically increases from 1.7 to 21.6. This downstream segment has reference characteristics of an E type channel and was designated as a sub-reach of T6.04 which has a C type reference. This segment is in Good channel condition in Stage I of the F channel evolution model. The physical habitat is in Fair overall condition (RHA = 62%), although most parameters scored Good. The adjoining
12
pasture on the left and lack of forest vegetation, refuge, connected wetlands and seeps decrease habitat value, as does the presence of some unstable soft sediments. This segment has a broad flat floodplain on the left comprised of fallow pasture. Historically the channel was pushed against a tall confining terrace in the right overbank to allow for the agriculture. The right wooded terrace slope is very tall (>20 feet) and exposed areas are made up of cobble and boulder size material. The terrace slopes up approximately 100 feet to where it is bordered by another broad flat pasture. The channel has a relatively low sinuosity near the base of the confining terrace. This channel has maintained its reference condition of the E channel after straightening due to the low valley slope. There is no development or encroachment along segment A. 4.4 T6.03
T6.03 varied in sinuosity, riparian buffer cover, and channel dimensions leading to segmentation. Upstream segment B exhibits E reference condition in an otherwise C reference reach due to high sinuosity, low width to depth ratio, and channel shape. Segment A is wider, with higher width to depth ratio, less sinuosity, and generally more consistent with the C reach reference type. Segment B This segment has high sinuosity relative to the straightened condition of upstream T6.04 A, although channel dimensions remain similar to the upstream segment. This segment is classified as a sub-reach because the channel exhibits reference conditions of an E4 riffle-pool stream type and the reference for the rest of the reach is C. The channel is in Good condition and appears to be in Stage I of the F channel evolution model, with no major adjustment occurring. Overall physical habitat is Good (RHA = 68%), with major departures in Bed Substrate Cover due to high fining and riffle stability index and left riparian area due to reduced buffer width and tree canopy. This segment has a steep narrow wooded riparian buffer on the right side and an inactive pasture on the left. This segment may have been historically straightened between the agricultural fields. Some evidence of lateral migration was observed as the stream increases sinuosity, in the form of erosion on the outside of meander bends (Figure 10). There are very few encroachments in this segment. A tractor crossing exists in the segment.
13
a)
b) Figure 10: a) A typical riffle section and b) typical meander bend on T6.03B.
Segment A This segment is wider than the upstream E type channel and maintains the reference stream type of C riffle-pool. This segment is in fair condition and in stage III of the F channel evolution model. Sinuosity is moderate, lower than the upstream segment, and there is little evidence of lateral migration. The upstream half of the segment has a narrow wooded buffer and inactive pasture in the right overbank and a deciduous forest in the left overbank. The downstream corridor contains a mature coniferous forest. There are signs of old pastures on the right, as well as disposed waste (old cars, refrigerators, etc.) near and in the channel. There are no permanent encroachments in segment A. The overall physical habitat condition is good (RHA = 74) and similar to the segment B upstream. This segment has reference LWD, connectivity, and river bank condition. Increased fining and riffle stability index negatively affect bed substrate cover condition. The pasture on the right has minimal forested buffer, decreasing riparian area condition. The very broad valley begins to narrow in this segment, ultimately ending at a confined valley at the downstream end of this segment. Bedrock grade control is present. The outcropping is catching fine gravel and causing local widening of the channel (Figure 11b).
14
a)
b) Figure 11: Looking upstream in segment T6.03A at both a) a typical riffle section and b) widened, aggrading section near downstream end of segment. T6.02
4.5
This reach is in a confined valley and ends with a bedrock gorge. T6.02 was segmented into two parts. Segment B, at the upstream end of the reach exhibits typical B type channel characteristics and a step-pool morphology. Segment A is a steep bedrock gorge. Segment B The valley abruptly narrows at the top of T6.02, with abundant exposed bedrock in the channel and valley walls. The valley width is 1 to 1.5 times the channel width, with very little available floodplain (Figure 12a). The channel is in reference condition (B4 stream type), and has a wellformed step-pool morphology. The entrenchment ratio measured at the typical cross section is low (ER = 1.3) for a typical B channel (1.4 < ER < 2.2), but within the acceptable error range (+ or 0.2). Although no floodplain was present at the typical cross section, floodplain widths of 5 to 10 feet were measured in other locations. This segment is in reference stream condition and in Stage I of the D channel evolution model or may not evolve according to typical models due to constraints from bedrock. A mature coniferous forest borders the channel on both sides with a steep, wide, and unencroached buffer. The only man-made encroachment in this segment is the remains of an old dam sitting on the left bank (Figure 12b). Overall physical habitat is in good condition (RHA = 74%). Multiple bedrock grade controls were present in the segment, affecting connectivity at low flows by possibly blocking aquatic species. There is also a general lack of refuge at both low and high flows.
15
a) b) Figure 12: Looking upstream in segment T6.02B at a) a typical section and b) old dam remains on left bank near upstream end of reach. Segment A The downstream portion of T6.02 is a bedrock gorge. Geomorphic measurements were not taken in this segment due to its non-alluvial nature. This segment is very steep and fully confined in bedrock. There are 5 large drops, a long natural flume section, and multiple cascades in this segment (Figure 13). Natural bedrock channel constrictions were measured to be as narrow as 5 feet wide in multiple locations. Bed elevation drops at waterfalls were measured to be up to 9 feet tall. These large drops are assumed to naturally limit aquatic organism movement under most flow conditions. No man-made encroachments existed in this segment and riparian buffer condition is excellent buffer.
a)
b) Figure 13: Looking upstream in segment T6.02A at a) one of the five large drops and b) a natural bedrock flume section. 16
4.6
T6.01
This reach begins at the downstream end of the bedrock gorge and continues to the confluence with Lewis Creek. This is a steep reach, with an average channel slope of 3.1%. The channel has a Cb riffle-pool morphology for the majority of the reach (Figure 14). This is the likely reference condition of this reach based on valley characteristics and thus a change from the B step-pool stream type assigned during the Phase 1 assessment. The channel is in Stage I of the D channel evolution model. The channel generally has a broad confinement with a wooded floodplain accessible at higher flows. Multiple bedrock outcroppings are present in the reach, providing vertical and horizontal grade control. Two short sections of bedrock gorge are present; each less than 500 feet long (Figure 15). These locations have locally higher slope and are more confined. The overall physical habitat is good (RHA = 67%). Due to the reachs unencroached nature, most habitat features were in reference or good condition. The bed substrate condition is compromised of high values of embeddedness, fining, and riffle stability index, and major evidence of sediment mobility and lack of sorting was noted. The bedrock gorge sections may influence aquatic organism passage at low flows.
a)
b) Figure 14: a) A typical broadly confined cross section along T6.01 compared to b) a more narrowly confined portion with bedrock control.
17
Figure 15: Valley walls and bedrock constricted area locations along T6.01. This reach has few encroachments, likely due to low development density and difficult access down steep valley walls. A quarry near the top of the reach on the right side has recently expanded (as noted based on comparison of footprint in 2003 aerial photographs, Figure 15). Active work was occurring at the top of the tall steeply sloping right bank for a few hundred feet along the reach. The work was at least 100 feet from the channels edge and the intervening wooded buffer was maintained for that distance, with silt fencing installed near the top of the bank. The crossings at both Freedom Acres (private road) and VT Route 116 both constrict the channel (Figure 16). A large sediment bar has formed directly upstream of the Freedom Acres culvert. This structure is located at a break in channel slope downstream of a bedrock constriction and is thus prone to sediment deposition. The VT Route 116 culvert is at the base of a very tall road embankment completely filling the floodplain. This culvert is undersized and sediment appears to be eroding the concrete slab bottom. This culvert likely limits aquatic organism passage due to its long length, small size compared to channel bankfull width, and small outlet drop.
18
a) b) Figure 16: The bankfull width and floodplain are constricted in T6.01 by both a) Freedom Acres and b) VT Route 116 culverts. 4.7 T6.31S.01
This tributary of High Knob Brook is locally referred to as High Knob Brook leading to confusion when talking to local residents about the area streams. This tributary starts just downstream of the crossing with Brown Hill Road and ends just upstream of the agricultural field before flowing into High Knob Brook near the top of reach T6.03. The landowners mother reported that this stream dries up whenever it doesnt rain for a month, and is typically dry in August and September. Large ice flows were also reported that covered the adjacent right floodplain carrying lots of gravel onto the farm field. The channel is a Cb gravel bed riffle-pool stream, as identified in the Phase 1. The channel is in Fair condition due to the widespread degradation occurring. It is in Stage III of the F evolution model. The gravel bed appears to be made up of remaining parts of eroded glacial till that has come from the banks following the historic relocation of the channel to the left valley edge. The channel was likely moved to facilitate floodplain agriculture. A short berm runs along the right side of the channel mid-reach that is non-cohesive and eroding in spots. The channel is relatively straight, has excessive sediment deposition (i.e., thick bed sediment and large bars) bars, and eroding banks as it attempts to regain sinuosity (Figure 17 b). The current left bank and floodplain vegetation at the valley toe is a dense mixed forest, with one home inside the very wide buffer. The right floodplain is very wide and flat and was until this year covered with 21,000 Christmas trees. Recently the soil was amended and seeded with alfalfa, clover and timothy. There is a narrow strip of trees on the right bank varying between 0 and 100 feet wide. The overall physical habitat of this reach is fair (56%), indicating a major departure from reference habitat condition. Bed substrate condition is reduced due to high embeddedness, high
19
fining, high riffle stability index, and observed unstable, unsorted soft sediments. Scour and deposition features had a moderately defined riffle-pool pattern, yet pools are small, have no cover, and are being filled with sediment. Riffles are poorly formed and spaced close together. Extensive channel alterations due to the straightening and berming decreased habitat condition. The right side near bank and buffer vegetation is limited.
b) a) Figure17: Aggradation in T6.3S1.01 is evident a) at mid-channel bars and b) a large side bar. The crossing at Brown Hill Road is an undersized culvert collecting sediment upstream and causing scour downstream (Figure 18 a). This culvert appears to have stopped the movement of a likely headcut that traveled up the channel. The private driveway bridge located mid-reach is not a channel constriction and appears to provides ample conveyance for water, sediment, and debris. The downstream extent T6.3S1.01 identified in the Phase 1 work is at the beginning of the agricultural field rather than at the confluence with High Knob Brook. Downstream of the reach break, the channel is a deep narrow channel with E type characteristics (Figure 18b). A meadow floodplain exists and the bank and buffer vegetation change to primarily herbaceous pasture grasses and perennials. Bank texture also changed, to a deep silt and sand layer, with a gravel near the bottom of the bank. This material and channel characteristics are similar to T6.03B and T6.04A, also located in a broad, flat meadow floodplain. It is hypothesized that this may be the reference condition of T6.3S1.01, instead of the steeper C channel identified in the Phase 1 and verified in the Phase 2.
20
a) b) Figure 18: a) The Brown Hill Road crossing upstream of the T6.3S1.01 and b) the section of channel between the downstream end of the reach and the confluence with High Knob Brook.
5.0 5.1
Summary of Results Geomorphic Results Summary
The RGA was not completed for two segments; T6.06 C due to wetland conditions and T6.02 A because it is a bedrock gorge. Reference condition of segments were verified or adjusted to be either E or C type channels with riffle-pool morphology, except for T6.02, a steeper B type channel exhibiting step-pool structure (Table 1). The channel is typically in good geomorphic condition and in the first stage of the F evolution model, indicative of a stable channel in many locations. All assessed reaches have gravel bed substrate. C and E type gravel bed channels in good condition have high sensitivity to change due to stressors, while B channels in good condition have moderate sensitivity (tend to be more stable). The stream starts in wetland conditions in T6.06 C. The channel is an E type channel and travels through a low gradient wide wetland floodplain to the downstream end of T6.06. T6.06 B and A maintain their reference stream type and are in fair and good condition.
21
The valley steepens with a C reference stream type as it enters a forested floodplain at the top of T6.05. It maintains reference stream type in good condition for T6.05 B, but departs to a B channel type in segments T6.05 A and T6.04 B due to local confinement and straightening. T6.05 A is in poor condition exhibiting widening and aggradation. T6.04 A is currently degrading and in fair condition. The departed condition of these segments increases stream sensitivity to stressors from moderate to high. Moving downstream the valley then returns to a lower gradient and widens. T6.04 A and T6.03 B have E reference types and are both designated as sub-reaches. The valley slope then increases, and T6.03 A maintains its reference stream type of C. The valley then narrows significantly confining T6.02 B leading to a B type channel in reference condition. This segment is in stage I of the D evolution model due to bedrock control and has only moderate stream sensitivity. The stream passes through the bedrock gorge in T6.02 A. T6.01 is a C type channel with sections of bedrock control and in stage I of the D evolution model or will not evolve according to a typical model. T6.3S1.01 is in fair condition and is degrading, but has not departed from its reference stream type. It is currently in stage III of the F channel evolution model. It has very high stream sensitivity. Reaches along High Knob Brook generally exhibit high stream sensitivity. Exceptions include the bedrock controlled T6.02 B with a moderate sensitivity and T6.06B, T6.03A, andT6.3S1.01 with very high sensitivity.
22
Table 1: Summary of Representative Stream Geomorphic Assessment Data.

Width to Depth Ratio 12.61 12.07 29 Reference Stream Type Wetland E4 R-P E4 R-P C4 R-P Existing Stream Type Not Assessed E4 R-P E4 R-P C4 R-P Channel Evolution Stage N/A F III FI FI
Reach
Length (feet)
Entrenchment Ratio
Incision Ratio
Subreach
RGA Score
Process
Stream Condition
Sensitivity
T6.06 C T6.06 B T6.06 A T6.05 B
1918 3677 2887 2378
5.6 16.25 4.12
1.2 1 1.09
N/A 0.56 0.8 0.66
T6.05 A T6.04 B T6.04 A T6.03 B T6.03 A T.602 B T6.02 A T6.01 T6.3S1.01
3858 2263 644 1370 2068 1094 760 5649 1586
1.43 1.66 21.58 2.31 2.62 1.27 6.84 2.5
1.36 1.81 1 1.29 1.25 1.06 1.06 1.31
21.5 14.86 10.82 10.9 14.54 15.35 20.46 12.54
C4 R-P C4 R-P E4 R-P E4 R-P C4 R-P B4 S-P Bedrock Gorge C4 R-P C4b R-P
B4 R-P B4 R-P E4 R-P E4 R-P C4 R-P B4 S-P Not Assessed C4 R-P C4b R-P
yes yes
0.26 0.64 0.75 0.675 0.71 0.91 N/A 0.88 0.56
N/A none none none widening and aggrading degrading aggrading none none none N/A none degrading
N/A Fair Good Good
N/A Very High High High
Poor Fair Good Good Fair Reference N/A Reference Fair
F III F II FI FI F III DI N/A DI F III
High High High High Very High Moderate N/A High Very High
23
5.2
Habitat Results Summary
Assessed stream segments were identified to have good to fair overall physical habitat conditions, with no streams having exceptionally poor or reference habitat (Table 2). Large woody debris condition is adequate, although not in reference condition except for T6.05A. T6.06 has naturally low amounts of LWD which not only affected LWD locally, but failed to provide wood to downstream reaches. Fallow agricultural land adjacent to T6.3S1.01, T6.04, and T6.03 also contributed to reduced input of LWD. Retention of LWD was reduced for the step-pool stream in T6.02 and was possibly affected by limited upstream inputs. River bank and riparian area condition were mostly in reference or good condition due to the rural nature of much of the project area. T6.06 B has reduced bank and riparian area condition due to animal grazing in the stream and corridor. The river banks and riparian areas had limited vegetation on the left side of T6.04 A and T6.03 B. The right floodplain of T6.3S1.01 is currently pasture. The right buffer of T6.03A is narrow and adjacent to pasture. Bed substrate cover was found to be in good to fair condition across assessed reaches. Many reaches had evidence of sediment mobility, moderate to high embeddedness, and / or increased fining, but sedimentation was not causing a severe departure from reference conditions. T6.02 A and T6.05 B appear to be sediment transport reaches. T6.3S1.01 has significant amounts of unstable sediments that are soft underfoot, as well as high values of embeddedness and fining. Dense algae growth was not observed in the project area except in the pond on segment T6.06B. Scour and deposition features were generally good across the project area, with well defined riffle-pool pattern (step-pool pattern in T6.02 A) and sufficient distribution, density, and size of bed features. In many locations pools were shallow, which is a function of both small overall stream size and sedimentation occurring in much of the project area. Bed feature quality was reduced in T6.06 B and T6.3S1.01, the two segments with the greatest, most recent alteration and encroachment. Hydrologic characteristics were in reference or good condition in all assessed areas. Although in good condition, this parameter was ranked lower in T6.06 B due to flow regulation at the run-ofriver dam, T6.01 due to amount of exposed substrate, and in T6.05 B and T6.3S1.01 from absence or alteration of wetlands and seeps. Connectivity was generally high across the project area, except for blockages of aquatic organism passage including a private dam in T6.06B and large natural bedrock controls in T6.02
24
B. Refuge was often lacking or limited at either low or high flow conditions over the assessed area. The stated presence of intermittent stream was not confirmed during this assessment, but is likely influencing connectivity. Planning recommendations for each individual assessed segment are provided in Section 6.0 based on these results.
25
Table 2: Reach Habitat Assessment Summary.

Scour and Deposition Features
Hydrologic Characteristics
Channel Morphology
Riparian Area, Right
Woody Debris Cover
Bed Substrate Cover
Riparian Area, Left
River Banks, Right
River Banks, Left
Connectivity
Reach ID T6.06 T6.06 T6.06 T6.05 T6.05 T6.04 T6.04 T6.03 T6.03 T6.02 T6.02 T6.01 T6.3S1.01
Segment ID C B A B A B A B A B A -
3 12 11 19 13 11 12 16 11 15 16
8 8 12 8 11 11 10 9 15 8 6
5 13 11 9 13 11 15 14 14 13 6
13 17 10 10 13 15 14 15 17 16 8
13 17 13 15 16 15 18 14 15 13 13
3 16 13 13 15 12 11 19 8 13 13
5 9 7 9 9 3 6 9 9 8 8
5 9 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 5
3 8 8 10 7 3 4 10 10 9 9
2 8 8 10 7 9 9 4 10 9 3
Total Score (out of 160) 60 117 100 112 113 99 108 119 118 112 87
Total Score (Percent) 38 73 63 70 83 62 68 74 74 70 55
Overall Physical Habitat Condition N/A Fair Good Fair Good Good Fair Good Good Good N/A Good Fair
Geomorphic Stream Condition N/A Good Good Good Poor Fair Good Good Good Reference N/A Reference Fair
26
5.3
Bridge and Culvert Assessments
All of the structures along High Knob Brook are undersized (Table 3, Appendix B) as indicated by structure width well under the stream bankfull width. The structures assessed along High Knob Brook are significant channel constrictions and many are disrupting sediment transport. The driveway culvert in T6.06 C is the greatest constriction and was ponding water upstream when assessed. The culverts under Route 116 and at Freedom Acres Road are both severely undersized leading to upstream sediment aggradation. Each of these structures is likely limiting aquatic organism passage. The structure on the unnamed tributary to High Knob Brook is adequately sized with no obvious effects on stream processes. Table 3: Summary of Bridge and Culvert dimensions measured as part of the Bridge and Culvert Assessment.
Crossing Location Reach Location Crossing Type Clearance Height (feet) Width Across Stream (feet) Length Along Stream (feet) Measured Percent Channel Bankfull Width Width (feet) (%)
3382 Big Hollow Road Driveway Private Path Big Hollow Road U/S of Dugway Road Big Hollow Road D/S of Dugway Road Stokes Hill Road 1127 Big Hollow Road Driveway Brown Hill Road Freedom Acres Vermont Route 116 Brown Hill Road Driveway
T6.06C T6.06B
Culvert Culvert
1.5 3
1.5 3
38 15
9 7.7
17 39
T6.06A
Culvert
40
11
45
T6.06A T6.05 T6.04 T6.04 T6.01 T6.01 T6.3S1.01
Culvert Culvert Bridge Culvert Culvert Culvert Bridge
3.5 6 4 6 6.9 7 6.2
5.5 8 11 9 9.7 6 24
40 30 11 38 46 85 10
11 16 17.5 17.5 22 25 15
50 50 63 51 44 24 160
27
6.0
Habitat Recommendations
This section contains preliminary recommendations for habitat improvement projects based on habitat and geomorphic assessment data. These recommendations are broad scale and mark a preliminary step in the creation of planning guidance including habitat features. 6.1 T6.06
Segment C The RHA was not fully applicable to this segment due to the absence of a defined channel. A private driveway culvert is undersized creating a severe constriction to flow and sediment transport, and blocking aquatic organism passage. Retrofit or replacement should be explored at this structure. Segment B Segment B has fair habitat (RHA score = 38%), indicating a major departure from reference habitat conditions. Poor condition rankings were assigned in parameters of woody debris cover, scour and deposition features, connectivity, and riparian area. Specific habitat deficiencies noted include: Low woody debris recruitment potential and retention; Increases in sediment with major evidence of sediment mobility and lack of sorting; Large dam blocking aquatic organism passage; Lack of refuge areas; Riffle-pool structure is generally weak with minimal pools and few well defined riffles; and Riparian area lacks buffer and minimal tree cover in the riparian area. The following recommendations would improve habitat condition over segment B. Work with landowners to keep animals out of stream. Protect riparian lands to allow return to natural vegetation and sediment filtering. Protect river corridor to give the channel space to establish a natural pattern and natural processes of flood inundation, sediment transport, and debris transport. Explore upgrade of undersized culverts to improve connectivity and sediment/debris transport. Consider alternatives at residential pond to naturalize water quality and sediment/debris transport. Monitor water quality up- and downstream of pond in summer to explore impairment.
28
Segment A Segment A has good habitat (RHA score = 73%), indicative of a minor departure from reference condition. The following habitat deficiencies were identified during the assessment: Low woody debris recruitment potential resulting in no debris jams; Periodic accumulations of fine sediments from breached beaver impoundments; Bank canopy is open with very few trees near bank or in buffer; and Channel straightening and diversion through two culverts under Big Hollow Road removed all habitat features in section. The low woody debris recruitment potential is likely due to the natural vegetation condition of the reach, mainly comprised of alders and herbaceous wetland plants. No action is recommended to increase woody debris or trees in the near bank or buffer areas. More woody debris would be incident on the project site if upstream culverts and dam were allowed to pass debris to this segment. Periodic accumulation of fine sediments is a natural condition associated with beaver dam building and breaching cycles. Fine sediment storage does not appear to be impairing habitat on this segment likely due to the ability for this segment to periodically flood and clean out local substrate sending fines downstream. Recommendations for segment A follow. Explore possible return of channel to historic location at the left side of valley instead of confining along Big Hollow Road. Protect river corridor from future development. 6.2 T6.05
Segment B Segment B has fair habitat (RHA = 63%) each parameter generally scored in the low end of the Good category. There is a minor departure from reference habitat conditions. The following specific habitat deficiencies were identified during the assessment: Absence of debris jams; Moderate riffle-pool pattern with small pools and poorly formed riffles; and Stream widening and historic channel straightening. The absence of debris jams is primarily due to unforested upstream segments and action within this segment is not recommended to directly change this feature.
29
Recommendations for segment B follow. Protect river corridor to give the channel space to establish a natural pattern and natural processes of flood inundation, sediment transport, and debris transport. Explore upgrade of undersized Stokes Hill Road culvert to improve connectivity and sediment/debris transport. Segment A The physical habitat is good in segment A (RHA = 70%), indicating a minor departure from reference conditions. Reduced habitat quality is evident by altered Bed Substrate Cover, Scour and Deposition Features, and Channel Morphology. The following were identified as specific habitat deficiencies: Increase in sediment deposition and mobility; Riffle-pool pattern is moderately formed, with small pools, non-uniform riffle spacing, and low percentage of riffle coverage; Abundant mid-channel sediment accumulation; High incision ratio indicates a reduction in floodplain access; and Limited low and high flow refuge. Recommendations for segment A follow. Protect river corridor from future development to allow continued adjustment toward equilibrium. 6.3 T6.04
Segment B The physical habitat in segment B is in Good condition (RHA = 83%). The following specific variables have been identified as habitat deficiencies: Small pool size; High fining and RSI indicating an increase in fine sediment; Incision has decreased access to floodplain; and River corridor development and infrastructure is common. The following recommendations would increase habitat quality in segment B. Protect the river channel in proximity to each of the two homes to increase natural buffers and allow creation of a more natural planform. Protect existing naturally vegetated buffers. Protect the river corridor to allow for new floodplain creation to improve habitat/water quality and establish sediment/nutrient attenuation areas.
30
Segment A Segment A physical habitat is in fair condition (RHA = 62%), although most parameters scored Good. The overall habitat condition is a major departure from reference condition. The following have been specifically identified as habitat deficiencies: Debris jams are absent; Sediments are unstable, unsorted and soft underfoot; Large depositional features and abundant mid-channel accumulation; Pools are generally small, with little cover; Adjacent springs seeps and wetlands are absent or were historically altered; No refuge is present; Major historic straightening occurred; and Left side River Banks and Riparian Area have little tree cover and no buffer from the pasture. The following is recommended to improve habitat in segment A: Protect the river corridor to allow channel to regain sinuosity and establish natural vegetation. 6.4 T6.03
Segment B Segment B physical habitat is in good condition (RHA = 68%), although major departures were seen in the parameters of Bed Substrate Cover and Left Riparian Area. The following specific habitat deficiencies were identified: Large woody debris and CPOM were limited; Sedimentation was evident in the parameters of fining and RSI; Refuge was absent; and Left bank canopy and buffer width were reduced. The following is recommended to improve habitat in segment B: Protect the river corridor to allow for reestablishment of a wooded buffer and discourage future development.
31
Segment A Segment A overall physical habitat is in good condition (RHA = 74%). This segment has only a minor departure from reference habitat conditions. The following specific habitat deficiencies were identified: Increased fining and RSI indicating an increase in sediments; and Minimal forested buffer on the right. Excess sediments are generally caused by grade control at the downstream end of the reach. No action is recommended to decrease them in the segment. The following is recommended: Protect the river corridor to allow for reestablishment of a wooded buffer and discourage future development. Remove debris from river corridor. 6.5 T6.02
Segment B Segment B overall physical habitat is in Good condition (RHA = 74%). The following habitat deficiencies were identified: Large woody debris was typically small with few debris jams; Pools were generally small with little cover; Adjacent springs, seeps and wetlands were minimal; Natural bedrock grade control existed in multiple locations blocking aquatic organism passage; Lack of refuge at both low and high flows; and Few undercut banks providing cover. The confined, steep nature of the valley does not provide many locations for adjacent wetlands or other refuge outside the channel. The grade control affecting aquatic organism passage is typically small and naturally formed so no action is recommended. Although the large woody debris was generally small, it was abundant and the riparian areas and buffers are already forested. There were 14 debris jams per mile, which is low for a step-pool channel, but not a severe departure. No action is recommended to increase large woody debris in this segment. No action is recommended:
32
Segment A This segment is contained entirely within a bedrock gorge. The RHA was not completed on T6.02 A. No habitat recommendations apply. Habitat observations indicate a host of high quality habitat features such as pocket pools, chutes, and undercuts. 6.6 T6.01
The overall physical habitat in T6.01 is in good condition (RHA = 70%). Due to the reachs unencroached nature, most habitat features were in reference or good condition. The following were identified as specific habitat deficiencies: Sedimentation is occurring, as indicated by high values of embeddedness, fining, RSI, and noted major evidence of sediment mobility and lack of sorting; Bedrock gorge sections disrupted habitat connectivity; and There are few undercut banks available for shelter of aquatic species. The bedrock gorge sections may block aquatic organism passage, but are naturally occurring so no action is recommended. Sedimentation in this reach is caused by grade controls so no action is recommended. The following is recommended to improve habitat in T6.01. Ensure the quarry will not encroach any farther towards the river to limit the potential for a mass failure such as the one located on the opposite bank. Examine possibilities for replacement of culverts at both Freedom Acres (a private road) and VT Route 116, as both severely constrict the channel. 6.7 T6.3S1.01
The overall physical habitat in T6.3S1.01 is in fair condition (RHA = 55%), indicating a major departure from reference. The following specific habitat deficiencies were identified: High embeddedness, high fining, high RSI, and observed unstable, unsorted and soft sediments; Moderately defined riffle-pool pattern, specifically having small pools with no cover, poorly formed riffles spaced close together, and finer deposition filling pools; Extensive channel alterations due to the straightening and windrowing; and Right side near bank and buffer vegetation is narrow and has few trees. The following is recommended to improve habitat in T6.3S1.01. Meet with landowner to discuss plans for change in field use and potential for river corridor protection to allow the channel to move away from the toe of the valley and
33
migrate across the valley bottom again. Give the channel space to establish a pattern to return towards stable equilibrium and reduce bank erosion and sediment load. Remove berm on right side of channel to encourage channel to return to valley bottom. Explore active channel restoration to return channel to its historic location. Establish natural floodplain vegetation.
7.0
References
Montgomery, D. R. and J. M. Buffington, 1993. Channel Classification, Prediction of Channel Response, and Assessment of Channel Condition (Tfw-Sh10-93-002). Timber, Fish, and Wildlife Agreement, Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA. Olson, S., 2002. Flow-Frequency Characteristics of Vermont Streams. WRI Report 02-4238. U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Vermont Agency of Transportation, Pembroke, NH. Rosgen, D. and L. Silvey, 1996. Applied River Morphology, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO. Rosgen, D., L. Silvey, and D. Frantila, 2006. Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply (WARSSS), Wildland Hydrology, Fort Collins, CO. Schiff, R., J. S. Clark, G. Alexander, and M. Kline, 2008. The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Reach Habitat Assessment (RHA). Prepared by Milone & MacBroom, Inc. with the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Departments of Environmental Conservation and Fish and Wildlife, Waterbury, VT. SMRC, 2007. Phase 1 Stream Geomorphic Assessment 23 Tributary Reaches, Lewis Creek Watershed, Addison & Chittenden Counties, Vt. Prepared for the Lewis Creek Association by South Mountain Research and Consulting, Charlotte, VT. VTANR, 2007. Vermont Stream Geomorphic Assessment Protocol Handbooks: Remote Sensing and Field Surveys Techniques for Conducting Watershed and Reach Level Assessments (Http://Www.Anr.State.Vt.Us/Dec/Waterq/Rivers/Htm/Rv_Geoassesspro.Htm). Acquired via the internet May 17, 2007. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water Quality, River Management Program, Waterbury, VT.
34
Appendix A: Reach Location Maps
35
! ( ! (
Reach Break Segment Break Phase 2 Valley Walls Roads Streams (VHD)
!T4.3S1.02 (
T6.07
Mason H ill N
! (
! (
STARKSBORO
! (
S Mason H ill
llow R
Big H o
Rublee
Rd
ug
! (
T6.6S1.01
ay
Ln
! (
T6.6S1.02
! ( S T6.5S1.01 tokes Hil ! ( lR d

0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet
T6.06
High Knob Brook T6.06
! ( ! (
T6.5S1.01
lS Mason H il
! (
T6.06
d ill R
o ( St!
H k es
Outlo
ok W
! (
M16S1.05
! (
STARKSBORO
g Bi
ow oll
Rd
Bro
H wn
ill W
! (
T6.05
250
500
1,000 Feet
! (
! ( ! (
! (
T6.05
Br ow
Rd
nH
ill W
Big H
ollow
STARKSBORO
! (
T6.3S1.02
! (
! (
T6.04
! (
T6.3S1.01
125
250
500 Feet
High Knob Brook T6.04 and T6.3S1.01
! ( ! (
Reach Break Segment Break Roads

Big Ho llow Rd
! (
T6.04
Phase 2 Valley Walls
! (
T6.3S1.01
Streams (VHD)
! (
STARKSBORO
! (
T6.03
125
250
500 Feet
! ( ! (
Reach Break Segment Break Phase 2 Valley Walls Roads Streams (VHD) T6.03
! (
STARKSBORO
! (
! (
T6.02
125
250
500 Feet
! ( ! (
Route 11 6
! (
T6.02
Hidden
A c r es
Chickadee L
Finch Ln
Bluebird Ln
Eagle Ln
STARKSBORO
Avian Ln
Broo kside D
Freedom Acres
Do ve Ln
! (
M21
! (
T6.01
R Tatro
250
500
1,000 Feet
Appendix B: Bridge and Culvert Assessment Reports
36
Structures | Lewis Creek

General Information
SgaID VOBCIT struct_num Observers Town Location Latitude Road Name Stream Name 100005000001191 j.clark, m.lyttle Starksboro corner of Dugway Lane and Big Hollow Road 44.25 BIG HOLLOW RD High Knob Brook Local SgaID Assessment Date Project Name: Reach VTID Longitude Road Type High flow stage Channel width --08/20/2008 Lewis Creek T6.06 -73.03 Gravel No 11 ft. ( Measured)
Page 1 of 2
Culvert Information
Culvert Length Culvert Height Culvert Width 40 ft. 4 ft. 5 ft. Material Number of culverts Culvert Overflow Pipe Skewed to roadway? Steel Corrugated 1 No No
Geomorphic Information
General Floodplain filled by roadway approaches Structure is located at significant break in valley slope Culvert slope as compared with channel slope is significantly Upstream Obstructions at the opening of the structure Steep riffle present immediately upstream of structure If channel avulses, stream will Estimated distance avulsion would follow road Angle of stream flow approaching structure Downstream Water depth in culvert (at outlet) Culvert outlet invert Backwater Length (measured from outlet) Outlet drop (invert to water surface) Pool present immediately downstream of structure Pool Depth at point of streamflow entry Maximum pool depth Downstream bank heights are substantially higher than upstream bank heights Entirely No Same None Yes Follow Road 200 ft. Mild Bend 0.8 ft. At Grade 0.0 ft. 0.0 ft. Yes 1.2 ft. 1.2 ft. No
More Geomorphic Information

Upstream Dominant Bed Material Bedrock Present Material Present throughout Type of Sediment Deposits Elevation of sediment deposits greater than 1/2 bankfull Bank Erosion Hard Bank Armoring Stream bed scour causing undermining around or under structure Beaver Dam near Structure Beaver Dam distance (ft.) Cobble No Mid-channel Yes None None None Yes 200 Downstream Gravel No None No None None None No --In Structure Gravel Yes None No
Vegetation
Upstream Dominant Vegetation Type - Left Dominant Vegetation Type - Right Herbaceous/Grass Road Embankment Downstream Road Embankment Deciduous Forest In Structure
Does a band of shrub/forest vegetation 50 ft. wide start within 25 ft. of the structure and extend at least 500 ft. up/downstream? Vegetation Band - Left No No Vegetation Band - Right No Yes
Wildlife
Roadkill Species None Outside Structure Beaver - Lodge Inside Structure ---
Other Information
Spatial location data collected with GPS? Comments No Photos taken? Yes
stream appears to have been diverted across the road in this location for the home to be built
https://anrnode.anr.state.vt.us/ssl/sga/structures_reports.cfm?did=96&sid=dms-100005000001191&... 11/3/2008

General Information
SgaID VOBCIT struct_num Observers Town Location Latitude Road Name Stream Name 100005000101191 j.clark, m.lyttle Starksboro just downstream of dugway road 44.25 BIG HOLLOW RD High Knob Brook Local SgaID Assessment Date Project Name: Reach VTID Longitude Road Type High flow stage Channel width --08/20/2008 Lewis Creek T6.06 -73.03 Gravel No 11 ft. ( Measured)
Page 1 of 2
Culvert Information
Culvert Length Culvert Height Culvert Width 40 ft. 4 ft. 6 ft. Material Number of culverts Culvert Overflow Pipe Skewed to roadway? Steel Corrugated 1 No Yes
General Floodplain filled by roadway approaches Structure is located at significant break in valley slope Culvert slope as compared with channel slope is significantly Upstream Obstructions at the opening of the structure Steep riffle present immediately upstream of structure If channel avulses, stream will Estimated distance avulsion would follow road Angle of stream flow approaching structure Downstream Water depth in culvert (at outlet) Culvert outlet invert Backwater Length (measured from outlet) Outlet drop (invert to water surface) Pool present immediately downstream of structure Pool Depth at point of streamflow entry Maximum pool depth Downstream bank heights are substantially higher than upstream bank heights Entirely No Same None Yes Cross Road --- ft. Sharp Bend 1.0 ft. At Grade 0.0 ft. 0.0 ft. No 1.0 ft. 2.5 ft. No

Upstream Dominant Bed Material Bedrock Present Material Present throughout Type of Sediment Deposits Elevation of sediment deposits greater than 1/2 bankfull Bank Erosion Hard Bank Armoring Stream bed scour causing undermining around or under structure Beaver Dam near Structure Beaver Dam distance (ft.) Cobble No None No None Failing Culvert No --Downstream Gravel No None No None Intact Culvert No --In Structure Gravel No None No
Vegetation
Upstream Dominant Vegetation Type - Left Dominant Vegetation Type - Right Road Embankment Mixed Forest Downstream Shrub/Sapling Road Embankment In Structure
Does a band of shrub/forest vegetation 50 ft. wide start within 25 ft. of the structure and extend at least 500 ft. up/downstream? Vegetation Band - Left No Yes Vegetation Band - Right Yes No
Wildlife
Roadkill Species None Outside Structure None Inside Structure None
Other Information
Spatial location data collected with GPS? Comments Yes Photos taken? Yes
culvert returning river to correct side of road

General Information
SgaID VOBCIT struct_num Observers Town Location Latitude Road Name Stream Name 100019000001191 j.clark, m.lyttle Starksboro Brown Hill Road off of Big Hollow Road 44.24 BROWN HILL W High Knob Brook Local SgaID Assessment Date Project Name: Reach VTID Longitude Road Type High flow stage Channel width --08/24/2008 Lewis Creek T6.04 -73.04 Gravel No 18 ft. ( Measured)
Page 1 of 2
Culvert Information
General Floodplain filled by roadway approaches Structure is located at significant break in valley slope Culvert slope as compared with channel slope is significantly Upstream Obstructions at the opening of the structure Steep riffle present immediately upstream of structure If channel avulses, stream will Estimated distance avulsion would follow road Angle of stream flow approaching structure Downstream Water depth in culvert (at outlet) Culvert outlet invert Backwater Length (measured from outlet) Outlet drop (invert to water surface) Pool present immediately downstream of structure Pool Depth at point of streamflow entry Maximum pool depth Downstream bank heights are substantially higher than upstream bank heights Entirely No Same None Yes Cross Road --- ft. Naturally Straight 0.8 ft. At Grade --- ft. 0.0 ft. Yes 0.8 ft. 1.5 ft. No

Upstream Dominant Bed Material Bedrock Present Material Present throughout Type of Sediment Deposits Elevation of sediment deposits greater than 1/2 bankfull Bank Erosion Hard Bank Armoring Stream bed scour causing undermining around or under structure Beaver Dam near Structure Beaver Dam distance (ft.) Cobble No None No None Intact None No --Downstream Gravel No None No None Intact None No --In Structure None No None No
Vegetation
Upstream Dominant Vegetation Type - Left Dominant Vegetation Type - Right Herbaceous/Grass Deciduous Forest Downstream Herbaceous/Grass Deciduous Forest In Structure
Does a band of shrub/forest vegetation 50 ft. wide start within 25 ft. of the structure and extend at least 500 ft. up/downstream? Vegetation Band - Left No No Vegetation Band - Right Yes Yes
Wildlife
Other Information
Spatial location data collected with GPS? Comments Yes --Photos taken? Yes

General Information
SgaID VOBCIT struct_num Observers Town Location Latitude Road Name Stream Name 700000000001191 j.clark, s.pytlik Starksboro Private Road - Freedom Acres 44.22 FREEDOM ACRES High Knob Brook Local SgaID Assessment Date Project Name: Reach VTID Longitude Road Type High flow stage Channel width --09/24/2008 Lewis Creek T6.01 -73.05 Gravel No 22 ft. ( Measured)
Page 1 of 2
Culvert Information
Culvert Length Culvert Height Culvert Width 46 ft. 7 ft. 10 ft. Material Number of culverts Culvert Overflow Pipe Skewed to roadway? Aluminum Corrugated 1 No No
General Floodplain filled by roadway approaches Structure is located at significant break in valley slope Culvert slope as compared with channel slope is significantly Upstream Obstructions at the opening of the structure Steep riffle present immediately upstream of structure If channel avulses, stream will Estimated distance avulsion would follow road Angle of stream flow approaching structure Downstream Water depth in culvert (at outlet) Culvert outlet invert Backwater Length (measured from outlet) Outlet drop (invert to water surface) Pool present immediately downstream of structure Pool Depth at point of streamflow entry Maximum pool depth Downstream bank heights are substantially higher than upstream bank heights Entirely No Lower None Yes Cross Road --- ft. Naturally Straight 0.8 ft. At Grade --- ft. 0.0 ft. Yes 0.8 ft. 1.0 ft. No

Upstream Dominant Bed Material Bedrock Present Material Present throughout Type of Sediment Deposits Elevation of sediment deposits greater than 1/2 bankfull Bank Erosion Hard Bank Armoring Stream bed scour causing undermining around or under structure Beaver Dam near Structure Beaver Dam distance (ft.) Gravel Yes Side Yes Low Intact None No --Downstream Gravel No Side No None Intact None No --In Structure None No None No
Vegetation
Upstream Dominant Vegetation Type - Left Dominant Vegetation Type - Right Mixed Forest Mixed Forest Downstream Mixed Forest Mixed Forest In Structure
Does a band of shrub/forest vegetation 50 ft. wide start within 25 ft. of the structure and extend at least 500 ft. up/downstream? Vegetation Band - Left No Yes Vegetation Band - Right Yes Yes
Wildlife
Other Information

General Information
SgaID VOBCIT struct_num Observers Town Location Latitude Road Name Stream Name 100017000001191 j.clark, r.schiff Starksboro Stokes Hill Rd off of Big Hollow Rd 44.25 STOKES HILL RD High Knob Brook Local SgaID Assessment Date Project Name: Reach VTID Longitude Road Type High flow stage Channel width --08/26/2008 Lewis Creek T6.05 -73.03 Gravel No 16 ft. ( Measured)
Page 1 of 2
Culvert Information
Culvert Length Culvert Height Culvert Width 30 ft. 6 ft. 8 ft. Material Number of culverts Culvert Overflow Pipe Skewed to roadway? Metal Pipe 1 No No
General Floodplain filled by roadway approaches Structure is located at significant break in valley slope Culvert slope as compared with channel slope is significantly Upstream Obstructions at the opening of the structure Steep riffle present immediately upstream of structure If channel avulses, stream will Estimated distance avulsion would follow road Angle of stream flow approaching structure Downstream Water depth in culvert (at outlet) Culvert outlet invert Backwater Length (measured from outlet) Outlet drop (invert to water surface) Pool present immediately downstream of structure Pool Depth at point of streamflow entry Maximum pool depth Downstream bank heights are substantially higher than upstream bank heights Entirely No Same None Yes Cross Road --- ft. Mild Bend 0.3 ft. At Grade --- ft. 0.0 ft. Yes 1.1 ft. > 4.0 ft. Yes

Upstream Dominant Bed Material Bedrock Present Material Present throughout Type of Sediment Deposits Elevation of sediment deposits greater than 1/2 bankfull Bank Erosion Hard Bank Armoring Stream bed scour causing undermining around or under structure Beaver Dam near Structure Beaver Dam distance (ft.) Cobble No Side No None Failing None No --Downstream Cobble No None No None Intact None No --In Structure None No None No
Vegetation
Upstream Dominant Vegetation Type - Left Dominant Vegetation Type - Right Herbaceous/Grass Road Embankment Downstream Herbaceous/Grass Deciduous Forest In Structure
Does a band of shrub/forest vegetation 50 ft. wide start within 25 ft. of the structure and extend at least 500 ft. up/downstream? Vegetation Band - Left Yes Yes Vegetation Band - Right Yes No
Wildlife
Other Information
Spatial location data collected with GPS? Comments Yes Only 18" of cover over culvert Photos taken? Yes

General Information
SgaID VOBCIT struct_num Observers Town Location Latitude Road Name Stream Name 200116000001192 j.clark, s.pytlik Starksboro --44.22 VT ROUTE 116 High Knob Brook Local SgaID Assessment Date Project Name: Reach VTID Longitude Road Type High flow stage Channel width --09/24/2008 Lewis Creek T6.01 -73.06 Paved No 25 ft. ( Measured)
Page 1 of 2
Culvert Information
Culvert Length Culvert Height Culvert Width 85 ft. 7 ft. 6 ft. Material Number of culverts Culvert Overflow Pipe Skewed to roadway? Concrete 1 No No
General Floodplain filled by roadway approaches Structure is located at significant break in valley slope Culvert slope as compared with channel slope is significantly Upstream Obstructions at the opening of the structure Steep riffle present immediately upstream of structure If channel avulses, stream will Estimated distance avulsion would follow road Angle of stream flow approaching structure Downstream Water depth in culvert (at outlet) Culvert outlet invert Backwater Length (measured from outlet) Outlet drop (invert to water surface) Pool present immediately downstream of structure Pool Depth at point of streamflow entry Maximum pool depth Downstream bank heights are substantially higher than upstream bank heights Entirely No Lower None Yes Cross Road --- ft. Sharp Bend 0.2 ft. Free Fall --- ft. 0.2 ft. Yes 1.6 ft. 1.6 ft. No

Upstream Dominant Bed Material Bedrock Present Material Present throughout Type of Sediment Deposits Elevation of sediment deposits greater than 1/2 bankfull Bank Erosion Hard Bank Armoring Stream bed scour causing undermining around or under structure Beaver Dam near Structure Beaver Dam distance (ft.) Gravel No None No Low None None No --Downstream Sand No Side No None Intact None No --In Structure None No None No
Vegetation
Upstream Dominant Vegetation Type - Left Dominant Vegetation Type - Right Deciduous Forest Deciduous Forest Downstream Deciduous Forest Deciduous Forest In Structure
Does a band of shrub/forest vegetation 50 ft. wide start within 25 ft. of the structure and extend at least 500 ft. up/downstream? Vegetation Band - Left Yes Yes Vegetation Band - Right Yes Yes
Wildlife
Other Information
culvert obviously undersized. It does have a "low flow" concentrated flow in center- this is probably from boulders carving it out.

General Information
SgaID VOBCIT struct_num Observers Town Location Latitude Road Name Stream Name 700000000201193 j.clark, m.lyttle Starksboro 1127 Big Hollow Rd driveway 44.24 Driveway 1127 Big Hollow High Knob Brook Local SgaID Assessment Date Project Name: Reach VTID Longitude Road Type High flow stage Channel width --08/20/2008 Lewis Creek T6.04 -73.04 Gravel No 18 ft. ( Measured)
Page 1 of 1
Bridge/Arch Information
Bridge Width Bridge Clearance Bridge/Arch Span 11 ft. 4 ft. 11 ft. Material Number of bridge piers/arches Skewed to roadway? Prestressed Concrete 0 No
General Floodplain filled by roadway approaches Structure is located at significant break in valley slope Upstream Obstructions at the opening of the structure Steep riffle present immediately upstream of structure If channel avulses, stream will Estimated distance avulsion would follow road Angle of stream flow approaching structure Downstream Pool present immediately downstream of structure Downstream bank heights are substantially higher than upstream bank heights Stepped footers Partially No None No Cross Road --- ft. Naturally Straight Yes No No

Upstream Dominant Bed Material Bedrock Present Type of Sediment Deposits Elevation of sediment deposits greater than 1/2 bankfull Bank Erosion Hard Bank Armoring Stream bed scour causing undermining around or under structure Beaver Dam near Structure Beaver Dam distance (ft.) Gravel No Side No None Intact None No --Downstream Gravel No None No None Intact None No --In Structure Gravel No None No
Vegetation
Upstream Dominant Vegetation Type - Left Dominant Vegetation Type - Right Deciduous Forest Deciduous Forest Downstream Shrub/Sapling Shrub/Sapling In Structure
Does a band of shrub/forest vegetation 50 ft. wide start within 25 ft. of the structure and extend at least 500 ft. up/downstream? Vegetation Band - Left Yes Yes Vegetation Band - Right Yes Yes
Wildlife
Other Information

General Information
SgaID VOBCIT struct_num Observers Town Location Latitude Road Name Stream Name 700000000001193 rks, jsc, ns Starksboro Private Driveway - 3382 Big Hollow Road 44.27 Driveway 3382 Big Hollow Road High Knob Brook Local SgaID Assessment Date Project Name: Reach VTID Longitude Road Type High flow stage Channel width --08/05/2008 Lewis Creek T4.06 -72.02 Gravel Yes 9 ft. ( Measured)
Page 1 of 2
Culvert Information
General Floodplain filled by roadway approaches Structure is located at significant break in valley slope Culvert slope as compared with channel slope is significantly Upstream Obstructions at the opening of the structure Steep riffle present immediately upstream of structure If channel avulses, stream will Estimated distance avulsion would follow road Angle of stream flow approaching structure Downstream Water depth in culvert (at outlet) Culvert outlet invert Backwater Length (measured from outlet) Outlet drop (invert to water surface) Pool present immediately downstream of structure Pool Depth at point of streamflow entry Maximum pool depth Downstream bank heights are substantially higher than upstream bank heights Entirely No Same Wood debris No Cross Road --- ft. Naturally Straight 0.5 ft. Cascade 0.0 ft. 0.0 ft. No 0.0 ft. 0.0 ft. Yes

Upstream Dominant Bed Material Bedrock Present Material Present throughout Type of Sediment Deposits Elevation of sediment deposits greater than 1/2 bankfull Bank Erosion Hard Bank Armoring Stream bed scour causing undermining around or under structure Beaver Dam near Structure Beaver Dam distance (ft.) Sand No Mid-channel, Side No None None None No --Downstream Gravel No None No Low None None No --In Structure None No None No
Vegetation
Upstream Dominant Vegetation Type - Left Dominant Vegetation Type - Right Herbaceous/Grass Road Embankment Downstream Herbaceous/Grass Road Embankment In Structure
Does a band of shrub/forest vegetation 50 ft. wide start within 25 ft. of the structure and extend at least 500 ft. up/downstream? Vegetation Band - Left No No Vegetation Band - Right No No
Wildlife
Roadkill Species None Outside Structure --Inside Structure ---
Other Information
culvert ponding water upstream, significantly funnels water into small stream

General Information
SgaID VOBCIT struct_num Observers Town Location Latitude Road Name Stream Name 700000000101193 j.clark Starksboro Path behind home and barn off of Big Hollow Road 44.26 Private Path off of Big Hollow High Knob Brook Local SgaID Assessment Date Project Name: Reach VTID Longitude Road Type High flow stage Channel width --09/24/2008 Lewis Creek T6.06 -73.03 Trail No 8 ft. ( Measured)
Page 1 of 2
Culvert Information
Culvert Length Culvert Height Culvert Width 15 ft. 3 ft. 3 ft. Material Number of culverts Culvert Overflow Pipe Skewed to roadway? Aluminum Corrugated 1 Yes No
General Floodplain filled by roadway approaches Structure is located at significant break in valley slope Culvert slope as compared with channel slope is significantly Upstream Obstructions at the opening of the structure Steep riffle present immediately upstream of structure If channel avulses, stream will Estimated distance avulsion would follow road Angle of stream flow approaching structure Downstream Water depth in culvert (at outlet) Culvert outlet invert Backwater Length (measured from outlet) Outlet drop (invert to water surface) Pool present immediately downstream of structure Pool Depth at point of streamflow entry Maximum pool depth Downstream bank heights are substantially higher than upstream bank heights Partially No Same None No Cross Road --- ft. Naturally Straight 0.2 ft. At Grade --- ft. 0.0 ft. No --- ft. --- ft. No

Upstream Dominant Bed Material Bedrock Present Material Present throughout Type of Sediment Deposits Elevation of sediment deposits greater than 1/2 bankfull Bank Erosion Hard Bank Armoring Stream bed scour causing undermining around or under structure Beaver Dam near Structure Beaver Dam distance (ft.) Gravel No None No None None None No --Downstream Gravel No None No None None None No --In Structure Gravel No None No
Vegetation
Upstream Dominant Vegetation Type - Left Dominant Vegetation Type - Right Mixed Forest Herbaceous/Grass Downstream Mixed Forest Herbaceous/Grass In Structure
Does a band of shrub/forest vegetation 50 ft. wide start within 25 ft. of the structure and extend at least 500 ft. up/downstream? Vegetation Band - Left Yes Yes Vegetation Band - Right No No
Wildlife
Roadkill Species None Outside Structure --Inside Structure ---
Other Information
THis culvert was newly installed between 8/24/2008 and 9/24/2008

General Information
SgaID VOBCIT struct_num Observers Town Location Latitude Road Name Stream Name 700000000301193 j.clark, r.schiff Starksboro Private Diveway owned by Carascio off of Brown Hill Road 44.24 Private Drive off of Brown Hil Tributary to High Knob Brook Local SgaID Assessment Date Project Name: Reach VTID Longitude Road Type High flow stage Channel width --11/06/2008 Lewis Creek T6.3S1.01 -73.04 Gravel No 15 ft. ( Measured)
Page 1 of 1
Bridge/Arch Information
Bridge Width Bridge Clearance Bridge/Arch Span 10 ft. 6 ft. 24 ft. Material Number of bridge piers/arches Skewed to roadway? Aluminum, wrought iron, or cast iron 0 No
General Floodplain filled by roadway approaches Structure is located at significant break in valley slope Upstream Obstructions at the opening of the structure Steep riffle present immediately upstream of structure If channel avulses, stream will Estimated distance avulsion would follow road Angle of stream flow approaching structure Downstream Pool present immediately downstream of structure Downstream bank heights are substantially higher than upstream bank heights Stepped footers Entirely Yes None No Cross Road --- ft. Naturally Straight No No No

Upstream Dominant Bed Material Bedrock Present Type of Sediment Deposits Elevation of sediment deposits greater than 1/2 bankfull Bank Erosion Hard Bank Armoring Stream bed scour causing undermining around or under structure Beaver Dam near Structure Beaver Dam distance (ft.) Cobble No Point Yes None None None No --Downstream Cobble No Side Yes Low None None No --In Structure Cobble No Side Yes
Vegetation
Upstream Dominant Vegetation Type - Left Coniferous Forest Dominant Vegetation Type Mixed Forest Right Downstream Coniferous Forest Herbaceous/Grass In Structure
Does a band of shrub/forest vegetation 50 ft. wide start within 25 ft. of the structure and extend at least 500 ft. up/downstream? Vegetation Band - Left Yes Yes Vegetation Band - Right Yes No
Wildlife
Other Information
Spatial location data collected with GPS? Comments Yes Bridge not causing bars, adequately sized. Photos taken? Yes
https://anrnode.anr.state.vt.us/ssl/sga/structures_reports.cfm?did=96&sid=dms-700000000301193... 11/13/2008

&#39;Phase 2 Stream Geomorphic Assessment High Knob Brook Watershed&#39;, Milone and McBroom, Inc, February 2009

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

&#39;Phase 2 Stream Geomorphic Assessment High Knob Brook Watershed&#39;, Milone and McBroom, Inc, February 2009

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Phase 2 Stream Geomorphic Assessment High Knob Brook Watershed Town of Starksboro, VT

High Knob Brook T6.06 A September 24, 2008

Figure 1: High Knob Brook, Starksboro, Vermont.

Field Assessment Methods

Figure 3: Wetland conditions in T6.06 segment C looking downstream. 5

Summary of Results Geomorphic Results Summary

Table 1: Summary of Representative Stream Geomorphic Assessment Data.

T6.06 C T6.06 B T6.06 A T6.05 B

1918 3677 2887 2378

5.6 16.25 4.12

N/A 0.56 0.8 0.66

T6.05 A T6.04 B T6.04 A T6.03 B T6.03 A T.602 B T6.02 A T6.01 T6.3S1.01

3858 2263 644 1370 2068 1094 760 5649 1586

1.43 1.66 21.58 2.31 2.62 1.27 6.84 2.5

1.36 1.81 1 1.29 1.25 1.06 1.06 1.31

21.5 14.86 10.82 10.9 14.54 15.35 20.46 12.54

0.26 0.64 0.75 0.675 0.71 0.91 N/A 0.88 0.56

N/A Fair Good Good

N/A Very High High High

Poor Fair Good Good Fair Reference N/A Reference Fair

F III F II FI FI F III DI N/A DI F III

Habitat Results Summary

Table 2: Reach Habitat Assessment Summary.

Riparian Area, Right

Woody Debris Cover

Bed Substrate Cover

Riparian Area, Left

River Banks, Right

River Banks, Left

Total Score (Percent) 38 73 63 70 83 62 68 74 74 70 55

Bridge and Culvert Assessments

T6.06A T6.05 T6.04 T6.04 T6.01 T6.01 T6.3S1.01

Culvert Culvert Bridge Culvert Culvert Culvert Bridge

3.5 6 4 6 6.9 7 6.2

Appendix A: Reach Location Maps

! ( S T6.5S1.01 tokes Hil ! ( lR d

High Knob Brook T6.06

High Knob Brook T6.05

High Knob Brook T6.04 and T6.3S1.01

Reach Break Segment Break Roads

Phase 2 Valley Walls

High Knob Brook T6.03

High Knob Brook T6.02

High Knob Brook T6.01

Appendix B: Bridge and Culvert Assessment Reports

Structures | Lewis Creek

More Geomorphic Information

Structures | Lewis Creek

More Geomorphic Information

culvert returning river to correct side of road

Structures | Lewis Creek

More Geomorphic Information

Structures | Lewis Creek

More Geomorphic Information

Structures | Lewis Creek

More Geomorphic Information

Structures | Lewis Creek

More Geomorphic Information

Structures | Lewis Creek

More Geomorphic Information

Structures | Lewis Creek

More Geomorphic Information

Structures | Lewis Creek

More Geomorphic Information

'Phase 2 Stream Geomorphic Assessment High Knob Brook Watershed', Milone and McBroom, Inc, February 2009

'Phase 2 Stream Geomorphic Assessment High Knob Brook Watershed', Milone and McBroom, Inc, February 2009