Foote Brook Macroinvertebrate Biomonitoring-Phase I in Johnson, Vermont

Metadata also available as

Metadata:

Identification_Information
Data_Quality_Information
Spatial_Reference_Information
Entity_and_Attribute_Information
Distribution_Information
Metadata_Reference_Information

Identification_Information:

Citation:

Citation_Information:

Originator: Lamoille County Natural Rresources Conservation District

Publication_Date: 200404

Title:

Foote Brook Macroinvertebrate Biomonitoring-Phase I in Johnson, Vermont

Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: map

Publication_Information:

Publication_Place: Morrisville, VT
Publisher: LCNRCD

Other_Citation_Details: Tile Structure - NONE

Online_Linkage:

<http://www.vcgi.org/dataware/default.cfm?layer=EcologicFauna_FOOTEBRKPH1>; Online_ Linkage: <http://www.vcgi.org/dataware/default.cfm?layer=EcologicFauna_FOOTEBRKPH1&mapit=yes>; Online_Linkage: <http://maps.vcgi.org:8080/wmsconnector/com.esri.wms.Esrimap?servicename=DATAWARE_VCGI&VERSION=1.1.1&request=getmap&BBOX=-73.45416,42.72279,-71.46528,45.018356&SRS=EPSG:4326&LAYERS=ECOLOGIC_FOOTEBRKPH1_POINT&WIDTH=300&HEIGHT=400&FORMAT=image/gif>

Description:

Abstract:: The Foote Brook Biomonitoring Project, Phase I geospatial dataset consists of data from the biomonitoring of benthic macroinvertebrates at three sites located along Foote Brook in Johnson, Vermont, prior to stream restoration implementation. These sites were located 0.25, 0.50, and 0.75 miles above the confluence of Foote Brook and the Lamoille River.
Foote Brook drains 8.49 square miles in the towns of Johnson and Belvidere, Vermont. The waterway rises at an elevation of 2650 feet above sea level and drops 485 feet to its confluence with the Lamoille River. Foote Brook has the highest population of trout for streams in Lamoille County. The channel is primarily a step-pool and plane-bed type system. Nearly the entire watershed is forested above the Route 15 crossing. Severe flood events in 1995 and 1997 caused several culverts to fail, road damage, woody debris jams, and excessive sedimentation of the channel. Just upstream of the Route 15 bridge, the channel bed is actively degrading, entrenched, and the banks over-steepened and unstable. The channel is adjusting by migrating laterally close to Route 15. The bed is scouring upstream of the bridge abutment.
This collection of pre-restoration data will document the condition of the benthic macroinvertebrate community above, at, and below the restoration site. The data collected will be used to assess the impact of the river restoration on the biological integrity of the brook. This dataset will allow for comparison of benthic macroinvertebrate community composition over a period of time. Benthic macroinvertebrates are important indicators of stream health. We are exploring the idea that the stream restoration practices improved water quality and this will be seen through a change in benthic composition. Trained and supervised community volunteers collected and analyzed the samples using methods developed by River Network in its benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring manual, ""Living Waters"". In addition, this project provided the opportunity for community members to understand the process of physical restoration of a streambank to reduce sediment runoff, and to understand the relationship between the biological and physical aspects of a river system.
Insects are common inhabitants of the stream bottom environment and commonly include mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, and true flies. Aquatic macroinvertebrates serve as excellent indicators of water quality. Each insect has varying ability to withstand environmental impacts and therefore, any stressor (physical, biological or chemical) imposed on an ecosystem will reveal themselves in the composition of the biological organisms inhabiting that community. For example, sediments from erosion may decrease the variety of insects and other macroinvertebrates that are able to survive and so indicate a loss of biological health.
Metrics measured in this study include pollution tolerance, sample density, family richness, % contribution of dominant family, and other criteria. The findings from the individual sites were compared with the control (reference) site, which is used as a benchmark for comparison. It was determined that the control site and restoration site rated similarly in their results. In the summary of similarity, if a stream is found to be >79% similar to the reference stream, then it is in a non-impaired state, reflecting a good population of pollution intolerant organisms and good habitat structure. Site 2 (0.50) rated 100% similarity to the reference site, indicating a relatively healthy stream. Site 3 (0.25) rated 76%, falling into the moderately impaired category (29-79%), indicating a decrease of richness and pollution tolerant organisms.
NOTE that this metadata was generated using the NBII Biological Profile, and includes information about lineage, methods, and taxonomy that will be lost if imported into a metadata software that doesn't recognize the biological fields (i.e. ArcCatalog). See Supplemental information prior to using this dataset.
Purpose:: To collect initial data from the macroinvertebrate community in order to later identify what changes in the communities may have occurred due to the stream restoration implementation.
Supplemental_Information:: For stream (hydrology) information relative to this dataset, use the shapefile titled 'Lamoille River/Foote Brook Confluence, Lamoille County, Vermont'. For information about Phase II of this study, review metadata and spatial data titled 'Foote Brook Macroinvertebrate Biomonitoring, Phase II'. The photo inventory of this project is available in a zipped file--see Cross Reference for additional information.
For the Foote Brook stream restoration information, review metadata listed in Section 1, Cross Reference.
NOTE that this metadata was generated using the NBII Biological Profile and includes information about lineage, methods, and taxonomy that will be lost if imported into a metadata software that doesn't recognize the biological fields (i.e. ArcCatalog).

Time_Period_of_Content:

Time_Period_Information:

Multiple_Dates/Times:

Single_Date/Time:

Calendar_Date: 20000923
Time_of_Day: Unknown

Single_Date/Time:

Calendar_Date: 200012
Time_of_Day: Unknown

Currentness_Reference: ground condition

Status:

Progress: Complete
Maintenance_and_Update_Frequency: None planned

Spatial_Domain:

Description_of_Geographic_Extent:

Near confluence of Foote Brook and Lamoille River in Lamoille County, Vermont

Bounding_Coordinates:

West_Bounding_Coordinate: -72.708116
East_Bounding_Coordinate: -72.704358
North_Bounding_Coordinate: 44.641362
South_Bounding_Coordinate: 44.641166

Keywords:

Theme:

Theme_Keyword_Thesaurus: None
Theme_Keyword: benthic macroinvertebrates
Theme_Keyword: biomonitoring
Theme_Keyword: riverbank restoration
Theme_Keyword: stream restoration
Theme_Keyword: water quality
Theme_Keyword: Critter Watch
Theme_Keyword: habitat assessment
Theme_Keyword: stream ecology
Theme_Keyword: phycology
Theme_Keyword: Lamoille County Natural Resources Conservation District
Theme_Keyword: Lake Champlain Basin Program
Theme_Keyword: New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission
Theme_Keyword: Lamoille Union High School
Theme_Keyword: Peoples Academy
Theme_Keyword: Johnson State College
Theme_Keyword: unstable reach
Theme_Keyword: channel restoration
Theme_Keyword: channel instability

Place:

Place_Keyword_Thesaurus: None
Place_Keyword: Vermont
Place_Keyword: Foote Brook
Place_Keyword: Lamoille County
Place_Keyword: Lamoille River
Place_Keyword: United States
Place_Keyword: North America
Place_Keyword: USA
Place_Keyword: Johnson

Taxonomy:

Keywords/Taxon:

Taxonomic_Keyword_Thesaurus: ITIS
Taxonomic_Keywords: Chironomidae -- midges
Taxonomic_Keywords: Plecoptera -- stoneflies
Taxonomic_Keywords: Trichoptera -- caddisflies
Taxonomic_Keywords: Ephemeroptera -- mayflies
Taxonomic_Keywords: Diptera --true flies
Taxonomic_Keywords: Coleoptera -- beetles
Taxonomic_Keywords: Megaloptera -- Dobson, alder, fishflies
Taxonomic_Keywords: Lepidoptera -- Borboleta, butterflies, Mariposa, moths

Taxonomic_System:

Classification_System/Authority:

Classification_System_Citation:

Citation:

Citation_Information:

Originator:

Geoff Dates and Jack Byrne in coordination with River Watch Network

Publication_Date: 1997

Title:

Living Waters: Using Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Habitat to Assess Your River's Health

Edition: first

Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: model

Publication_Information:

Publication_Place: Portland, OR
Publisher: River Network

Taxonomic_Procedures:

Samples were processed using the methods described in 'Living Waters: Using Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Habitat to Assess Your River's Health (see citation in Section 2, Methodology). At the collection site samples were placed in a jar, labeled with the site and replicate number, and preserved in 90% ethyl alcohol. The samples were processed in a lab in 12/2000 by trained and supervised volunteers (Chris Tormeys biology lab at Lamoille Union High School, VT.) Samples were rinsed through a #30 sieve and spread evenly into a plastic tray with a numbered 12 square grid, with about 1/4"" of water. Samples were picked from 3 random squares using a lighted magnifier and forceps. If the process yielded at least 300 organisms, the subsampling stopped. Otherwise, more squares were picked until at least 300 organisms were selected. Once all organisms were picked, the entire tray was inspected for rare taxa that were not picked in the subsample. Unpicked samples were preserved. An individual other than the data entry person randomly checked computerized data entries against lab sheets. A quantitative method was used to sample the collections. Organisms were identified to the following taxonomic levels: mollusks to order, worms to class, crustaceans and insects to family. A standard set of metrics was used to assess the condition of the biota: abundance, family richness, percent model affinity of orders, pollution tolerance, and functional feeding group % similarity. The metrics were calculated and scored using the methods described in 'Living Waters' (See above). Refer to 'Living Waters' for interpretation of the results in this dataset.

Taxonomic_Completeness:

No estimates of the importance, and identities of misidentifications are available, nor are uncertain determinations, synonyms or other incorrect usages. Field workers were volunteer and trained prior to sampling by Koenig and Dates. Steve Fiske from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation identified a reference sample of the macroinvertebrates collected and identified in Critter Watch. Steve could find only 54% accuracy in identification of samples. Considering the training that participants received and that identification was only to the family level, we concur that there error was created from poor sample archiving. Strict quality control of sampling procedures and identification were not present in the first phase. This seemed especially true in the oversight of keeping samples in their respective containers for later verification of data. It is the Conservation District’s assumption that upon identifying the samples of macroinvertebrates, the specimens were not returned to the properly marked containers. As a result, Steve Fiske’s (VT DEC) attempts to verify the data were impossible.

Taxonomic_Classification:

Taxon_Rank_Name: Kingdom

Taxon_Rank_Value: Animalia

Taxonomic_Classification:

Taxon_Rank_Name: Phylum

Taxon_Rank_Value: Arthropoda

Taxonomic_Classification:

Taxon_Rank_Name: Subphylum

Taxon_Rank_Value: Hexapoda

Taxonomic_Classification:

Taxon_Rank_Name: Class

Taxon_Rank_Value: Insecta

Taxonomic_Classification:

Taxon_Rank_Name: Subclass

Taxon_Rank_Value: Pterygota

Applicable_Common_Name: Winged Insects

Taxonomic_Classification:

Taxon_Rank_Name: Superorder

Taxon_Rank_Value: Neoptera

Taxonomic_Classification:

Taxon_Rank_Name: Order
Taxon_Rank_Value: Trichoptera
Applicable_Common_Name: caddisflies
Applicable_Common_Name: caddisflies

Taxonomic_Classification:

Taxon_Rank_Name: Order
Taxon_Rank_Value: Diptera
Applicable_Common_Name: mosquito
Applicable_Common_Name: mosquito

Taxonomic_Classification:

Taxon_Rank_Name: Order
Taxon_Rank_Value: Coleoptera
Applicable_Common_Name: beetles
Applicable_Common_Name: beetles

Taxonomic_Classification:

Taxon_Rank_Name: Order
Taxon_Rank_Value: Megaloptera

Taxonomic_Classification:

Taxon_Rank_Name: Order
Taxon_Rank_Value: Lepidoptera
Applicable_Common_Name: butterflies
Applicable_Common_Name: butterflies

Taxonomic_Classification:

Taxon_Rank_Name: Order
Taxon_Rank_Value: Plecoptera
Applicable_Common_Name: Stoneflies
Applicable_Common_Name: Stoneflies

Taxonomic_Classification:

Taxon_Rank_Name: Superorder

Taxonomic_Classification:

Taxon_Rank_Name: Order
Taxon_Rank_Value: Ephemeroptera
Applicable_Common_Name: mayflies
Applicable_Common_Name: mayflies

Taxonomic_Classification:

Taxon_Rank_Name: Order
Taxon_Rank_Value: Odonata Fabricius

Taxonomic_Classification:

Taxon_Rank_Name: Subphylum

Taxon_Rank_Value: Crustacea Brünnich, 1772

Applicable_Common_Name: crustaceans

Taxonomic_Classification:

Taxon_Rank_Name: Class

Taxon_Rank_Value: Malacostraca Latreille, 1802

Taxonomic_Classification:

Taxon_Rank_Name: Subclass

Taxon_Rank_Value: Eumalacostraca Grobben, 1892

Taxonomic_Classification:

Taxon_Rank_Name: Superorder

Taxon_Rank_Value: Peracarida Calman, 1904

Taxonomic_Classification:

Taxon_Rank_Name: Order
Taxon_Rank_Value: Amphipoda Latreille, 1816
Applicable_Common_Name: Amphipods
Applicable_Common_Name: Amphipods

Taxonomic_Classification:

Taxon_Rank_Name: Order
Taxon_Rank_Value: Isopoda Latreille, 1817
Applicable_Common_Name: isopods, pillbugs, Sowbugs
Applicable_Common_Name: isopods, pillbugs, Sowbugs

Taxonomic_Classification:

Taxon_Rank_Name: Kingdom

Taxon_Rank_Value: Animalia

Taxonomic_Classification:

Taxon_Rank_Name: Phylum

Taxon_Rank_Value: Annelida

Taxonomic_Classification:

Taxon_Rank_Name: Class

Taxon_Rank_Value: Clitellata

Taxonomic_Classification:

Taxon_Rank_Name: Subclass
Taxon_Rank_Value: Oligochaeta
Applicable_Common_Name:: angleworms, earthworms, lombris, minhoca, night angleworms, earthworms, lombris, minhoca, night angleworms, earthworms, Night Crawlers Crawlers
Applicable_Common_Name:: angleworms, earthworms, lombris, minhoca, night angleworms, earthworms, lombris, minhoca, night angleworms, earthworms, Night Crawlers Crawlers

Taxonomic_Classification:

Taxon_Rank_Name: Kingdom

Taxon_Rank_Value: Animalia

Taxonomic_Classification:

Taxon_Rank_Name: Phylum

Taxon_Rank_Value: Mollusca

Taxonomic_Classification:

Taxon_Rank_Name: Class
Taxon_Rank_Value: Gastropoda Cuvier, 1797
Applicable_Common_Name: slugs, snails
Applicable_Common_Name: slugs, snails

Taxonomic_Classification:

Taxon_Rank_Name: Class
Taxon_Rank_Value: Pelecypoda (Bivalvia Linnaeus, 1758)
Applicable_Common_Name: bivalve, clams
Applicable_Common_Name: bivalve, clams

Access_Constraints:

The Lamoille County Natural Resources Conservation District (LCNRCD), VCGI, and the State of Vermont make no representations of any kind, including but not limited to the warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular use, nor are any such warranties to be applied with respect to the data.

Use_Constraints:

LCNRCD does not assure absolute accuracy of all features and the user must be alert to potential errors at all times when using data for cartographic or analytical purposes. NOTE that this metadata was generated using the NBII Biological Profile, and includes information about lineage, methods, and taxonomy that will be lost if imported into a metadata software that doesn't recognize the biological fields (i.e. ArcCatalog).

Point_of_Contact:

Contact_Information:

Contact_Organization_Primary:

Contact_Organization:: Lamoille County Natural Resources Conservation District (LCNRCD)

Contact_Position: District Manager

Contact_Address:

Address_Type: mailing and physical address
Address: 109 Professional Drive, Suite 2
City: Morrisville
State_or_Province: VT
Postal_Code: 05661
Country: USA

Contact_Voice_Telephone: (802) 888-9218

Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: lcnature@pwshift.com

Hours_of_Service: M-F; 8am - 4:30pm

Browse_Graphic:

Browse_Graphic_File_Name:: <http://maps.vcgi.org:8080/wmsconnector/com.esri.wms.Esrimap?servicename=DATAWARE_VCGI&VERSION=1.1.1&request=getmap&BBOX=-73.45416,42.72279,-71.46528,45.018356&SRS=EPSG:4326&LAYERS=ECOLOGIC_FOOTEBRKPH1_POINT&WIDTH=300&HEIGHT=400&FORMAT=image/gif>
Browse_Graphic_File_Description: GIF
Browse_Graphic_File_Type: GIF

Data_Set_Credit:

Project Managers: Simon Hurd and Nancy Koenig-Peckham; Geoff Dates with the River Network who provided valuable guidance and direction for this project; the students from local schools conducting the field work and lab analysis assistance: Lamoille Union High School, Johnson State College, Peoples Academy; and Financial contributors: the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA-Project Impact), US Department of Agriculture (NRCS), Environmental Protection Agency, Better Backroads, Lake Champlain Basin Project

Native_Data_Set_Environment: Excel, ArcGIS

Cross_Reference:

Citation_Information:

Originator: Michelle Gudorf

Publication_Date: 02/2004

Title: Lamoille River/Foote Brook Confluence, Lamoille County, Vermont

Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: map

Publication_Information:

Publication_Place: Morrisville, VT
Publisher: LCNRCD

Online_Linkage: see www.vcgi.org (EnvironOther_LamRivFoote.txt)

Cross_Reference:

Citation_Information:

Originator:

Lamoille County Natural Resources Conservation District (LCNRCD)

Publication_Date: Unpublished Material

Title:

Photo inventory of the Post-Monitoring (2002-2003) of the Foote Brook in Johnson, Vermont

Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: Figure

Publication_Information:

Publication_Place: Morrisville, VT
Publisher: LCNRCD

Other_Citation_Details: .jpg images of restoration site stations

Online_Linkage:

<http://www.vcgi.org/pub/dataware/gisdata/layers_vcgi/misc/LCNRCD/FooteBrk_rest_2003_photos>

Cross_Reference:

Citation_Information:

Originator:: Lamoille County Natural Resources Conservation District (LCNRCD)
Publication_Date: Unpublished Material
Title:: Army Corps of Engineers Pre-Restoration Photo Inventory (2001) of the Foote Brook in Johnson, Vermont
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: Figure
Other_Citation_Details:: Photos through Army Corps (Northeast District Corps of Engineers) permit number #200001559. These are .jpg images of pre-restoration site. See included readme text file in for station information.
Online_Linkage:: <http://www.vcgi.org/pub/dataware/gisdata/layers_vcgi/misc/LCNRCD/FooteBrk_rest_ACOE_photos>

Cross_Reference:

Citation_Information:

Originator:: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Morrisville, Vermont
Publication_Date: Unpublished Material
Title:: As-Built and Site Plans for the Foote Brook Natural Channel Design Restoration Project (2001-2003) in Stowe, Vermont
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: CAD data
Other_Citation_Details: .jpg images of CAD plans
Online_Linkage:: <http://www.vcgi.org/pub/dataware/gisdata/layers_vcgi/misc/LCNRCD/FooteBrk_rest_site_plans>

Cross_Reference:

Citation_Information:

Originator:

Lamoille County Natural Resources Conservation District (LCNRCD)

Publication_Date: 200404

Title:

Foote Brook Macroinvertebrate Biomonitoring - Phase 2 in Johnson, Vermont

Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: map

Series_Information:

Series_Name:: Foote Brook Macroinvertebrate Biomonitoring - Phase 2, Johnson, Vermont

Other_Citation_Details: Tile Structure - NONE

Online_Linkage:

<http://www.vcgi.org/dataware/default.cfm?layer=EcologicFauna_FOOTEBRKPH2>; Online_Linkage: <http://www.vcgi.org/dataware/default.cfm?layer=EcologicFauna_FOOTEBRKPH2&mapit=yes>; Online_Linkage: <http://maps.vcgi.org:8080/wmsconnector/com.esri.wms.Esrimap?servicename=DATAWARE_VCGI&VERSION=1.1.1&request=getmap&BBOX=-73.45416,42.72279,-71.46528,45.018356&SRS=EPSG:4326&LAYERS=ECOLOGIC_FOOTEBRKPH2_POINT&WIDTH=300&HEIGHT=400&FORMAT=image/gif>

Cross_Reference:

Citation_Information:

Originator:

Lamoille County Natural Resources Conservation District (LCNRCD)

Publication_Date: 200212

Title:

The Foote Brook Natural Channel Design Restoration Project (2001) and Post Monitoring Project (2002)--Johnson, Vermont

Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: map

Series_Information:

Series_Name:: The Foote Brook Natural Channel Design Restoration Project (2001) and Post Monitoring Project (2002) in Johnson, Vermont

Other_Citation_Details: Tile Structure - NONE

Online_Linkage:

<http://www.vcgi.org/dataware/default.cfm?layer=EnvironOther_FOOTEBRK2002>; Online_Linkage: <http://www.vcgi.org/dataware/default.cfm?layer=EnvironOther_FOOTEBRK2002&mapit=yes>; Online_Linkage: <http://maps.vcgi.org:8080/wmsconnector/com.esri.wms.Esrimap?servicename=DATAWARE_VCGI&VERSION=1.1.1&request=getmap&BBOX=-73.45416,42.72279,-71.46528,45.018356&SRS=EPSG:4326&LAYERS=ENVIRON_FOOTEBRK2002_LINE&WIDTH=300&HEIGHT=400&FORMAT=image/gif>

Cross_Reference:

Citation_Information:

Originator:

Lamoille County Natural Resources Conservation District (LCNRCD)

Publication_Date: 200404

Title:

Post Monitoring (2003) of the Foote Brook Natural Channel Design Restoration Project--Johnson, Vermont

Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: map

Series_Information:

Series_Name:: Post Monitoring (2003) of the Foote Brook Natural Channel Design Restoration Project in Johnson, Vermont

Other_Citation_Details: Tile Structure - NONE

Online_Linkage:

<http://www.vcgi.org/dataware/default.cfm?layer=EnvironOther_FOOTEBRK2003>; Online_Linkage: <http://www.vcgi.org/dataware/default.cfm?layer=EnvironOther_FOOTEBRK2003&mapit=yes>; Online_Linkage: <http://maps.vcgi.org:8080/wmsconnector/com.esri.wms.Esrimap?servicename=DATAWARE_VCGI&VERSION=1.1.1&request=getmap&BBOX=-73.45416,42.72279,-71.46528,45.018356&SRS=EPSG:4326&LAYERS=ENVIRON_FOOTEBRK2003_LINE&WIDTH=300&HEIGHT=400&FORMAT=image/gif>

Analytical_Tool:

Analytical_Tool_Description:

Contains detailed step-by-step information to walk the program supervisor through the study of stream health by monitoring the biologic community. Includes how to design a benthic macroinvertebrate study, how to carry out a benthic macroinvertebrate habitat assessment, how to collect and preserve samples in riffle areas using a net, laboratory procedures for analyzing the samples, and how to summarize and interpret benthic macroinvertebrate and habitat data. It also contains samples of field data collection worksheets, and picture keys of benthic macroinvertebrate commonly found in the area.

Tool_Contact:

Contact_Information:

Contact_Organization_Primary:

Contact_Organization: River Network
Contact_Person: Geoff Dates

Contact_Address:

Address_Type: mailing and physical address
Address: 153 State Street
City: Montpelier
State_or_Province: VT
Postal_Code: 05602
Country: USA

Contact_Voice_Telephone: 802.223.3840

Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: 802.436.3033

Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: gdates@rivernetwork.org

Tool_Citation:

Citation_Information:

Originator:

Geoff Dates and Jack Byrne in coordination with River Watch Network

Publication_Date: 1997

Title:

Living Waters: Using Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Habitat to Assess Your River's Health

Edition: first

Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: model

Publication_Information:

Publication_Place: Portland, OR
Publisher: River Network

Data_Quality_Information:

Attribute_Accuracy:

Attribute_Accuracy_Report:: The ground locations of the points were not verified by original field personnel. Photo's taken during the data collection on 9/23/2000 did not provide adequate information to confirm the point locations representing the sites. The spatial points in this dataset were generated three and one half years after data collection by using the measure tool in ArcMAP 8.3, measuring the provided distance upstream from the confluence of the Lamoille River by following the streambank, and placing three points at the measured locations. The attributes in this dataset were reviewed by comparing them with the Excel database generated in the analysis of this study.

Logical_Consistency_Report:

ArcGIS software was used to generate the points in this dataset. There are no duplicate features.

Completeness_Report:

The dataset is complete; no exclusions of features or attributes to be reported.

Positional_Accuracy:

Horizontal_Positional_Accuracy:

Horizontal_Positional_Accuracy_Report:: The points in this shapefile were generated using the measure tool in ArcMAP 8.3, measuring the provided distance upstream from the confluence of the Lamoille River by following the streambank (steam distance measurement), and placing three points at the measured locations. The hydrology coverage used to measure the stream length is 1:5000 scalar data. Default settings were used in ArcMap 8.3 to digitize the points.

Lineage:

Methodology:

Methodology_Type: Field

Methodology_Identifier:

Methodology_Keyword_Thesaurus: None
Methodology_Keyword: Riffle habitat
Methodology_Keyword: Kick net
Methodology_Keyword: Ammonia
Methodology_Keyword: Nitrate
Methodology_Keyword: bottom composition
Methodology_Keyword: embeddedness
Methodology_Keyword: velocity
Methodology_Keyword: stream depth
Methodology_Keyword: bank stability
Methodology_Keyword: bank vegetation
Methodology_Keyword: riparian vegetation zone

Methodology_Description:

Sample Collection: Samples were collected using the methods described in 'Living Waters: Using Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Habitat to Assess Your River's Health. Community volunteers were trained over a six week period to collect benthic macroinvertebrate samples. These samples will provide pre-restoration base data. Three sites were selected by LCNRCD District Manager Koenig-Peckham: an upstream reference (control site) located 0.75 miles upstream from the confluence of the Foot Brook and Lamoille River, and upstream of the proposed restoration site; an impact site located .50 miles upstream from the confluence of the Foot Brook and Lamoille River representing the restoration site; and the recovery site located 0.25 miles upstream from the confluence of the Foot Brook and Lamoille River, and downstream of the impact site, representing the conditions after restoration occurs. Samples were collected from riffle habitats (1-2 feet deep, moving .4-2.5 fps, and cobble bottom). Three replicate samples were collected from each site using a kick net (metal frame net with an opening of 8 "" x 18"", and a 8""h x 8""d x 18""w, and a bag with a 500 micron mesh. An area as wide as the net and 1-foot deep was sampled by rubbing and brushing off the cobbles, then gently digging into the bottom to dislodge burrowing organisms. Each replicate was a composite collected from 4 spots in the riffle: 2 in fast current (1.5-2.5 fps) and 2 in slow currents (0.5-1.5 fps). Note that the speed of the currents was judged by the sampler, and not by using a meter. Each replicate was preserved in plastic quart jars in 90% ethyl alcohol and labeled (site#, date, replicate #) separately and a Benthic Macroinvertebrate Field Sheet was filled out for each replicate. Nets were backwashed and inspected for carried over organisms between each replicate.
The following physical assessment for Rocky Bottom Stream based on Rapid Habitat Assessment Scoring Sheet provided by Living Waters: Weather Overcast with showers; temp = 13.4 degrees Celsius; pH units = 7.99; Cond. uS/cm = 75; Nitrate (mg/l) = <1.25; Ammonia (mg/l) = <0.05; Phosphate (mg/l) = <0.05; Free Cl (mg/l) = <0.05; Total Cl (mg/l) = <0.05; D.O (mg/l) = 11.0
Results for Site 3 (.25 miles upstream from confluence): (1) Bottom composition = 0% bedrock, 0% boulder, 45% cobble, 45% gravel, 7% sand, 3% leaves, with 5 submerged large woody debris (logs and snags) with common large woody debris present - Score = 11 (Good); (2) Embeddedness (surface area of larger particles-boulder, cobble, or gravel-surrounded or covered by sand or silt) = 20%; Score = 19 (Excellent) (3) Velocity/Depth combinations = slow-shallow and maximum depth at two pools = 18"" and 25""- Score = 10 (Fair) (4) Sediment Deposition = moderate (30-50 % of bottom affected with moderate point bar/island enlargement - Score = 6 (Low Fair); (5) Channel Flow Status = 40 % of river bottom exposed (not covered with water) - Score = 8 (Fair) (6) NO Bank Channel Alteration appeared present - Score = 16 (Excellent) (7) Number of Riffles present = 3, % of segment that is riffle = 25%, Runs were present, Length of riffles = 20 ft at replicates 1 and 3, and 15 ft at replicate 2. Width of riffles = 6 ft at replicates 1 and 2, and 13 feet at replicate 3. Width of stream at typical place in each riffle = 6 ft at replicates 1 and 2, and 13 ft at replicate 3 - Score = 8 (Fair) (8) Bank stability - Score = 9 both banks (Excellent); (9) % of banks covered by vegetation = 100 both - Score = 10 both banks (Excellent); (10) Estimate of width of riparian zone on both sides (left and right determined facing upstream) = 40 left, and 200 + Right - Score = 7 left bank (Good) and 9 right bank (Excellent) (11) Other characteristics: Algal growth = 0 % covering bottom, water odor = none, no upstream dam, no pipes emptying directly into or near the water, 10% overhead canopy, water appearance was clear; (12) River bank vegetation type = Roadless Wooded area, left bank = 90% shrubs, 5% grass and 5% hardwood; right bank = 90% shrubs, 5% grass, and 5% hardwood
Results for Site 2 (0.50 miles upstream from confluence): (1) Bottom composition = 0% bedrock, 8-9% boulder, 50% cobble, 30% gravel, 10% sand, with 0 submerged large woody debris (logs and snags) with no large woody debris present - Score = 13 (Good); (2) Embeddedness (surface area of larger particles-boulder, cobble, or gravel-surrounded or covered by sand or silt) = 30%; Score = 11 (Low Good) (3) Velocity/Depth combinations = slow-shallow - Score = 8 (Fair) (4) Sediment Deposition = slight (5-30% of bottom affected with no point bar/island enlargement - Score = 13 (Good); (5) Channel Flow Status = 15 % of river bottom exposed (not covered with water) - Score = 16 (Excellent) (6) Left Bank Channel Alteration 100%, right bank = 0% - Score = 9 (Fair) (7) Number of Riffles present = 4; % of segment that is riffle = 20%, Runs were present, Length of riffles = 25 ft at replicate 1, and 20 ft at replicate 2 (nothing recorded for 3). Width of riffles = 10 ft at replicate 2, (nothing recorded for 1 and 3); Nothing recorded for Width of stream at typical place in each riffle - Score = 10 (High Fair) (8) Bank stability - Score = 10 both banks (Excellent); (9) % of banks covered by vegetation = 100 left bank and 5% right bank - Score = 10 left bank (Excellent), 0 right bank (Poor); (10) Estimate of width of riparian zone on both sides (left and right determined facing upstream) = 200 left, and 0 Right - Score = 9 left bank (Excellent) and 0 right bank (Poor) (11) Other characteristics: None measured
Results for Site 1 (.075 miles upstream from confluence): (1) Bottom composition = 0% bedrock, 35% boulder, 20% cobble, 35% gravel, 10% sand, with 0 submerged large woody debris (logs and snags) with no large woody debris present - Score = 12 (Good); (2) Embeddedness (surface area of larger particles-boulder, cobble, or gravel-surrounded or covered by sand or silt) = 35%; Score = 12 (Good) (3) Velocity/Depth combinations = fast-shallow - Score = 14 (Good) (4) Sediment Deposition = slight (5-30% of bottom affected) with no point bar/island enlargement - Score = 19 (Excellent); (5) Channel Flow Status = 15 % of river bottom exposed (not covered with water) - Score = 18 (Excellent) (6) NO Bank Channel Alteration appeared present - Score = 18 (Excellent) (7) Number of Riffles present = 3, % of segment that is riffle = 75%, 1 Run present, Length of riffles not recorded, 2. Width of riffles not recorded, 3. Width of stream at typical place in each riffle not recorded - Score = 19 (Excellent) (8) Bank stability - Score = 10 both banks (Excellent); (9) % of banks covered by vegetation = 100 both - Score = 9 left bank, 10 right bank (Excellent); (10) Estimate of width of riparian zone on both sides (left and right determined facing upstream) = 50left, and 50 Right - Score = 9 left bank (Excellent) and 10 right bank (Excellent) (11) Other characteristics: None recorded

Methodology:

Methodology_Type: Lab
Methodology_Description:: Sample processing: Samples were processed using the methods described in 'Living Waters: Using Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Habitat to Assess Your River's Health. The samples were processed in a lab in 12/2000 by trained and supervised volunteers (Chris Tormeys biology lab at Lamoille Union High School, VT.) Samples were rinsed through a #30 sieve and spread evenly into a plastic tray with a numbered 12 square grid, with about 1/4"" of water. Samples were picked from 3 random squares using a lighted magnifier and forceps. If the process yielded at least 300 organisms, the subsampling stopped. Otherwise, more squares were picked until at least 300 organisms were selected. Once all organisms were picked, the entire tray was inspected for rare taxa that were not picked in the subsample. Unpicked samples were preserved. A quantitative method was used to sample the collections. Organisms were identified to the following taxonomic levels: mollusks to order, worms to class, crustaceans and insects to family. A standard set of metrics was used to assess the condition of the biota: abundance, family richness, percent model affinity of orders, pollution tolerance, and functional feeding group % similarity. The metrics were calculated and scored using the methods described in 'Living Waters' (See above). Refer to 'Living Waters' for interpretation of the results in this dataset.
The findings from the individual sites are compared with the control (reference) site, which is used as benchmark for comparison. It was determined that the control site and restoration site rated similarly in their results. In the summary of similarity, if a stream is found to be >79% similar to the reference stream, then it is in a non-impaired state, reflecting a good population of pollution intolerant organisms and good habitat structure. Site 2 (0.50) rated 100% similarity to the reference site, indicating a relatively healthy stream. Site 3 (0.25) rated 76%, falling into the moderately impaired category (29-79%), indicating a decrease of richness and pollution tolerant organisms. Steve Fiske from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation identified a reference sample of the macroinvertebrates collected and identified in Critter Watch. Steve could find only 54% accuracy in identification of samples. Considering the training that participants received and that identification was only to the family level, we concur that the error was created from poor sample archiving. Strict quality control of sampling procedures and identification were not present in the first phase. This seemed especially true in the oversight of keeping samples in their respective containers for later verification of data. It is the Conservation District’s assumption that upon identifying the samples of macroinvertebrates, the specimens were not returned to the properly marked containers. As a result, Steve Fiske’s (VT DEC) attempts to verify the data were impossible. Protocol, particularly when working with the general public, needs to be more explicit in future phases.

Source_Information:

Source_Citation:

Citation_Information:

Originator: Vermont Center for Geographic Information
Publication_Date: 2003
Title: Vermont Hydrology Dataset
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: map
Other_Citation_Details:: Best available surface water data solicited from a variety of state, regional and local sources, i.e., layers: WaterHydro_SW, SW_nnnn, BCRC\BCSW, CVRPC\CVSW, NFLRI\SW, WaterHydro_DLGLAKE, DLGSWnn.
Online_Linkage: www.vcgi.org see vhd02010005

Source_Scale_Denominator: 5000

Type_of_Source_Media: online

Source_Time_Period_of_Content:

Time_Period_Information:

Single_Date/Time:

Calendar_Date: 2003
Time_of_Day: Unknown

Source_Currentness_Reference: ground condition

Source_Citation_Abbreviation: vhd02010005

Source_Contribution:

Hydrology used to locate point locations measured from distance of confluence of Lamoille River and Foote Brook

Process_Step:

Process_Description:

Data collected in field at three sites (see methods in section 2).

Process_Date: 20000923

Process_Contact:

Contact_Information:

Contact_Organization_Primary:

Contact_Organization: River Network
Contact_Person: Geoff Dates

Contact_Address:

Address_Type: mailing and physical address
Address: 153 State Street
City: Montpelier
State_or_Province: VT
Postal_Code: 05602
Country: USA

Contact_Voice_Telephone: 802.223.3840

Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: 802.436.3033

Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: gdates@rivernetwork.org

Process_Step:

Process_Description: Data analyzed in lab (see methods in section 2).

Process_Date: 200012

Process_Contact:

Contact_Information:

Contact_Organization_Primary:

Contact_Organization: River Network
Contact_Person: Geoff Dates

Contact_Address:

Address_Type: mailing and physical address
Address: 153 State Street
City: Montpelier
State_or_Province: VT
Postal_Code: 05602
Country: USA

Contact_Voice_Telephone: 802.223.3840

Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: 802.436.3033

Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: gdates@rivernetwork.org

Process_Step:

Process_Description: Data summarized -results entered into Excel spreadsheet.

Process_Date: Unknown

Process_Contact:

Contact_Information:

Contact_Organization_Primary:

Contact_Organization:: Lamoille County Natural Resources Conservation District (LCNRCD)

Contact_Position: District Manager

Contact_Address:

Address_Type: mailing and physical address
Address: 109 Professional Drive, Suite 2
City: Morrisville
State_or_Province: VT
Postal_Code: 05661
Country: USA

Contact_Voice_Telephone: (802) 888-9218

Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: lcnature@pwshift.com

Hours_of_Service: M-F; 8am - 4:30pm

Process_Step:

Process_Description:

Points digitized using VHD stream data by measuring along stream distance to locate .25, .5, and .75 miles (distance converted into meters). Attribute columns were created and fields were populated.

Source_Used_Citation_Abbreviation: vhd02010005

Process_Date: 20040220

Process_Contact:

Contact_Information:

Contact_Person_Primary:

Contact_Person: Michelle Gudorf

Contact_Position: GIS/Metadata Contractor

Contact_Address:

Address_Type: mailing and physical address
Address: 4510 East Hill Road
City: Craftsbury
State_or_Province: VT
Postal_Code: 05826
Country: USA

Contact_Voice_Telephone: 802.586.7589

Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: mgudorf@earthlink.net

Cloud_Cover: 0

Spatial_Reference_Information:

Horizontal_Coordinate_System_Definition:

Planar:

Grid_Coordinate_System:

Grid_Coordinate_System_Name: State Plane Coordinate System 1983

State_Plane_Coordinate_System:

SPCS_Zone_Identifier: 4400

Transverse_Mercator:

Scale_Factor_at_Central_Meridian: 0.999964
Longitude_of_Central_Meridian: -72.5
Latitude_of_Projection_Origin: 42.5
False_Easting: 500000
False_Northing: 0

Planar_Coordinate_Information:

Planar_Coordinate_Encoding_Method: Coordinate Pair

Coordinate_Representation:

Abscissa_Resolution: 0.000001
Ordinate_Resolution: 0.000001

Planar_Distance_Units: meters

Geodetic_Model:

Horizontal_Datum_Name: North American Datum of 1983
Ellipsoid_Name: Geodetic Reference System 80
Semi-major_Axis: 6378137
Denominator_of_Flattening_Ratio: 298.257

Entity_and_Attribute_Information:

Detailed_Description:

Entity_Type:

Entity_Type_Label: ESRI software attributes
Entity_Type_Definition: Software assigned attributes
Entity_Type_Definition_Source: ESRI

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: ANGLE

Attribute_Definition: Software assigned attribute

Attribute_Definition_Source: ESRI

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Enumerated_Domain:

Enumerated_Domain_Value: Unknown
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Software assigned attribute
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: ESRI

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: AREA

Attribute_Definition: Software assigned attribute

Attribute_Definition_Source: ESRI

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Enumerated_Domain:

Enumerated_Domain_Value: Unknown
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Defines polygon size (Area)
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: ESRI

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: FID

Attribute_Definition: Internal feature number.

Attribute_Definition_Source: ESRI

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain:: Sequential unique whole numbers that are automatically generated

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: PERIMETER

Attribute_Definition: Software assigned attribute

Attribute_Definition_Source: ESRI

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Enumerated_Domain:

Enumerated_Domain_Value: Unknown
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Defines perimeter length
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: ESRI

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: PHASE1_P_1

Attribute_Definition: Software assigned attribute

Attribute_Definition_Source: ESRI

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Enumerated_Domain:

Enumerated_Domain_Value: Unknown
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: ESRI standard domain
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: ESRI

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: PHASE1_POI

Attribute_Definition: Software assigned attribute

Attribute_Definition_Source: ESRI

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Enumerated_Domain:

Enumerated_Domain_Value: Unknown
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: ESRI standard domain
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: ESRI

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: POLYGONID

Attribute_Definition: Software assigned attribute

Attribute_Definition_Source: ESRI

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Enumerated_Domain:

Enumerated_Domain_Value: Unknown
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: ESRI standard domain
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: ESRI

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: SCALE

Attribute_Definition:

Related to floating point assignment to attribute table and attribute field size

Attribute_Definition_Source: ESRI

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Enumerated_Domain:

Enumerated_Domain_Value: Unknown
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Standard ESRI domain
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: ESRI

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: SHAPE

Attribute_Definition: Feature geometry.

Attribute_Definition_Source: ESRI

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain: Coordinates defining the features.

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Enumerated_Domain:

Enumerated_Domain_Value: Unknown
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Defines file type
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: ESRI

Detailed_Description:

Entity_Type:

Entity_Type_Label: T1 (Table 1)
Entity_Type_Definition:: Metric Table 1 representing 6 metrics that can be calculated if the organisms have been identified to the major group level listed in Living Waters (and listed in Entity T2 (Table 2) for sample units.
Entity_Type_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates 1997)

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T1_BIOINDX

Attribute_Definition:

Major group biotic index (RWN, 1995) is the course estimate of the pollution tolerance of the community based on estimated pollution tolerances of the major groups that make up the aquatic insect community. The index is calculated as follows using tolerance values appropriate to New England (as based on analysis of data from several New England River Watch Programs): 1) Multiply the average density for each major group from the Identification lab sampling sheet, by the tolerance value for that major group (listed in Living Waters, Dates, 1997); 2) Add all of the results for each major group; 3) Divide this number by the total average density (# of organisms picked from the Identification sheet). The result is the Biotic Index.

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain:: Interpretation of results: This should be considered a rough estimate of the pollution tolerance of the community. As organic pollution increases, organisms with low tolerance may disappear from the community. Organisms with high tolerance may increase. That increases the biotic index. These scores are based on pollution tolerance values for the most commonly found families in each major group. Tolerance values should be adjusted for different eco-regions in consultation with state aquatic biologists. See TOTALSCORE and SIMILARITY for final assessment of biotic index scores.

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T1_CONTDOM

Attribute_Definition:

The percent of the sample made up of the most dominant family. It is calculated as follows: 1) Identify the family in the sample with the most organisms picked (average density); 2) Divide the # of organisms picked in this family by the total number picked in the sample. This is the percent contribution of the dominant family.

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain:: Interpretation of results: A sample dominated (>50%) by one family may indicate an environmental impact. Represented as PERCENTAGES.

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T1_EPTRICH

Attribute_Definition:

The number of mayfly(E), stonefly(P), and caddisfly(T) families present. This is an estimate if organisms are only identified to order. EPT family richness is calculated by summing the number of mayfly, stonefly, and caddisfly families in which you found and entered at least one organism found in the 'R' column on the Lab Sheet (including the taxa in the 'Other' column).
Interpretation of results: The orders of Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies) are known to contain many taxa which are sensitive to water quality changes. Generally, the more EPT families, the better the water quality or the better the habitat. However, some pristine headwater streams may be naturally low in richness, due to relative lack of food (quantity and different types) and generally lower abundance of organisms. In these areas, an increase in richness may mean pollution from organic material (from failing septic systems, for example).

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain:: For most sites, there should be more than 10-12 estimated or identified families.

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T1_MODAFFN

Attribute_Definition:

Percent Model Affinity is a measure of the Percent Composition of Selected Majors Groups of your sample to that of a model 'non-impacted' community. The percent composition of the model community was determined by calculating the percent composition of major groups from the data for the major groups found at Site 1, the reference site. Major groups: Ephemeroptera-mayflies, Plecoptera-stoneflies, Trichoptera-caddisflies, Chironomidae-midges, Coleoptera-beetles, Oligochaeta-worms, and Other.
Interpretation of results: This is a percent similarity comparison with a model community. NY State has determined the following guidelines for judging impacts of pollution on the benthic macroinvertebrate community:

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain: Represented as PERCENTAGES

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T1_ORGDENS

Attribute_Definition:

An estimate of the total number of individuals in the sample based on the number of organisms picked from a certain number of squares. Use average densities of families (average number of critters picked). Results are calculated as follows: 1) Calculate the average density for each major group (density for each replicate divided by the number of replicates-here, 3 were used) and sum them to find the total average # of organisms picked; 2) Divide the number of squares picked by the number of squares in the grid to find the percentage of squares picked (e.g. 3/12 = 0.25); 3) Divide the total average of # of organisms picked by the percentage of squares picked. The result is the organisms density per sample.

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain:: Interpretation of results: Density varies considerably from stream to stream. It's best to compare results with a specific reference site. In general, density will increase with the addition of organic matter (which happens naturally in a river system as one moves downstream) and/or improvements in habitat conditions. Density will decrease with siltation, low pH, and toxic substances.

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T1_TOTTAXR

Attribute_Definition:

Total Family Richness (estimated) represents the total number of macroinvertebrate families present. Calculate by summing the number of families in which you found and entered at least one organism on the Lab Sheet (including the taxa in the 'Other' column).

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain:: Interpretation of results: Total family richness is a rough measure of the diversity of the macroinvertebrate community. It responds in much the same way as EPT Richness.

Detailed_Description:

Entity_Type:

Entity_Type_Label: Site location information
Entity_Type_Definition:: Information about the spatial coordinates locating the sampling sites.
Entity_Type_Definition_Source: LCNRCD

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: LOCATION

Attribute_Definition:

Physical location of site upstream from confluence of Lamoille River and Foote Brook.

Attribute_Definition_Source: LCNRCD

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain:: Miles upstream from confluence (measured in meters in this dataset)

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: SITE_NUMBER

Attribute_Definition:

Sampling site number assigned by field personnel based on location upstream from confluence of Lamoille River and Foote Brook.

Attribute_Definition_Source: LCNRCD

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Enumerated_Domain:

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 1
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition:: Site located 0.75 miles upstream from confluence of Lamoille River and Foote Brook. This is the reference site as it is upstream from the impact site where river restoration will occur.
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: LCNRCD

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Enumerated_Domain:

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 2
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition:: Site located 0.50 miles upstream from confluence of Lamoille River and Foote Brook. This is the impact site where river restoration will occur.
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: LCNRCD

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Enumerated_Domain:

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 3
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition:: Site located 0.25 miles upstream from confluence of Lamoille River and Foote Brook. This is the recovery site as it is downstream from the impact site where river restoration will occur.
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: LCNRCD

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: SITEDESCRI

Attribute_Definition: Description of site relating to study

Attribute_Definition_Source: LCNRCD

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain:: Reference Site is located upstream from the proposed impact (streambank restoration), the Impact site is located within the proposed impact site, and the Recovery Site is located downstream from the proposed impact.

Detailed_Description:

Entity_Type:

Entity_Type_Label: T2
Entity_Type_Definition:: Table 2: The Percent Composition of Major Groups. Values show PERCENTAGES of organisms presence in 12-grid samples from each site.
Entity_Type_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T2-OLIGOCH

Attribute_Definition: Oligochaeta (Worms)

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain: Represented as a percentage

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T2_AMPHIPO

Attribute_Definition: Amphipoda (scuds)

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain: Represented as a percentage

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T2_CHIRONO

Attribute_Definition: Chironomidae (Midges)

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain: Represented as a percentage

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T2_COLEOPT

Attribute_Definition: Coleoptera (Beetles)

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain: Represented as a percentage

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T2_EPHEMER

Attribute_Definition: Ephemeroptera (Mayflies)

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain: Represented as a percentage

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T2_GASTROP

Attribute_Definition: Gastropoda

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain: Represented as a percentage

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T2_ISOPODA

Attribute_Definition: Isopoda

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain: Represented as a percentage

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T2_LEPIDOP

Attribute_Definition: Lepidoptera (Moths)

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain: Represented as a percentage

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T2_MEGALOP

Attribute_Definition: Megaloptera (Dobsonflies, alderflies, fishflies)

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain: Represented as a percentage

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T2_ODONATA

Attribute_Definition: Odonata (Dragonflies)

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain: Represented as a percentage

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T2_OTHDIPT

Attribute_Definition: Other Diptera (true flies)

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain: Represented as a percentage

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T2_PELECYP

Attribute_Definition: Pelecypoda

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain: Represented as a percentage

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T2_PLECOPT

Attribute_Definition: Plecoptera (Stoneflies)

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain: Represented as a percentage

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T2_TRICHOP

Attribute_Definition: Trichoptera (Caddisflies)

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain: Represented as a percentage

Detailed_Description:

Entity_Type:

Entity_Type_Label: T4
Entity_Type_Definition:: Table 4: Percent composition of Functional Feeding Groups. The percent composition of scrapers, predators, gathering collectors, filtering collectors, and shredders from a site. These numbers are also used to calculate two additional metrics: Percent Composition of Shredders and the Ratio of Scrapers to Filtering Collectors. Calculated as follows: 1) Identify the functional feeding group for each family using the groups named on the lab sheet; 2) Add the average densities (average number of organisms picked in each family) for all families in each functional feeding group; 3) To calculate the percent composition for each functional feeding group, apply the following formula: average density of each feeding group/total average density of sample.
Interpretation of results: Functional feeding groups are useful in determining the food sources in a river. Since human activities affect these food sources, the functional feeding groups present can indicate impacts. For example, if all functional feeding groups are well-represented this indicates a diversity of food sources--fine particulate organic matter in the water column, growth of small algal communities on rocks, course particulate organic on the bottom, etc. If collectors dominate, it may indicate an overload of organic material in the water column or settled on the river bottom. If filtering collectors dominate, it means that this material is fine particles--well decomposed sewage, manure, or processed coarser material from upstream. If gathering collectors dominate, it could mean that poorly decomposed sewage or animal manure or other organic material from upstream is deposited on the bottom.
In natural river systems, the composition of the functional feeding groups shifts from upstream to downstream. Shredders and gathering collectors will be well-represented upstream. In the mid-reaches, grazers, gathering collectors, and filtering collectors will predominate. In larger rivers, the community may be almost entirely filtering collectors. It's important to bear this natural shift in mind when interpreting the results.
Entity_Type_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T4_FILTCOL

Attribute_Definition: Filtering collectors

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain: Represented as a percentage

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T4_GATHCOL

Attribute_Definition: Gathering Collectors

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain: Represented as a percentage

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T4_PREDATO

Attribute_Definition: Predators

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain: Represented as a percentage

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T4_SCRAPER

Attribute_Definition:

Scrapers- animals in hard shell (e.g. limpets, snails, clams or mussels)

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain: Represented as a percentage

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T4_SHREDDE

Attribute_Definition: Shredders - Sow bug or shrimp-like animals

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain: Represented as a percentage

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T4_UNKNOWN

Attribute_Definition: Unknown type

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain: Represented as a percentage

Detailed_Description:

Entity_Type:

Entity_Type_Label: T5
Entity_Type_Definition:: Table 5: Table 5 is a summary of the metrics from Tables 1, 2, and 4 that will be used to calculate Tables 6 and 7. This is a summary of Metrics used to calculate the percent similarity to reference site. This is a data interpretation technique which quantifies a comparison of results at study sites with those of a reference site or condition. The results for selected metrics are compared with the results from a reference site. These metrics were selected based on their ability to describe and integrate different characteristics of the community. For each metric at the impact site and recovery site, the % similarity to the results for the reference site is calculated (Table 6). Each metric is then assigned a score according to this % similarity (Table 7). The scores are totaled into a biosurvey score. This score is compared (% similarity) to the total scores for the reference site. The % similarity is an assessment of non-impaired, 'moderately impaired' or 'severely impaired'.
Note:Table 6 will continue this process of calculating the summary of metrics. Table 7 will provide the scoring.
Entity_Type_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T5_BIOINDX

Attribute_Definition:

Biotic Index. Major group biotic index (RWN, 1995) is the course estimate of the pollution tolerance of the community based on estimated pollution tolerances of the major groups that make up the aquatic insect community. The index is calculated as follows using tolerance values appropriate to New England (as based on analysis of data from several New England River Watch Programs): 1) Multiply the average density for each major group from the Identification lab sampling sheet, by the tolerance value for that major group (listed in Living Waters, Dates, 1997); 2) Add all of the results for each major group; 3) Divide this number by the total average density (# of organisms picked from the Identification sheet). The result is the Biotic Index.
0-3.75 = No Impairment 3.76-6.50 = Moderate Impairment

6.5 = Severe Impairment

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain:: Interpretation of results: This should be considered a rough estimate of the pollution tolerance of the community. As organic pollution increases, organisms with low tolerance may disappear from the community. Organisms with high tolerance may increase. That increases the biotic index. These scores are based on pollution tolerance values for the most commonly found families in each major group. Tolerance values should be adjusted for different eco-regions in consultation with state aquatic biologists. See TOTALSCORE and SIMILARITY for final assessment of biotic index scores.

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T5_COMPSHR

Attribute_Definition:

Percent composition of shredders. Percent composition of shredders (from the percent composition of functional feeding groups (Table 4).

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain:: Interpretation of results: Functional feeding groups are useful in determining the food sources in a river. Since human activities affect these food sources, the functional feeding groups present can indicate impacts. For example, if all functional feeding groups are well-represented this indicates a diversity of food sources--fine particulate organic matter in the water column, growth of small algal communities on rocks, course particulate organic on the bottom, etc. If collectors dominate, it may indicate an overload of organic material in the water column or settled on the river bottom. If filtering collectors dominate, it means that this material is fine particles--well decomposed sewage, manure, or processed coarser material from upstream. If gathering collectors dominate, it could mean that poorly decomposed sewage or animal manure or other organic material from upstream is deposited on the bottom.
In natural river systems, the composition of the functional feeding groups shifts from upstream to downstream. Shredders and gathering collectors will be well-represented upstream. In the mid-reaches, grazers, gathering collectors, and filtering collectors will predominate. In larger rivers, the community may be almost entirely filtering collectors. It's important to bear this natural shift in mind when interpreting the results. Value is a PERCENTAGE.

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T5_CONTDOM

Attribute_Definition:

Percent contribution of dominant family. The percent of the sample made up of the most dominant family. It is calculated as follows: 1) Identify the family in the sample with the most organisms picked (average density); 2) Divide the # of organisms picked in this family by the total number picked in the sample. This is the percent contribution of the dominant family.

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain:: Interpretation of results: A sample dominated (>50%) by one family may indicate an environmental impact. Values represented as PERCENTAGES.

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T5_EPTRICH

Attribute_Definition:

EPT Richness. The number of mayfly(E), stonefly(P), and caddisfly(T) families present. This is an estimate if organisms are only identified to order. EPT family richness is calculated by summing the number of mayfly, stonefly, and caddisfly families in which you found and entered at least one organism found in the 'R' column on the Lab Sheet (including the taxa in the 'Other' column).
Interpretation of results: The orders of Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies) are known to contain many taxa which are sensitive to water quality changes. Generally, the more EPT families, the better the water quality or the better the habitat. However, some pristine headwater streams may be naturally low in richness, due to relative lack of food (quantity and different types) and generally lower abundance of organisms. In these areas, an increase in richness may mean pollution from organic material (from failing septic systems, for example).

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain:: For most sites, there should be more than 10-12 estimated or identified families.

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T5_SCR_FIL

Attribute_Definition:

Ratio of Scrapers / Filtering collectors (from the % composition of functional feeding groups (Table 4).

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain:: Interpretation of results: Functional feeding groups are useful in determining the food sources in a river. Since human activities affect these food sources, the functional feeding groups present can indicate impacts. For example, if all functional feeding groups are well-represented this indicates a diversity of food sources--fine particulate organic matter in the water column, growth of small algal communities on rocks, course particulate organic on the bottom, etc. If collectors dominate, it may indicate an overload of organic material in the water column or settled on the river bottom. If filtering collectors dominate, it means that this material is fine particles--well decomposed sewage, manure, or processed coarser material from upstream. If gathering collectors dominate, it could mean that poorly decomposed sewage or animal manure or other organic material from upstream is deposited on the bottom.
In natural river systems, the composition of the functional feeding groups shifts from upstream to downstream. Shredders and gathering collectors will be well-represented upstream. In the mid-reaches, grazers, gathering collectors, and filtering collectors will predominate. In larger rivers, the community may be almost entirely filtering collectors. It's important to bear this natural shift in mind when interpreting the results. Value is a PERCENTAGE.

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T5_TOTTAXR

Attribute_Definition:

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain:: Interpretation of results: Total family richness is a rough measure of the diversity of the macroinvertebrate community. It responds in much the same way as EPT Richness.

Detailed_Description:

Entity_Type:

Entity_Type_Label: T6
Entity_Type_Definition:: Table 6: Percent Similarity for Each Metric (various comparisons of results with reference site ).
Summary of Metrics used to calculate the percent similarity to reference site (Table 5). This is a data interpretation technique which quantifies a comparison of results at study sites with those of a reference site or condition. The results for selected metrics are compared with the results from a reference site. These metrics were selected based on their ability to describe and integrate different characteristics of the community. For each metric at the impact site and recovery site, the % similarity to the results for the reference site is calculated (Table 6). Each metric is then assigned a score according to this % similarity (Table 7). The scores are totaled into a biosurvey score. This score is compared (% similarity) to the total scores for the reference site. The % similarity is an assessment of non-impaired, 'moderately impaired' or 'severely impaired'.
The procedure is as follows: 1) Calculate % similarity to reference site for each of the following metrics: Total Family Richness, EPT Richness, % Composition of Shredders, Ratio of Scrapers/Filtering Collectors. Use the following formula:
Result of each metric for sample site divided by / Result of each metric for reference site
2) Calculate % similarity to reference site for the family biotic index. Use the following formula:
Family biotic index for reference site divided by /Family biotic index for sample site
3) The values for the % dominance and the Community Similarity Index are applied directly.
NOTE: Table 7 will provide the scoring of these percentages.
Entity_Type_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T6_BIOINDX

Attribute_Definition:

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain: PERCENT similarity for this metric compared with reference site

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T6_COMPSHR

Attribute_Definition:

Composition of shredders. Percent composition of shredders (from the percent composition of functional feeding groups (Table 4).

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain: PERCENT similarity for this metric compared with reference site

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T6_CONTDOM

Attribute_Definition:

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain: PERCENT similarity for this metric compared with reference site

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T6_EPTRICH

Attribute_Definition:

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain: PERCENT similarity for this metric compared with reference site

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T6_SCR_FIL

Attribute_Definition:

Ratio of Scrapers / Filtering collectors (from the % composition of functional feeding groups (Table 4).

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain: PERCENT similarity for this metric compared with reference site

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T6_TOTTAXR

Attribute_Definition:

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain: PERCENT similarity for this metric compared with reference site

Detailed_Description:

Entity_Type:

Entity_Type_Label: T7
Entity_Type_Definition:: Table 7: Scoring of Percent Similarity to Reference Site. Summary of Metrics used to calculate the percent similarity to reference site (Table 5). This is a data interpretation technique which quantifies a comparison of results at study sites with those of a reference site or condition. The results for selected metrics are compared with the results from a reference site. These metrics were selected based on their ability to describe and integrate different characteristics of the community. For each metric at the impact site and recovery site, the % similarity to the results for the reference site is calculated (Table 6). Each metric is then assigned a score according to this % similarity (Table 7). The scores are totaled into a biosurvey score. This score is compared (% similarity) to the total scores for the reference site. The % similarity is an assessment of non-impaired, 'moderately impaired' or 'severely impaired'.
Entity_Type_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: SIMILARITY

Attribute_Definition:

Overall Percent Similarity to Reference Site. This percentage is found by dividing the total score for the reference site (site #1) by the score of the study sites (sites 2 and 3). Scores found in column ""TOTALSCORE"" .

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain:

Results are interpreted as follows:

70% = Non-Impaired:  Comparable to the best situation expected within an ecoregion.  Good representation of pollution intolerant organisms.  Optimum community structure compared with reference site.

29-72% = Moderately Impaired: Partly comparable to the best situation expected within an ecoregion. Community structure shows decrease in richness and pollution intolerant organisms.
<21% = Severely Impaired. Not comparable to the best situation expected within an ecoregion. Low richness, dominated by few families.

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T7_BIOINDX

Attribute_Definition:

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Enumerated_Domain:

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 1
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Score of 1 if entry from Table 6 is <50%
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Enumerated_Domain:

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 3
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Score of 3 if entry from Table 6 is 50-85%
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Enumerated_Domain:

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 6
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Score of 6 if entry from Table 6 is >85%
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T7_COMPSHR

Attribute_Definition:

Composition of shredders. Number is scored based on the percent similarity value listed in Table 6.

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Enumerated_Domain:

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 1
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Score of 1 if entry from Table 6 is <25%
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Enumerated_Domain:

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 3
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Score of 3 if entry from Table 6 is 25-50%
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Enumerated_Domain:

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 6
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Score of 6 if entry from Table 6 is >50%
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T7_CONTDOM

Attribute_Definition:

Percent contribution of dominant family. The percent of the sample made up of the most dominant family. Number is scored based on the percent similarity value listed in Table 6.

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Enumerated_Domain:

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 1
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Score of 1 if entry from Table 6 is >50%
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Enumerated_Domain:

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 3
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Score of 3 if entry from Table 6 is 30-50%
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Enumerated_Domain:

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 6
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Score of 6 if entry from Table 6 is <30%
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T7_EPTRICH

Attribute_Definition:

EPT Richness. The number of mayfly(E), stonefly(P), and caddisfly(T) families present. Number is scored based on the percent similarity value listed in Table 6.

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Enumerated_Domain:

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 1
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Score of 1 if entry from Table 6 is <70%
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Enumerated_Domain:

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 3
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Score of 3 if entry from Table 6 is 70-90%
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Enumerated_Domain:

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 6
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Score of 6 if entry from Table 6 is >90%
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T7_SCR_FIL

Attribute_Definition:

Ratio of Scrapers / Filtering collectors. Number is scored based on the percent similarity value listed in Table 6.

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Enumerated_Domain:

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 1
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Score of 1 if entry from Table 6 is <25%
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Enumerated_Domain:

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 3
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Score of 3 if entry from Table 6 is 25-50%
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Enumerated_Domain:

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 6
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Score of 6 if entry from Table 6 is >50%
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: T7_TOTTAXR

Attribute_Definition:

Score of Total Family Richness (estimated) represents the total number of macroinvertebrate families present. Number is scored based on the percent similarity value listed in Table 6.

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Enumerated_Domain:

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 1
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Score of 1 if entry from Table 6 is <40%
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Enumerated_Domain:

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 3
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Score of 3 if entry from Table 6 is 40-80%
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Enumerated_Domain:

Enumerated_Domain_Value: 6
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Score of 6 if entry from Table 6 is >80%
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute:

Attribute_Label: TOTALSCORE

Attribute_Definition: A sum of the scores for each metric in Table 7

Attribute_Definition_Source: Living Waters (Dates, 1997)

Attribute_Domain_Values:

Unrepresentable_Domain:: Sum of the scores- this information will be used to score overall percent similarity to reference site in column ""SIMILARITY"

Distribution_Information:

Distributor:

Contact_Information:

Contact_Organization_Primary:

Contact_Organization: VT Center for Geographic Information

Contact_Address:

Address_Type: mailing and physical address
Address: 58 South Main Street, Suite 2
City: Waterbury
State_or_Province: VT
Postal_Code: 05676
Country: USA

Contact_Voice_Telephone: (802)882-3000

Contact_TDD/TTY_Telephone: None

Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: (802)882-3001

Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: info@vcgi.org

Hours_of_Service: 9am - 5pm, M-F

Resource_Description: EcologicFauna_FOOTEBRKPH1

Distribution_Liability:

VCGI and the State of Vermont make no representations of any kind, including but not limited to the warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular use, nor are any such warranties to be implied with respect to the data.

Standard_Order_Process:

Digital_Form:

Digital_Transfer_Information:

Format_Name: ARCE

Format_Specification: ArcInfo Export file

ASCII_File_Structure:

Case_Sensitive: true

Format_Information_Content: ArcInfo Export File (WinZip self extracting format)

File_Decompression_Technique: WinZIP

Digital_Transfer_Option:

Online_Option:

Computer_Contact_Information:

Network_Address:

Network_Resource_Name:: <http://www.vcgi.org/dataware/default.cfm?layer=EcologicFauna_FOOTEBRKPH1>

Access_Instructions: Download from web site.

Fees:

No charge when downloading from the internet, and when no custom processing is required.

Ordering_Instructions:

Download from web site or mail-fax a copy of the VCGI 'Data Request Form' which //www.vcgi.org/dataware/order_forms

Turnaround: About 5 days.

Custom_Order_Process:

Mail or Fax a copy of the VCGI 'Data Request Form' which is available from <http://www.vcgi.org/dataware/order_forms>

Technical_Prerequisites: ESRI Arc/Info, ArcView, or ArcExplorer software.

Available_Time_Period:

Time_Period_Information:

Single_Date/Time:

Calendar_Date: 20000923
Time_of_Day: Unknown

Metadata_Reference_Information:

Metadata_Date: 20040301

Metadata_Review_Date:

Metadata_Future_Review_Date:

Metadata_Contact:

Contact_Information:

Contact_Person_Primary:

Contact_Person: Michelle Gudorf

Contact_Position: GIS/Metadata Contractor

Contact_Address:

Address_Type: mailing and physical address
Address: 4510 East Hill Road
City: Craftsbury
State_or_Province: VT
Postal_Code: 05826
Country: USA

Contact_Voice_Telephone: 802.586.7589

Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: mgudorf@earthlink.net

Metadata_Standard_Name:

Content Standard for National Biological Information Infrastructure Metadata

Metadata_Access_Constraints: none

Metadata_Use_Constraints: none

Generated by mp version 2.9.5 on Wed May 13 13:47:09 2009