Appendix E: QA Documentation Lewis Creek Watershed

February 2010 River Corridor Conservation & Management Plan

APPENDIX E

Quality Assurance Documentation

Appendix E: QA Documentation Lewis Creek Watershed
February 2010 River Corridor Conservation & Management Plan

Quality Assurance Documentation

The following pages contain a record of the Quality Assurance (QA) reviews performed by the
VTANR River Management Section staff, and the subsequent response by SMRC along with an
indication of revisions made (where applicable) to Phase 2 stream geomorphic data contained in
the online Data Management System or Stream Geomorphic Assessment Tool (SGAT) ArcView©
project.

Time Period / Reaches Pages

November 2007 E1 - E3

M03 M15-A, B M21-A, B

M07 M17-A, B, C T2.01
M10 M19-A, B T4.3S6.01-A, B
M14 M20-A, B

January 2009 E4 - E11

M16 T3.01
M18 T4.01
M22 T4.02
M23 T4.05

August 2009 E12 - E14

M07
M08
M09
M10

October 2009 E15 - E18

M01 M06
M02 M11
M04 M12
M05 M13

E-i
Appendix E: QA Documentation Lewis Creek Watershed
February 2010 River Corridor Conservation & Management Plan

MEMORANDUM

TO: Kristen Underwood, SMRC

FR: Shannon Pytlik, Agency of Natural Resources, River Management Section

DATE: November 1, 2007

RE: Lewis Creek Phase 2 QA

(Reaches: M03, M07, M10, M14, M15, M17, M19, M20, M21, T2.01, T4.3S6.01)

Responses to the following QA comments are provided by Kristen Underwood, PG, of South Mountain
Research & Consulting (SMRC) on 4 December 2009.

General comments:
The cross section data needs to be in the Phase 2 cross section work sheets. If the data is
representative for the reach than you can use the Phase 3 data, just transfer it to the new
spreadsheet. We are trying to have all of the data in one place in the same format and as you
mention there are limitations to the Phase 3 spreadsheet that don’t allow you to upload all of the
data that we need. Relevant Phase 3 cross section data for reaches M07 and M10 were transferred into
the standard Phase 2 spreadsheet and uploaded to the DMS.

Also, several of the Phase 2 cross sections were transferred into the current version of the cross section
spreadsheet (e.g., M15, M17, etc.)

In the cross section it is important to note where the RAF is so we can see what feature you have
selected. RAF notations have been incorporated in cross section spreadsheets during recent updates to
these reaches.

M03 – Looks good. My only concern is that you listed the panform adjustment as “historic”.
While it may be true that there were historic planform adjustments, it is also a current adjustment
process and wouldn’t want that to get overlooked.
The designation under “Historic” in Step 7.4 Change in Planform has been changed from “Yes” to “No”.

M14 - Looks good.

M17 – E stream types do not need a sub class slope. Subclass slopes changed to “None” in the DMS.

Also, I updated the flood-prone width (from 500 to 340 ft) for Segment M17-B (Step 2 of the DMS), based
on valley walls delineated by Shannon Bonney of VT RMS in 2008.

M07 – Isn’t there a dam upstream? Nothing is noted under up/down stream flow reg? Maybe it is
not affecting this reach? There is a dam (Scott Pond Dam) approx 7,500 feet upstream at the upper end
of reach M09. Effects of this run-of-river dam are not expected to impact reach M07, due to the significant
distance from this feature, and due to intervening channel-spanning exposures of bedrock.

Page E-1
Appendix E: QA Documentation Lewis Creek Watershed
February 2010 River Corridor Conservation & Management Plan

Who were the observers on this? You are not noted as being there? Since we are not familiar with
these initials can you spell out the names? BOS = Brendan O’Shea; Brendan completed VTANR Phase 2
training in October 2005. TJ = Thomas Johnston, North Country Consulting, field assistant to Brendan
O’Shea.

M10 – No flow reg noted in reach or up/down stream. Isn’t this the reach with the dam? It’s either
in this reach or just below so should be noted. Scott Pond Dam is located at the upstream end of reach
M09. Impoundment effects appear to extend upstream into reach M10 for a length of approx 1000 feet.
Assessments of reach M10 were updated in 2009, resulting in segmentation of the reach, with Segment
M10-A representing the section impounded by the dam. Notations of downstream flow regulation are
recorded in the DMS under Segments M10-D, -C, -B, and –A – these all pertain to the Scott Pond Dam. It is
possible that historic impoundment (and periodic breaching) of the Scott Pond Dam over the centuries has
influenced channel / floodplain morphology and/or sediment regimes in these upstream segments.

Additional QA review / response for reach M10 is provided on pages 13 – 14 of this QA summary document.

Who were the observers on this? You are not noted as being there? Since we are not familiar with
these initials can you spell out the names? Brendan O’Shea; Thomas Johnston.

You note “other cross sections indicate a much lower w/d”. Did you not select the representative
cross section? If the ones you completes indicate something other than what RMP found than you
should use the data you collected. Assessments of reach M10 were updated in 2009, including additional
cross sections, and resulting in segmentation of the reach.

M15 – General
The segmentation file in the SGAT project I got off the ftp site from you has a file named
segments.shp that has reach M15 in 3 segments. Only two were entered into the DMS. I now
found another segmentation file named segmbrk07.shp that seems to have the correct segments.
Yes, “segmbrk07.shp” is the current segmentation file.

M15 A – E stream types do not need a sub- class slope of c. Subclass slope descriptor has been
changed to “None” in the DMS. Looks like you only entered 2’ of channel Affected by beaver dams.
Is this correct? Is it because they breached? Yes, the two beaver dams observed on November 2006 had
recently breached (probably in a high flow); I chose to index the locations due to the residual effects of
upstream aggradation local to the dam sites, but the length impounded was negligible on the observation
date.

Also, following a November 2008 protocol update issued by VTANR, the sensitivity ranking of this segment
has been revised. An E4 channel in Fair condition is now ranked “Extreme”.

M15 B – I noticed you have an incision ratio for this segment and not for A. I also noticed the cross
sectional area for A is about twice that of B. Is it possible you picked bankful low for B? It is
possible that the bankfull elevation in Segment B was underestimated; this is an actively adjusting area with
bankfull features that are not well developed. The selected bankfull elevation corresponded to a LB bench
which itself was approximately the same elevation as the top of a nearby mid-channel bar.

There is a degree of historic channel incision in Segment B, whereas Segment A seems to have good
floodplain connection. Channelization is inferred in segment B in vicinity of the Tyler Bridge Rd bridge. Also,
incision in Segment B may have been induced (in part) by the avulsion that resulted in the large abandoned

Page E-2
Appendix E: QA Documentation Lewis Creek Watershed
February 2010 River Corridor Conservation & Management Plan

meander downstream of the bridge. This difference in incision status was in part what prompted
segmentation of the reach; the other reason was the apparent difference in reference stream type –
E stream type for downstream Segment A, and C stream type for Segment B.

Because of the difference in apparent reference stream type as well as the difference in dominant
adjustment processes, it would not be unusual for the two segments to have different cross sectional areas.
The Segment B cross section was completed in a riffle and has width, depth and CSA values that are
probably within the 95% confidence interval of the VT Regional Hydraulic Geometry Curves for those
parameters (VTDEC, 2006). The Segment A cross section was completed in a short run at the cross-over
between two meander bends in an E stream type. Since, the VT Regional Hydraulic Geometry Curves were
developed for C (and a few Bc, Cb and B stream types), these regressions tend to overestimate width,
underestimate depth, and possibly underestimate CSA for E stream types.

There is a cross section C in the spreadsheet as well. If this is a second cross section for one of the
other segments can you write that in the notes section. This could be very confusing in the future.
Sorry, I should have explained in the comments section: this cross section C was a repeat of XS-2 from
Segment B with the valley wall points eliminated so that the finer details of the cross section could be seen.
When I migrated the cross sections to the most recent version of the cross section spreadsheet, I decided
not to include this.

T2.01
Who were the observers on this? You are not noted as being there? Since we are not familiar with
these initials can you spell out the names? Brendan O’Shea; Thomas Johnston.

M19-B
Upon re-evaluation, I have revised the channel evolution stage of this segment (since data were last
submitted for QA review) from CES stage IV[F] to stage III[F]. A channel evolution stage of early III [F] is
inferred for the segment as a whole. In recent years (since the 2001- 2002 VTDEC assessments) the degree
of lateral adjustments developing in the downstream (fallow) half of the segment, suggest a later stage III
[F] or stage IV [F] of channel evolution. A series of discontinuous pockets of incipient floodplain at a lower
elevation appear to be forming at locations of active meander extension.

Page E-3
Appendix E: QA Documentation Lewis Creek Watershed
February 2010 Management Plan / Phase 2 Geomorphic Assessment

TO: Kristen Underwood

FR: Shannon Bonney, Agency of Natural Resources,

River Management Section

DATE: January, 2009

RE: Lewis Creek Phase 2 QA

Reaches- M16, M18, M22-M23, T3.01, T4.01, T4.02, T4.05

Responses to the following QA comments are provided by Kristen Underwood, PG, of South Mountain
Research & Consulting (SMRC) on 7 December 2009; later revised on 22 January 2010.

General Comments:
The old cross section worksheet template was used for M16, M18, and M22. Please try to use the
new cross section template.
Available cross sections (M16, M22) were transferred into the current template and re-uploaded to the DMS
– except for M18. Step 2 data in the DMS for reach M18 were populated from the average of two cross
sections completed in the reach by Staci Pomeroy and Joe Z. of VTDEC on 8/10/2002. Original cross section
data are apparently not available.

Please indicate which cross section is representative on the cross section worksheet. I added this
notation to the comments box of the cross section spreadsheets, where more than one cross section was
included for a given reach / segment.

M16
The ERs range from 11.3-12.5 on the cross sections but is listed as 8.93 in the DMS.
Not sure what happened here; seems to have been a typo on the RGA field data sheet that was carried over
into the DMS. The ER in the Representative cross section (XS-1) is calculated as 11.4, based on a FPW of
640. These values have been corrected in the DMS. (The FPW value was updated from 500 to 640).

According to RGA 7.1.3 the riffles “may be incomplete; bed profile dominated by runs” but the
riffles type in 2.10 is complete. Selection under RGA 7.1.3 changed from the Fair quadrant to the Good
quadrant. No resultant impact on total 7.1 score or RGA score.

RGA 7.2.3 may be scored higher because fine gravels and smaller compose 93% of the substrate.
True, but the parent material for this reach (banks and channel bed) is alluvial in nature comprised of silts,
sands and fine gravels, as well as prominent exposures of varved clays. As the RGA form notes in the left-
most column, the ability to evaluate for apparent increases in fine substrates in a reference E stream type
(dune/ripple to riffle/pool) may be difficult to infeasible. On the whole, sediments were not soft underfoot
throughout the reach (although this condition was present, locally, in vicinity of breached beaver dams).
Therefore, I think the quadrant of “Good” for Step 7.2.3 is appropriate. I have, however, downgraded the
Step 7.2 score from 15 to 11. The resultant total RGA score dropped to 44, with a revised condition rating
of 0.55. The condition descriptor (Fair) and sensitivity (Very High) remained unchanged.

There are no encroachments, straightening, or dredging. What was the “Minor to moderate
alteration of channel planform” cited in 7.4.4 based on?
Route 116 encroaches slightly on the floodplain (but outside the Phase 1 corridor) at the very southeastern
(upstream) extent of the reach (not substantially enough to result in a change of the valley confinement

Page E-4
Appendix E: QA Documentation Lewis Creek Watershed
February 2010 Management Plan / Phase 2 Geomorphic Assessment

category). Also, a couple of channel fords were observed.

M18
The bridge with a width of 75’ is smaller than the floodprone width 110’, is this a floodprone
constriction? Yes. Due to an apparent oversight, I had not checked the FPW box under Step 4.8 in the
DMS. This has now been checked.

M22
There is a human caused change in the valley width cited but the p1 and p2 valley widths are the
same. Mistakenly, I had updated the Phase 1 valley width using the value for the Phase 2 (modified) VW.
The Phase 1 valley widths range from 700 to 2050 feet, averaging 1325 feet (or 36 times the reference
channel width). Phase 2 (human-modified) valley widths range from 500 to 820 feet, averaging 680 feet (or
18 times the reference channel width). I have corrected the valley width in the Phase 1 DMS, Step 2.9
(replaced 680 ft with 1325 ft).

How confident are you with the LBF because the 2 points with a LBF(?) vary up to 17’ from the
LBF indicated? Using the other LBF points would bump the W/D ratio into the fair rather than good
category in the RGA. SMRC is relying on these data which were generated by VTDEC. There is some
apparent uncertainty in the bankfull elevation at this cross section, which is understandable given the
adjusting (eroding) channel. It has a similar width, depth, and cross sectional area to other riffle cross
sections in the reach; and is comparable to the VT Regional Hydraulic Geometry Curve predictions.
Therefore, I’m reasonably confident with this cross section as representative of the reach and for the
purpose of defining a reach-scale Phase 2 stream type, RGA condition and sensitivity.

While this cross section data was stored in Step 2 of the DMS, RGA (Step 7) scoring was mindful of the
several other cross sections in the reach, some of which had higher W/D ratios, reflecting localized sites of
meander extension, aggradation, and/or widening. These other observations were considered in an
“averaging” process that resulted in selection of a score of 11, on the low side of the “Good” quadrant for
RGA 7.3.1 (despite the W/D measurement of 23 for this one cross section site, which is on the high side of
the range presented under the “Good” quadrant).

Of the substrate composition 0% is silt and smaller but the question silt/clay present is answered
yes. I have changed this response to “No” in the DMS.

The bridge with a width of 36.5’ is larger than the bankfull width 35’ so would not be a channel
constriction. I have unchecked “channel constriction” box in the DMS. I have, however, noted in the reach
summary that – if this structure span is compared to the reference bankfull width (37 ft), it would be 98.6%
of the reference bankfull width.

RGA 7.2.2 and 7.3.4 could be scored lower given the 2 steep riffles and 13 flood chutes.
I believe the flood chutes to be more dominantly the result of lateral channel adjustments, rather than
aggradation. While some aggradation is occurring, it appears localized in extent, and particularly associated
with beaver dam activity. I have downgraded the scores for RGA 7.2 (from 13 to 11) and RGA 7.4 (from 10
to 8). The overall RGA score changed from 44 to 41, with a condition rating of 0.5125. The condition
descriptor (Fair) and sensitivity (Very High) of the reach remained unchanged.

M23
RGA 7.1.3 could be scored poor b/c degradation caused a transition from R-P to plane bed.
I have changed the 7.1.3 score to the Poor quadrant. Step 7.1 score remains unchanged.

Page E-5
Appendix E: QA Documentation Lewis Creek Watershed
February 2010 Management Plan / Phase 2 Geomorphic Assessment

RGA 7.1.4 could be scored higher b/c although there was a human caused change in valley width, it
was not enough to change the confinement type. I have re-evaluated and mapped the valley walls for
reach M23 during this 2009 QA review. Ireland Road encroaches within the LB corridor for a majority of the
reach. In some locations this road appears to be at the same elevation as the terrace upon which it is
positioned (which itself is most often above the FPW elevation – due to either post-glacial or historic incision,
or both). In other locations, Ireland Road appears to be elevated on fill material above the terrace surface.
Using the mapped Phase 1 valley walls (see “vw_ph1_m23.shp”), valley confinement varies from Semi-
Confined to Very Broad, with an average Broad confinement. This suggests a reference C stream type.
Encroachment of this road along LB (see “vw_ph2_m23.shp”) has resulted in a human-caused change in
valley width from average Broad confinement to average Narrow confinement; however, the status of the
valley setting (Unconfined) remains unchanged.

I have slightly revised the Phase 1 valley width in the DMS from 200 to 290 (from Narrow to Broad
confinement). And based upon the “phase 2 valley wall” which highlights the encroachment of Ireland Rd
within the LB corridor, I have revised the Phase 2 valley width in the DMS from 150 to 180 (both classified
as Narrow confinement). Since the presence of Ireland Road appears to have resulted in a change in valley
confinement from Broad (reference) to Narrow (modified), I have left the score under RGA 7.1.4 unchanged.

Note: These valley walls were mapped solely for communicating where a human-caused change in valley
width has apparently occurred under Step 1.5 of the protocols and for estimating a phase 1 reference
stream type. The phase 2 valley wall delineation is not meant to define a “modified valley wall” or “FEH
valley wall” in the context of delineating FEH corridors.

RGA 7.2.2 and 7.3.4 could be scored lower b/c there are multiple mid channel and diagonal bars,
steep riffles, and flood chutes.
I chose the “Good” quadrant for both RGA 7.2.2 and RGA 7.3.4 due to the multiple mid-channel (3) and
diagonal bars (3), but depositional features were typically less than half bankfull stage. I weighted the 7.2
and 7.3 scores on the low end, but don’t feel conditions warranted bumping them into the “Fair” quadrant,
since depositional features were not approaching / exceeding bankfull stage, and since flood chutes (and
steep riffles) are typically a normal occurrence in steeper-gradient reference Cb channels such as this one
and not necessarily a warning sign of excessive aggradation leading to sudden lateral adjustments. The
flood chutes recorded here were associated with boulder steps and debris jams, typical of a Cb stream type.

In RGA 7.2.6 and 7.4.5 the constriction is listed as causing minor to moderate deposition up or
downstream but in step 4.8 problems are listed as none. I chose the “Good” quadrant for both RGA
7.2.6 and 7.4.5 because there is a channel constriction smaller than floodprone width (i.e., the bankfull-
constricting driveway bridge). While no significant aggradation was noted associated with this constriction
(which is why I selected “none” under step 4.8), the description under the “Reference” quadrant for RGA
7.2.6 and 7.4.5 seems to suggest that one selects that quadrant when there is “No human-made
constriction” – which is not the case here. Either way, the response under RGA 7.2.6 and 7.4.5 did not
factor in significantly to the scores assigned under Step 7.2 or 7.4.

T3.01
Segment A
What factors led to scoring 7.1.3 as fair, was there degradation of the dunes occurring?
Not necessarily degradation; more so, aggradation local to breached beaver dams. This score did not
influence the overall score for 7.1 (18) significantly. I have revised the score to the “Good” quadrant, since
it was aggradational processes, rather than erosional processes that I expect have led to a run-like bed, and
limited definition of dunes/ripples.

Page E-6
Appendix E: QA Documentation Lewis Creek Watershed
February 2010 Management Plan / Phase 2 Geomorphic Assessment

Segment B
The values for steps 2.1-2.3 and 2.6-2.8 don’t match between the cross section worksheet and the
DMS. The IR is 1.04 in the cross section but 1.42 in the DMS, W/D 21.71 XS/16.42 DMS, and ER
6.33 XS/9.87 DMS. The values in the DMS are correct. I had been entering some alternate bankfull
elevations in the cross section to see how the resultant W, D, and CSA compared to the chosen elevation
(and to upstream and downstream cross sections). I forgot to change the elevation back to 4.3’. I have
fixed the cross section spreadsheet (XS-2). Also, I revised the FPW from the arbitrary value of 300’ to the
full span of the red floodprone line (625’) - which caused the ER value to be updated.

Also, I revised the CES from IV[F] to III[F].

Segment C
Why is this classified as a D-CEM? There are no grade controls.
I have changed this to I [F] CES. I had chosen IIc [D] to emphasize the dominance of lateral adjustments.
But the RGA scores will capture this.

T4.01
Segment A
Why is the floodprone width only 300’ when the red floodprone line spans the valley width 950’ in
the cross section? I have changed the FPW value in XS to 1040 ft to remain consistent with protocols
(looks like the line spans 1040 ft rather than 950 ft). (Though it is unlikely that a flood of Q10 to Q50 stage
would fill this entire width). And I have changed the FPW value in Step 2.4 of the DMS.

Why is this classified as a D-CEM? There are no grade controls.

Following a previous meeting with Mike Kline and Shannon Pytlik regarding channel evolution stage models,
I was instructed that assignment of a D stage CEM did not require grade controls. Rather, a D stage model
could apply to a channel with minor / no incision (IR < 1.2) that is undergoing lateral adjustments rather
than vertical adjustments in response to stressors. This segment has negligible incision (IR = 1.0) yet
widening and planform adjustments have resulted in a W/D ratio (25.1) that exceeds 20 for this reference E-
dune/ripple channel. A lateral stream type departure (from E to C) is evident, suggesting that this channel is
expressing itself laterally rather than vertically – consistent with a D-CEM.

Segment B
Is the LTOB point a berm? If it is could you put that in the XS notes?
Yes, it’s a berm. I have added this description to the notes in XS-3.

Why is the floodprone width only 300’ when the red floodprone line spans the valley width 940’ in
the cross section? I have changed the FPW value in XS-3 to 940 ft to remain consistent with protocols
(similar adjustments have been made to the other cross sections stored in the spreadsheet). (Though it is
unlikely that a flood of Q10 to Q50 stage would fill this entire width). And I have changed the FPW value in
Step 2.4 of the DMS.

Why is the channel width 26’ when the LBF/RBF points are 32.4’ apart? Using 32.4’ as the width
would raise the W/D ratio to >30.00. I used the automatic calculation of channel width in the
spreadsheet (26 ft) – which was a bit narrower, due to the fact that there were several points between REW
and RBF at the same bankfull elevation of 2.9. I have entered a value of 2.91 in the bankfull elevation cell
of the spreadsheet, so that the spreadsheet now calculates 32.46ft for bankfull width. The updated W/D
value is 38.2, mean depth is 0.85 ft, and ER = 29. Appropriate steps of the RGA have been revised also
(downgrading Steps 7.2.4 and 7.3.1. The total RGA score dropped to 0.425. Overall reach condition (Fair)
and sensitivity (Very High) remained unchanged.

Page E-7
Appendix E: QA Documentation Lewis Creek Watershed
February 2010 Management Plan / Phase 2 Geomorphic Assessment

Driveways are considered a human caused change in valley width (so answer human caused change
yes) but unless they are significantly raised above the floodplain they wouldn’t be considered a
modified valley wall. OK, I will answer “Yes” to Human-caused change in valley width (Step 1.5).
However, these driveway segments are very short in comparison to the overall segment length and are at
grade – not elevated significantly above the floodplain. Therefore, they really do not represent a significant
constraint on the channel or change the valley type or confinement status of the channel (Unconfined). The
reponse under RGA 7.1.4 remains unchanged (“Good” quadrant).

Delineation of a “modified valley wall” or “FEH valley wall” in the context of FEH corridor development is
beyond the contracted scope of work.

T4.02
Segment A
In the step 5 comments it says “Reference valley confinement varies from SC to BD, averaging
BD” but the confinement type is semi-confined in the DMS.
The reference average valley confinement is Broad. Encroachment of the Hinesburg Hollow Rd in the
segment reduces the Phase 2 valley confinement to Narrow. I had mistakenly entered “Semi-confined” in
Step 1.5. I have now entered the correct value of “Narrow” in the DMS. (120/24.4 = 4.9).

Since the LTER/RAF (6.7’) is higher than the road/parking lot (6.1’) and is “fill likely modified for
road / parking area and due to past flood response”, would it be considered a HEF and the RAF be
behind it at 6.1’?
The point at elev 6.7’ is not a berm or other human-elevated feature. The vicinity is wooded (up to the
parking area) and appears to have a natural appearance – though cross cut by old flood chute features.
Areas closer to the road have likely been modified / graded for the road and parking lot. I think it is
reasonable to keep the LTER at elev 6.7’ as the RAF.

There are two points labeled RVW on the XS.

The description for point 30.4, 6.7 should have been “RTER-base”. This has been changed in the cross
section spreadsheet (XS-2). For the purpose of defining a reference and existing stream type, the base of
the RTER is considered the RVW (and the base of the LTER2 is LVW). The RTER is approximately 21 feet
above the thalweg, or approx 8 times the max depth of the channel – therefore it was ignored as a recently
abandoned floodplain terrace. Protocols instruct to ignore high terraces that are more than 3 times the
thalweg height and (generally) greater than 1 bankfull width distant from the channel when considering the
RAF, as these are likely to be greater than 200 years old, forming in pre-colonial (post-glacial) times. I
estimated the base of the RTER to be the RVW for purposes of defining the reference and existing stream
type (via the Entrenchment Ratio calculation).

The phase 2 valley wall delineation is not necessarily meant to define a “FEH valley wall” in the context of
delineating FEH corridors. In fact there is a mass failure site on the face of the RTER just downstream of
the cross section site, revealing erodible sands, gravels and small cobbles. Therefore, it may be important to
delineate an FEH valley wall farther from the channel – e.g., at the top of this terrace or at the base of the
RTER2. At a minimum, this RVW represents a “highly erodible valley side slope”, and any future FEH
delineation in this location should be augmented with a Slope Stability Allowance, as per latest draft
guidance from VTANR (July 7, 2009 Technical Guidance for Determining Floodway Limits Pursuant to Act
250 Criterion 1[D]). Similar conditions exist further downstream in the segment where the channel impinges
on the highly erodible LVW side slope.

Also, I corrected the Sensitivity rating from “Extreme” to “High” – consistent with protocols.

Page E-8
Appendix E: QA Documentation Lewis Creek Watershed
February 2010 Management Plan / Phase 2 Geomorphic Assessment

Segment B
Why have no scores been input for the RGA? Where were the CES and condition derived from?
This was simply an oversight during data entry. The values have now been entered in the DMS.

The VW in the XS is 54’ but it is 180’ in the DMS.

I have revised my thinking about the position of the reference valley walls, and this has resulted in some
changes to data in the DMS. Originally, I had mapped the valley walls farther from the channel at the top of
a second set of terraces that were between 2.7 and 4 times the thalweg height and within 1 to 2 bankfull
widths of the channel. I did this because the terraces were comprised of erodible materials – and I was
aware that the valley walls could be used by others as a starting point to define a fluvial erosion hazard
boundary for the segment. However, protocols instruct the user to ignore high terraces that are more than
3 times the thalweg height and (generally) greater than 1 bankfull width distant from the channel when
considering the RAF, as these are likely to be greater than 200 years old, forming in pre-colonial (post-
glacial) times. Therefore these higher terraces probably represent the reference valley wall of the present
channel (under current hydrologic and sediment regimes). So, I revised the valley walls, and they are now a
bit closer to the channel – valley width ranges from approximately 50 to 105 feet, or 1.7 to 3.6 valley
confinement – averaging 70 feet, or 2.5 valley confinement (Semi-confined).

Therefore, I revised Step 1.5 in the DMS. I have also switched to the Confined RGA form. Originally, I had
applied the +0.2 unit to the ER value of 2.03 as permitted under protocols to classify the channel as a C3
stream type. Now, with the revised reference valley confinement, I have accepted the ER of 2.03 as
classifying a Bc stream type. Therefore, Segment B represents a subreach of alternate stream type: B3c-
R/P.

As with Segment T4.02-A – these valley side slopes that closely confine the channel are comprised of
moderately to highly-erodible sediments. One RB mass failure was observed. So, any future FEH
delineation in this location should be augmented with a Slope Stability Allowance, as per latest draft
guidance from VTANR (July 7, 2009 Technical Guidance for Determining Floodway Limits Pursuant to Act
250 Criterion 1[D]).

The LBF/RBF points are 26.8’ apart but the channel width is listed as 29.02’.
I believe that the automated calculation of bankfull width in the spreadsheet is taking into account the +2.22
ft to the immediate LB of point (3, 3.2) – i.e., over to the bank between the LPIN and LTOB points – which is
appropriate, that’s why I accepted the bankfull width calculation in the spreadsheet and entered the value of
29.02 in the DMS.

A C3 reach in fair condition would have a high rather than very high sensitivity.
Right, I had previously stored the incorrect sensitivity. I have revised the DMS. A B3c-R/P channel in fair
condition also has a High sensitivity.

Segment C
Not assessed

T4.05
Segment A
Driveways are considered a human caused change in valley width (so answer human caused change
yes) but unless they are significantly raised above the floodplain they wouldn’t be considered a
modified valley wall. OK, I have selected “yes” under Step 1.5 Human-caused change in valley width.
And the responses under RGA 7.1.4 and 7.4.4 remained unchanged (Good quadrant). The decision of what
features to identify as a modified valley wall in the context of FEH corridor development is outside the scope
of the Phase 2 assessment as it was contracted.

Page E-9
Appendix E: QA Documentation Lewis Creek Watershed
February 2010 Management Plan / Phase 2 Geomorphic Assessment

Segment B
The LVW/RVW points are 83’ apart but the VW is 45’; was the XS done at a locally wider area
than the rest of the segment? Yes.

Generally, the channel in Segment B is closely confined by extremely steep, forested valley walls located
within one bankfull width of the channel. Occasionally, narrow terraces are present along the side of the
channel – usually at a thalweg height more than 2 times the max depth of the channel. The cross section
for Segment B was measured in one of these locations of locally wider valley width (if the RTER terrace face
is ignored as a valley wall). Based on the limited available data and absence of detailed surficial geologic
mapping in this location, the age and nature of formation of these terraces is not known, and there is
uncertainty as to whether these terraces represent a Recently Abandoned Floodplain created by incision
occurring within the last 200 years.

At cross section XS-2, the RB terrace is present at a thalweg height of approximately 4.4, or 2.6 times the
thalweg height. If this terrace represents a Recently Abandoned Floodplain (RAF), it would suggest a
historic incision ratio of 2.59. (Signs of active incision were not observed in the segment). Protocols instruct
to ignore high terraces that are more than 3 times the thalweg height and (generally) greater than 1
bankfull width distant from the channel when considering the RAF, as these are likely to be greater than 200
years old, forming in pre-colonial (post-glacial) times.

In a conservative approach, and consistent with protocols, it was assumed that the RTER at XS-2
represented a RAF, since it is located at a height that is less than 3 times the bankfull depth, and within one
bankfull width of the channel. Therefore, the VW was located at the far side of the terrace, resulting in a
VW of 83 ft.

The cross section area seems larger than the adjacent segments.
Which can be a sign, perhaps, that bankfull elevations were off. So, I have reviewed the width, depth and
CSA for each of the cross sections in T4.05. For this Segment B, there were relatively strong bankfull
indicators (sandy/fine gravel bench, base of trees). And a near bankfull event was occurring on 7/25/2008
when it was measured – corresponding to the noted bankfull features. So, I am fairly confident with the
Segment B cross section. And the measured CSA (24 sq ft) is similar to the (VTDEC, 2006) predicted CSA
for this reach based on drainage area (23.4 sq ft). The W and D at the cross section site (24.2 ft and 1.7 ft)
are similar to predicted (19 ft and 1.2 ft), though wider and deeper than expected – which would not be
uncommon for a B channel which has departed to an F stream type – and generally are not significantly
outside the normal range of variability for the regression curves that describe these hydraulic geometry
relationships.

It is possible that bankfull elevation of the downstream cross section (XS-1 in Segment A) was
underestimated, since it has a smaller than expected CSA (16.7 sq ft). However, this cross section is located
in a section of channel that has significant encroachments along the LB (berms and likely fill constraining the
CSA). It also has a markedly lesser slope than Segment B (4.4% rather than 8.1%) and is underlain by
permeable deposits, which have been associated with losing conditions. (A significant section of the Hollow
Brook spanning the downstream reach break of T4.05 was dry on the date of the original assessment -
9/8/2005). Therefore, it is possible that a portion of the Hollow Brook flows are regularly lost to
groundwater in the vicinity of XS-1, resulting in a lower than predicted CSA.

It is possible that bankfull elevation of the upstream cross section (XS-3 in Segment D) was underestimated,
since it has a smaller than expected CSA (17.8 sq ft). However, this cross section site is located closer to
the upstream end of reach T4.05 near the downstream reach break of T4.06, where a smaller drainage area
would predict a lesser CSA (10.8 sq ft). The measured value (17.8) is intermediate between these two
predicted CSA values for reach T4.06 and T4.05 (10.8 and 23.4 sq ft, respectively) – which seems
reasonable.

Page E-10
Appendix E: QA Documentation Lewis Creek Watershed
February 2010 Management Plan / Phase 2 Geomorphic Assessment

Also, the difference in CSA values for Segment D and A versus Segment B may be related to the different
stream types / gradients. For example, with a small data set in the Catskills, Miller and Davis (2003) found
that “B-type stream tend to have higher hydraulic geometry values for a given drainage area” than the F or
C stream types that were sampled.

Reference: Miller, Sarah J. and Dan Davis, 2003, Optimizing Catskill Mountain Regional Bankfull Discharge
and Hydraulic Geometry Relationships. AWRA 2003 International Congress.

Segment C
Not assessed. Bedrock gorge.

Segment D
The LVW and RTER are 254’ apart but the valley width for this XS but the VW is only 150’; was
this completed at a locally wider area? Yes. The VW (in Step 1.5) is an estimate of the average VW
along a 0.8-mile long segment. It would be unusual for the measured VW at a single point to be the same
as the average VW of the segment as a whole. Compared to the reference (or measured) channel width
(19 ft), the calculated valley confinement for either a 254 ft VW or a 150 ft VW would be Very Broad or
Broad (both Unconfined).

The point the LPIN is located at is higher than the RAF. Is this area a berm?
There were no signs of a berm at LPIN. The land surface across the floodplain here is undulating with a
moderate down-valley gradient (3.2%). The floodplain surface is frequently cut by flood chutes (some, but
not all, recently active). Some local high spots along the banks are the result of tree blow-downs. At this
cross section site, there was a local pile of cobbles in vicinity of the LPIN point, perhaps the remnants of a
sediment slug deposited in a previous high-water event, perhaps the remnants of sediment deposited behind
a (now) breached debris jam.

Driveways are considered a human caused change in valley width (so answer human caused change
yes) but unless they are significantly raised above the floodplain they wouldn’t be considered a
modified valley wall. OK, I have selected “yes” under Step 1.5 Human-caused change in valley width.
And the responses under RGA 7.1.4 and 7.4.4 remained unchanged (Good quadrant). The decision of what
features to identify as a modified valley wall in the context of FEH corridor development is outside the scope
of the Phase 2 assessment as it was contracted.

It should be noted that none of the driveways really follow parallel to the channel (very short sections only),
they really just cross the channel; that is why I had not originally counted them as a human-caused change
in valley width.

What factors led to assigning this as a CES III? It doesn’t have a higher W/D ratio than the
surrounding C segments, the widening score is the highest of the RGA scores for this segment, and
it is not very entrenched (9.07). While the channel is not very entrenched, there is evidence of historic
incision (IRraf = 1.6). This segment could be considered in early stage III [F] with overall widening of the
channel (incipient floodplain) being created through localized planform adjustments (meander extension,
flood chutes) and localized aggradation, rather than active and longitudinally-continuous channel widening.
The generally well-developed forested buffers have probably moderated widening along this segment.

Page E-11
Appendix E: QA Documentation Lewis Creek Watershed
February 2010 Management Plan / Phase 2 Geomorphic Assessment

TO: Kristen Underwood

FR: Shannon Pytlik, Agency of Natural Resources,

River Management Section

DATE: August 24, 2009

RE: Lewis Creek Phase 2 QA

Reaches- M07, M08, M09, M10 (Charlotte)

Response from Kristen Underwood, SMRC, 25 August 2009, in blue text.

Response from Shannon Pytlik, VTANR, 25 August 2009, in red text.
Response from Kristen Underwood, SMRC, 8 September 2009, in teal-highlighted, blue text.

M07 & M08

Why is M07 a CEM DI and M08 is CEM FI ? They both have grade controls and no incision, in
fact M08 has a lot more frequent grade controls.
It may appear that M08 has more frequent grade controls, but most of these are clustered in the same 450
feet of bifurcated channel upstream of the Quinlan Bridge, east of the Morse house. M07 actually has much
longer lengths of continuous bedrock in the bed in two separate sections of the reach. Still, it would make
sense for these two reaches to be consistent. I changed M08 to CEM I {D}. Thanks!

M07
Since the November 2008 draft River Corridor Protection Guide updated sensitivity assignments for channels
with subclass slopes, the originally assigned “moderate” sensitivity for this B4c reach in Reference condition
should be “High”. The DMS was edited on 9/8/2009.

M09 A
Interesting reach. I wonder how this incision is related to the issues at Quinlain Bridge. Maybe that
project scope should extend farther upstream to try to identify other attenuation assets? Interesting
to have an F stream type below a dam. It must be stable now, but if a flood comes through it could
fall apart. I suspect that the incision in M09-A is primarily related to the operation of Scott Pond Dam over
the last 250 years, though there may be some degree of post-glacial incision as well, and some degree of
floodplain elevation and encroachment along Lewis Creek Road – all contributing to the present degree of
vertical separation of the channel from the LTER. I would expect that the channel-spanning bedrock
between M09-A and the Quinlan Bridge would limit potential historic channel management in vicinity of the
Quinlan Bridge from influencing upstream segment M09-A. But it is possible that headward-migrating
incision could have revealed the bedrock that now spans the channel east of the Morse property.

I agree with you that M09-A is very susceptible to catastrophic erosion in a big flood, given the entrenched
condition. Generally, I suspect the degree of incision decreases with distance downstream of the dam along
M09-A. The Morse / Quinlan Bridge scope of work (Marty is reviewing now and I expect it will be forwarded
to you shortly) calls for several cross sections along M09-A and the upper extent of M08 to better define the
degree and extent of incised condition, to identify feasibility of reconnecting the channel to LB adjacent
wetlands. There are not many other opportunities for floodplain attenuation along M09-A, given the
encroachment of Lewis Creek Rd and the incised status. That’s why overtopping alternatives are being
evaluated down near the bridge. But perhaps, like you say, this puts greater emphasis on finding &
protecting more attenuation sites upstream of Scott Pond Dam.

OK.

Page E-12
Appendix E: QA Documentation Lewis Creek Watershed
February 2010 Management Plan / Phase 2 Geomorphic Assessment

M10 B
I need more explanation for how the valley walls were used to determine the reference or existing
stream type. Once SGA data has been field verified we don’t use the confinement or valley walls to
determine stream type we use the more accurate data like entrenchment and w/d ratio. The existing
stream type is based on the entrenchment, which is predominantly determined from an accurate
bankful elevation. The entrenchment is indirectly related to the valley width, but what feature was
selected for the valley wall should not in any way effect the existing stream type. And if the
existing stream type represents the reference then the Phase 1 would be updated. The additional
cross sections that Marty Illick & I completed last week revealed the need for segmentation as follows:

Approx
Segment Length (ft) Gradient (%) Stream Type Notes
B1c-S/P Subreach;
M10-F 564 1.8 (provisional) Not Assessed –
bedrock channel
M10-E 1,149 0.3 C3-R/P
M10-D 4,868 0.3 C4-R/P
M10-C 2,701 0.9 B4c-R/P Subreach
M10-B 3,535 0.4 C4-R/P
M10-A 1,016 0.1 N/A - Impounded Not Assessed

I made a very similar table when I did the QA!

I agree that valley walls usually only inform the Phase 1 (reference) stream type. And the Phase 2 (existing)
stream type is defined by the entrenchment and W/D measured at the cross sections. Sometimes, though,
the valley wall placement can be important in defining what features are identified as a RAF, and therefore
whether incision has occurred, possibly to the degree that a vertical stream type departure has occurred. If
the entrenchment ratio had happened to be in a range (e.g., 2.2) that could be interpreted as either a B or C
stream type, the chosen position of the valley walls would be important in deciding whether or not the
channel had undergone a STD (from C to B) or simply represented a B channel that was Semi-confined by
confining terraces and had not undergone any vertical departure (in historic times).

Got it thanks.

I have slightly revised the comments that I had stored in Step 5 of the Phase 2 database for segment M10-B
concerning valley walls and stream types. I have removed the reference to valley walls being relied on to
determine Phase 2 (existing) stream type. Comments now read:

“Valley walls mapped by RMP encompass terraces mapped as glaciolacustrine (USDA) that are at a
thalweg height 2.6 to 3.6 times the max depth and are within 1 to 3 times bankfull width distance
from the channel. Assessment relied on these valley wall delineations to identify a reference stream
type of C. Conservatively, the valley wall positions were not adjusted channel-ward to the base of
these terraces, since erosion resistance of "glaciolacustrine" terraces, confirmation of their origin and
sediment composition, geotechnical evaluations to determine the degree to which these terraces will
laterally constrain the adjusting channel at various river flows - are beyond the scope of a Phase 2
assessment.”

While I had updated the Phase 1 reach-wide reference stream type from B to C during DMS entries, I had
forgotten to adjust the valley width based on the updated valley wall data provided by Shannon Bonney in
Sept 2008. Shannon Bonney’s valley walls show an average Narrow valley confinement, with quite a bit of
variation (from NC to BD). (Perhaps the persistence of a SC valley confinement alongside a C reference

Page E-13
Appendix E: QA Documentation Lewis Creek Watershed
February 2010 Management Plan / Phase 2 Geomorphic Assessment

stream type was another possible reason for your comments above?) – I have now changed the valley width
to reflect a Narrow confinement, consistent with the overall reach average C4-R/P reference stream type.

OK.

M10 C
Sensitivity should be High. Oh, I was referring to the November 2008 River Corridor Protection Guide
(page 14) which presents updates to the sensitivity ratings for stream types with subclass slope categories.
Table 1 on that page shows that a B4c in Fair condition should be “Very High” sensitivity. Should I keep this
as Very High? I can add a notation to the Methods section of the report, that although reaches were
updated to 2007 protocols, sensitivity assignments were made consistent with updates provided in the more
recent November 2008 River Corridor Protection Guide.

Kari sent out an e-mail to all DMS users a while back outlining the change. It should be high.
In email discussions on 8/25-8/26/2009, it was confirmed that the November 2008 draft River Corridor
Protection Guide updated sensitivity ratings for channels with subclass slopes, and a B4c channel in Fair
condition now has an assigned sensitivity of “Very High”.

M10 D
I made adjustments to the Comments field (Step 5) similar to M10B re: valley walls and stream type
assignments.

M10 E
I have revised the Sensitivity from Very High to High. Since, the D50 in the pebble count was on the cusp
between cobble and gravel, I had overridden the protocol recommendation to assign sensitivity as if this
channel was a C4, not a C3. However, I have decided to change it back to High, since either a High or Very
High sensitivity would be buffered at three times the channel width on either side of the meander center
line.

One additional comment: Shannon Bonney has delineated the left valley wall in this segment to fall along
Roscoe Road, although I would expect the reference valley wall to be approximately 150 to 400 feet to the
southeast (at the far side of the horse pasture) at the contact between alluvial and till soils. Possibly,
Shannon B was mapping the “modified valley wall” (or Phase 2 valley wall) and identifying the gravel Roscoe
Road as “significant human infrastructure”. (I am not aware of any notes/ methods/ report that Shannon B
might have produced along with the valley wall shape files she delivered). It should be noted that Roscoe
Road has been damaged in the past by fluvial erosion, is presently slumping toward the creek due to fluvial
erosion, and lands beyond this road are not necessarily immune from fluvial erosion hazards. Thus, I would
recommend that any FEH boundary not be delimited at this road, but rather extend the full 6-times-channel-
width buffered area at a minimum.
Hmmmm I am not sure how to deal with this. I agree it should probably be on the other side of the road.
Do you have any time in the current update budget to go and field verify this section and provide an
updated valley wall to me? I think the FEH will have to be on hold until we get this worked out.
Phase 1 valley wall (LB only) along segment M10E delineated by KLU on 8/26/2009 and delivered as ArcView
shape file to SHP on 8/27/2009.

M10 F
Should this be a sub-reach? Yes, thanks for noticing that. M10-F is a subreach of alternate stream type
(B1c-S/P administrative judgment, in an overall C4-R/P reach). I have edited Step 2.14 in the DMS so that
the “subreach” designation is recorded.

OK.

Page E-14
Appendix E: QA Documentation Lewis Creek Watershed
February 2010 Management Plan / Phase 2 Geomorphic Assessment

To: Kristen Underwood, South Mountain Research & Consulting

From: Sacha Pealer, VT DEC River Management
Date: 10/28/09
Lewis Creek Phase 2 QA
Reaches: M01-02, M04-06, M11-13
Note: The questions raised in this Quality Assurance are meant to address potential discrepancies within the data,
uncover data entry errors, or otherwise clarify and confirm those observations that might not have been expected. It is
important to take into consideration how data might be viewed or interpreted by the myriad of users who are familiar
with the science and protocols but may be unfamiliar with the assessed reaches. While providing notes and comments,
try to anticipate the types of questions that may arise due to outliers and exceptions observed within the reach or
segment.

After reviewing the comments below, please update this document (preferably in a second color) with what steps were
(or were not) taken to address the comments/questions.

Response from Kristen Underwood, SMRC, 11 November 2009, in blue text.

Response from Sacha Pealer, VTDEC RMS, 17 November 2009, in black bold-face text.

Overall project comments:

Please include where the RAF is in the cross section notes.
RAF added to spreadsheets for M04, M05, and M06; spreadsheets re-uploaded to the DMS.
Great, thank you.

Comments by Reach:
M01-0 & M02-0
• These reaches were Not Assessed due to wetland/lake influence, and there is no cross-
section entered for either of them in the DMS (cross-sections are alluded to in the draft
summary, but it is unclear how much data they captured). How then did you arrive at the
stream types entered in step 2? Do you think it is appropriate to evaluate these lake-
influenced reaches with fluvial geomorphology practices, such as assigning stream types?
In 2004, these reaches were assessed via canoe. Wading cross sections were not practical, as the
water depths were over 6 feet deep. The available river staff on that day of assessment was 8 feet
maximum and the thalweg depth exceeded 8 feet below the cross section tape. Considering a max
depth of at least 7 feet, the W/D ratio was less than 10.7 in M02 and less than 17 in M01. Since the
full cross section depth could not be reached, and since the reaches are influenced by backwater
effects from Lake Champlain, I had removed the cross section data from the DMS in this recent
round of updates. I had kept the provisional stream types to communicate the low width/depth
nature of the channel cross section, and sandy channel beds. However, I can store these
observations in the Comments section. I can see where the stream type assignments are
inappropriate to the lake-influenced reaches; provisional stream types have been removed.
Okay, thank you.

M04-0
• No comments.
M05-0
• Step 1.5. In the draft reach summary document, you describe confinement on this reach as
“narrow”. However, the DMS now shows “semi-confined”. Which is correct? I was using
the term “narrow” in the generic sense, not as the descriptor of “Narrow” defined by protocols used
to characterize valley confinement class (valley width >= 4 < 6 times channel width). Based on the

Page E-15
Appendix E: QA Documentation Lewis Creek Watershed
February 2010 Management Plan / Phase 2 Geomorphic Assessment

valley walls mapped by River Management Program, the valley width in this reach ranges from 1.5
to 3.3 times the channel width (reference width of 89 ft). The average valley width (230) yields a
valley confinement ratio of 2.6, which is classified as Semi-Confined under Step 1.5. I have modified
the text in the reach summary document to clarify this.
Okay, thank you.
• If there is not enough human-caused change in valley width to affect confinement type, then
what explanation can you provide for the C channel being in a semi-confined valley (an
atypical combination, without human influences)? Do you think it could be because the
cross section is located at a less entrenched/wider part of the valley? Please add notes to the
DMS to help clarify for future data users. The cross section is representative of the reach. A
similar cross section completed by River Management Section near the upstream reach break was
also classified as a C stream type. In my experience assessing Vermont rivers, a C stream type in a
Semi-confined valley setting (VC >2 <4) is not all that uncommon. Often bedrock controls explain
the valley / floodplain setting (in this case we have two occurrences of channel-spanning bedrock
and regionally the channel is cutting across a band of more erosion-resistant, north-south-trending
bedrock). Often cohesive sediments are associated with these Semi-confined C stream type settings
(glaciolacustrine parent materials comprise the valley walls of this reach). I have added notes to the
Comments section in the DMS.
Okay, thank you.
M06-0
• XS#1 Spreadsheet: Your Wfpa (200’) extends beyond the berm-like feature on the right
bank. I see your comment about the cultivation history and the localized extent of the
feature, suggesting it is not an engineered berm. Am I correct in assuming that you’ve
judged that the 200-ft wide flood prone area is accessible upstream and/or downstream of
this feature? In other words, the channel is not entrenched at this location? Yes, the slight
(non-engineered) berm is discontinuous along the longitudinal profile, and the river has limited
access to the floodplain both upstream and downstream of the feature at higher than bankfull flows.
Thanks for the clarification.
• XS#2 Spreadsheet: The Wfpa field is blank. Please fix spreadsheet. Added 175 ft to the Wfpa
field and re-uploaded the cross section spreadsheet.
Okay, thank you.
• The step 2 data (entered in DMS) indicate an entrenchment ratio of 2.06 (presumably this is
from x-section 2, if it had a Wfpa). Yes, XS-2 data were entered in Step 2. It appears you are
using Rosgen’s variability of +/- 0.2 for the entrenchment ratio, such that the stream type is
classified as C. Yes, I applied the +0.2 unit for ER permissible under Rosgen’s classification.
Please discuss why you chose to use this variability, rather than indicating an STD of C to B,
which doesn’t seem out of the question, given that two cross sections had high incision
ratios of 1.96 and 1.97. Because the other cross section for the reach, XS-1, was classified as a
C3. The assignment is somewhat subjective, given that we are basing our classifications on one
snapshot in time, and inferring a channel evolution history from very limited historical information
and present channel / floodplain form and setting. I could accept a Bc classification also. Under the
November 2008 VTANR guidance, either a C3 in Fair condition or a B3c in Fair condition with stream
type departure (C to Bc) would be assigned a “High” sensitivity. I added a note to the comments
section in the DMS.
Okay, thank you.
• Step 7.2. Do you think aggradation could score lower than 11 (“good”), considering the 2
islands, 2 braided locations, 8 mid channel bars, and other bars, as well as 8 steep riffles,
very close riffle spacing, mass failures, and erosion (~25 % of both banks)? Maybe look
again at questions 7.2.2 and 7.2.5. Yes, Step 7.2.2 could score in the Poor quadrant rather than

Page E-16
Appendix E: QA Documentation Lewis Creek Watershed
February 2010 Management Plan / Phase 2 Geomorphic Assessment

the Fair. I have thus changed the Aggradation score to 8, and the total score was revised to 0.45.
This score is still classified in “Fair” condition.
Yes, thank you.
• Did you mean to say stage III if the channel is no longer widening, but planform adjustment
is now active? It sounds like there may be floodplain forming at a lower elevation. Do you
think the channel has progressed to stage IV or is it late stage III? If planform adjustments can
be considered as a driving force for overall active channel widening, I would say that late stage III is
appropriate. There are quite a few sections where new floodplain is developing at a lower elevation
– however, these are not continuous throughout the reach. Active planform adjustments are
continuing to build and widen the floodplain and lead to a wider channel. Therefore, I erred on the
conservative and classified the reach in stage III.
Okay, thank you.
M11-0
• Please add a note to the DMS explaining why the floodprone width (1600’) in step 2.4 is
greater than the valley width (500’) in step 1.5. Because the line of cross section (at the
meander cross over point of this highly sinuous channel) is subparallel to the valley, while the valley
width estimates are made perpendicular to the valley. Note added to the DMS.
Good to have the clarification; thanks.
• In step 7 narrative, what is meant by “DFs”? Depositional features? Or should it be DJ
(debris jam)? I meant to type “DJs”; DMS has been corrected.
Got it.
M12-A
• No comments.
M12-B
• Step 2.10. Should riffle types be “complete” if the bed form is plane bed? Perhaps they
were “eroded” by the historic incision process? I have changed this to “eroded”.
Okay, thank you.
Typically, if there is an STD, then the sensitivity should be “Very High” for B4c streams. I
noticed in your reach summary draft document, you acknowledge that the reference stream
type of C4 is uncertain, and that another possibility is that the reference is B. This would be
more typical of a semi-confined valley, although perhaps the confinement is also on the cusp
with Narrow in places (?). Given this uncertainty, is that why you entered “High” for
sensitivity? If so, would you mind inserting some clarifying comments in step 5 of the
DMS? It would be helpful to acknowledge the uncertainties of reference stream type, STD,
and sensitivity there, especially since it is surprising to have an RGA condition of “good”
when an STD is noted. I have kept the reference stream type as C4, and changed the sensitivity
to Very High, considering a possible STD from C4 to B4c. The sensitivity for this segment may be
overstated, since the dominant substrate size (gravel) is on the cusp with a small cobble size, and
since the “reference” stream type may have been Bc in which case there would not have been a
stream type departure. A “Good” condition rating simply reflects that the channel has been
relatively stable in recent decades and is not actively adjusting to a significant degree. Widening
and aggradation are negligible and minor, respectively; incision appears historic in nature and may
even be post-glacial.

It should be noted that whether the sensitivity classification was “High” or “Very High”, the
dimension of the river corridor and/or FEH corridor generated for this segment will be defined by the
valley walls delineated in this case by the River Management Program. The valley walls are mapped
at a distance apart that is less than 6 times the channel width.
Okay, thank you.

Page E-17
Appendix E: QA Documentation Lewis Creek Watershed
February 2010 Management Plan / Phase 2 Geomorphic Assessment

M12-C
• No comments.
M13-A
• Step 3.1, upper bank consistency, both banks. Did you mean to say that sand is cohesive?
While sand is the best descriptor for sediment type, there is a significant amount of silt / clay
content in the sand which gives the upper banks a certain degree of cohesiveness.
Okay, thank you. You can use “mixture” as well.
• Did you mean to enter an RGA for this segment? The database indicates the segment is Not
Assessed because of beaver dams, and there is no cross-section. Normally, per the protocol,
you would not do step 7 if the segment is broken out due to beaver impoundment. If you
feel it is important/possible to assign an RGA condition (even without the x-section), I
suggest doing one of the following: I filled out the RGA (without a cross section) and assumed
an incision ratio (>=1.4 <2.0) in order to estimate / justify the condition score and sensitivity
assigned under the Administrative Judgement section. I can see where this could be confusing to
the user of the data. I’ll delete these values under Step 7 but retain the paper records as a backup
for the Administrative Judgement assignments.
1. Please enter comments in the DMS explaining how the RGA was completed without a
cross-section.
2. If you don’t have enough information to complete the RGA (e.g., incision ratio), enter an
administrative judgment in Step 0 under “Enter/Edit Administrative Judgment Data”. You
can enter geomorphic condition there, as well as ph. 2 stream type, and leave the rest of step
7 blank. Please be sure to check the “Administrative Judgement” box and identify yourself
in the “entity” field. If you also want to note the channel is likely incised, then please do so
in step 5 comments. I added a note about incision status under Step 5.
Okay, thank you.
M13-B
• I noticed both the ph. 2 channel width (56) and x-sectional area (105.6) are lower than what
the regional curves predict (66 and 193.2, respectively). Do you have any explanation? It is
possible that underlying bedrock controls (regionally) as well as cohesive sediments in the bed and
banks have moderated lateral and vertical adjustments (i.e., this is not a fully self-adjusting alluvial
channel, as were those presumably upon which the VT Regional Hydraulic Geometry curve equations
were derived, relating drainage area to channel width, channel depth, and cross sectional area).

This segment is transitional between an upstream Bc stream type with bedrock controls (M14) and a
downstream E4 dune/ripple stream type (M13-A) – both of which have channel widths that are
lower than predicted, since the VTRHG curves (2006) are developed for predominantly C (and a few
B, Bc, Cb) stream types.

Nevertheless, the measured channel width and cross-sectional area values are probably within the
95% confidence limits for the VT-based regressions, which were developed based on a relatively
small population size (p.7 of VTDEC, 2006).

It is also possible that the bankfull elevation was underestimated in this segment which had
relatively poor bankfull indicators.
Okay, thank you for your note.

Page E-18
Upstream inlet Downstream outlet