When you connect to the NBII Metadata Clearinghouse you will be able to search through metadata-based descriptions of biological data sets and information products from many different sources to identify those that meet your particular search criteria.
The NBII Metadata Clearinghouse: http://metadata.nbii.gov/
The NBII Home Page: http://www.nbii.gov/
Powered by Mercury
Because of the well known problems of the river, Foote Brook was identified as a restoration implementation site to be funded as part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Project Impact Initiative. This data is part of a post-restoration monitoring phase in order to assess the success of the fairly new bioengineering techniques used in this project. In order to assess changes to the project area over a period of time, permanent photographic stations were established along the river. These photo stations are documented by Michael S. Adams of the Army Corps of Engineers on the site plans. Pre-restoration photos were taken by Mr. Adams prior to construction in 2001. These photos, titled 'Army Corps of Engineers Pre-Restoration Photo Inventory (2001) of the Foote Brooke in Johnson, VT' can be found zipped with this dataset. The first year of post-monitoring photos were taken on September 19 and 20, 2002 and the second year of post-monitoring photos were taken in September 29, 2003. These restoration photos are included in the 'Photo inventory of the Post-Monitoring (2002-2003) of the Foote Brook Natural Channel Design Restoration Project in Johnson, Vermont' zipped with this dataset (see Metadata Section 6 - Distribution for download information). Data results are published in the spatial dataset titled 'Post Monitoring (2003) of the Foote Brook Natural Channel Design Restoration Project in Johnson, Vermont' (see Cross Reference for this metadata citation and information about data download).
Prior to the implementation of this project, funding was secured to conduct aquatic insect pre and post restoration biomonitoring in order to monitor the biotic health of the stream. These results are documented in Phase I and Phase 2 of the Foote Brook Macroinvertebrate Biomonitoring project (see Cross Reference for this metadata citation and information about data download).
NOTE that this metadata was generated using the NBII Biological Profile and includes information about methods in Section 2 that will be lost if imported into a metadata software that doesn't recognize the biological fields (i.e. ArcCatalog).
For overlay stream (hydrology) information relative to this dataset, use the shapefile titled 'Lamoille River/Foote Brook Confluence, Lamoille County, Vermont' (see Cross Reference for this metadata citation and information about data download).
For information about the Foote Brook Macroinvertebrate Biomonitoring program monitoring the biotic health of the stream both pre and post restoration, see metadata and associated shapefiles titled 'Foote Brook Macroinvertebrate Biomonitoring-Phase I, Johnson, Vermont', and 'Foote Brook Macroinvertebrate Biomonitoring-Phase 2, Johnson, Vermont' (see Cross Reference for this metadata citation and information about data download).
For information about the restoration of streams (channel design) throughout Lamoille County, Vermont, see metadata titled 'Lamoille County River Restoration Data', and it's associated shapefile (see Cross Reference for this metadata citation).
NOTE that this metadata was generated using the NBII Biological Profile and includes information about methods in Section 2 that will be lost if imported into a metadata software that doesn't recognize the biological fields (i.e. ArcCatalog).
(previous geoform was 'map')
NOTE that this metadata was generated using the NBII Biological Profile and includes information about methods in Section 2 that will be lost if imported into a metadata software that doesn't recognize the biological fields (i.e. ArcCatalog).
Project Team:
Federal Agencies: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA-Project Impact), US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, Lake Champlain Basin Project
State Agencies: Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), VT Department of Fish and Wildlife, VT Agency of Transportation
Community: Lamoille County Planning Commission (LCPC), Lamoille County Natural Resources Conservation District (LCNRCD), Town of Johnson, Central Vermont Public Service (CVPS), Private Landowners
"CERTIFIED" NHD DATA: Transport reaches are defined on nearly all features of type: stream/river, canal/ditch, artificial path, pipeline, and connector. Water body reaches are defined on the subset of lake/pond features identified as water bodies. Geographic names, where present, were carried over from both 1:24k DLG hydrography data and from the best available source data. Near the international boundaries with Canada, only the parts of features within the United States are delineated. Detailed capture conditions are provided for every feature type in the Standards for NHD (USGS, 1999), available online through <http://mapping.usgs.gov/standards/.>
This dataset does not claim to include all potential or conducted river restoration sites in Lamoille County, VT.
1) Personnel other than the original editor conducted accuracy analysis, 2) The best "independent source of higher accuracy" available is the RF 5000 scale Vermont Mapping Program digital orthophotos on which the original editing is based, and 3) Potential errors were deemed to be random, thus test points were dispersed across the entire extent of the data. OVERVIEW - Twenty random "check" points were generated along the finalized surface water drainage network and compared against their actual "test" points on the ground that were visible using the RF 5,000 scale digital orthophotos. Horizontal accuracy was assessed by conducting the following steps in ArcView® for each sub basin: 1) The finalized surface water data was assessed to ensure that a single route represented the entire 8 digit cataloging unit (sub basin). If one didn't exist then it was created. 2) Using the ArcView® extension "randpts.avx", a user extension created by Jeff Jenness, a Wildlife Biologist and GIS Analyst with the US Forest Service at the Rocky Mountain Research Station in Flagstaff, AZ, 20 random points were generated as "check" points. This extension is available from the ESRI Arc Scripts website. 3) The "check" points and surface water data were overlaid upon the RF 5000 scale digital orthophotos to assess "check” points with their true locations, i.e., "test" points. Test point locations were stored in a separate point theme. A "key" field was maintained between these data sets. In some locations it was not possible to determine a "test" point with a high level of confidence so the "check" point was moved to the closest location along the same linear feature where a "test" location could be adequately determined on the orthophoto. Check points included any combination of the following features: A) Confluences of one dimensional streams "1d" or single line streams); B) Confluences of two dimensional streams ("2d" or double line streams represented as polygons); C) Polygonal lake and pond features; and D) Distinct island features. 4) Using the ArcView® sample script "addxycoo.ave", X,Y coordinates were added to the features tables of both the "check and "test" point attribute tables. These were then exported to comma delimited text files. 5) Using an Excel spreadsheet, created by the Minnesota Planning Land Management Information Center in a publication titled the "Positional Accuracy Handbook: Using the National Standard for Spatial Data Accuracy to measure and report geographic data quality " (http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/press/accurate.html), the delimited files were imported. This spreadsheet contains all formulas necessary to generate the NSSDA statistic representing average horizontal positional accuracy. Source data for each sub basin is a composite of surface water data from different sources created using varying methodologies by numerous entities. Therefore, reported accuracy values are reported for this composite data. Features in this data are believed to be of uniform positional accuracy. Accuracy value does not take into account the horizontal positional accuracy of the source digital orthophotos, on which the data is based.
During the fall of 2001, tree revetments, willow wattles and brush blankets were installed from the harvest of dormant willows. The following are notes taken by Chris Smith/Eric Derleth from the fall 2001 site inspections:
275 ft. of willow wattles (est. area 275 sq.ft. = 31 sq. yd)
400 ft. of tree revetments
180 ft. x 2 ft. of willow stakes = 360 sq. ft. = 40 sq. yd
95 ft. x 20 ft. of willow stakes = 1900 sq. ft. = 211 sq. yd
25 ft. x 8 ft. of willow brush mat = 200 sq. ft. = 22 sq. yd.
Tree revetments: revetment trees appeared correctly installed (no gaps and tight to the bank) with duckbills and 3/16 inch cable. Height of upper row appeared to be at or near bankfull elevation. Revetments were constructed of either single or double rows of trees.
Willow wattles: wattles found to be correctly installed.
Willow stakes: Live stakes on both sites were found to be installed at a spacing of 3-4 feet, not the 2-3 feet that Peter stated he was shooting for. Depths of stakes ranged from 6 inches to over a foot. It is expected that live stakes that are less than a foot will undergo significant mortality next summer especially if it is dry.
All of the vegetation planted during the fall of 2001 also appeared to be in good to excellent health, with the exception of a few patches where willows did not bud.
The Lamoille County Natural Resources Conservation District (LCNRCD) coordinated the ordering of the vegetative plantings and was responsible for the completion of the spring plantings. The goal of the planted riparian area was to provide bank stability, in turn decreasing erosion. The area would provide food and shade for aquatic life and wildlife. The area would also capture sediment and nutrients from surface water runoff. The riparian plantings were conducted in the spring of 2002 by Jim Smith; a stream restoration contractor with significant experience in riparian plantings. A variation of large trees and small trees and shrubs were planted at the site. The large trees were supplied by the Gary Drinkwater Nursery in Hardwick, Vermont. He supplied us with trees ranging from 11-15’ in height and 1-2" caliper. The large trees consisted of: red maple, sugar maple, white ash, white birch and gray birch. The small trees consisted of: swamp white oak, red oak, silver maple, red maple, white ash, black cherry, silky dogwood, highbush cranberry, and serviceberry. Each tree and shrub had a burlap brush blanket in order to keep weed growth down around the base of the plantings. The large trees also had a plastic tree guard surrounding their trunk in order to discourage girdling. A total of 50 large trees and 100 small trees and shrubs were planted in the spring of 2002. The project team also spent the spring of 2002 installing willow wattles for bank stabilization and trees and shrubs for riparian buffers. Both Stream-Co and native willows were used on the Foote Brook site for a total of 800 linear feet. All plantings were completed by the first week of June 2002.
The project site was visited on September 19th and 20th, 2002 in order to assess the health and survival of the planted stock and document recommendations for additional planting or repair.
Stations are measured on the ground in feet from the beginning of the restoration section upstream to the end of the restoration section. For example, station 28+00 equates to 2800 feet from the beginning of the section. Station 31+16 equates to 3116 feet from the beginning of the restoration section. NOTE, however, that the measurement units are in meters for the spatial dataset. Photographs were taken of the eight stations and can be found zipped with the spatial dataset located at the spatial download site (see Metadata Section 6 - Distribution).
Upstream section, Stations 28+00 to 31+16:
On the upper bank at Station 31+00, there were 2 large and 4 small trees planted to increase the area of the riparian buffer. These trees were in excellent condition, showing good growth. There is a significant amount of Japanese knotweed growing on the left bank at approximately Station 31+00, demonstrating possible competition between the invasive and newly planted vegetation. The access area at Station 30+50 had been planted with live stakes and a few small trees and willows, which were planted in the fall of 2001. The live stakes were in good to excellent condition. The willows closest to the stream were in fair condition, with spotty survival. The trees and shrubs were free of any disease or insect infestation. There was also no evidence of wildlife damage to the plantings. The plantings appeared to be stable and hardy. The willows also were in excellent health.
Rows of willow wattles were planted in the fall of 2001 on the upper right bank from Stations 31+00 to 29+20. The gravel bar on this side has been quite active; therefore some of the willows may have been covered or moved. There are a couple of willow patches growing on the upstream end of the gravel bar.
Middle section, Stations 26+60 to 23+33:
There was 100% survival of the large trees and approximately 90% survival of the small trees and shrubs. The trees and shrubs were free of any disease or insect infestation. There was also no evidence of wildlife damage to the plantings. The plantings appeared to be stable and hardy.
Horner Property section, Stations 22+01 to 20+50:
A combination of tree revetments and willow wattles were installed in this section in the summer of 2001 to protect the exposed bank from further erosion. Another upper row of willows was installed in the spring of 2002. This stream section was abandoned following the flood of June 2002. The channel avulsed following the flood, drying up the former channel and depositing a significant amount of fine sediment in that section. The willows planted in the spring of 2002 have partially dried up, but the willows from fall 2001 are growing well. During the spring of 2002, the riparian area from 22+00 to 20+50 was planted with 27 trees and shrubs. A total of 16 small trees were planted consisting of swamp white oak, red oak, red maple, silver maple, white ash, black cherry, silky dogwood, high bush cranberry, and serviceberry. The 11 large trees consisted of red maple, sugar maple, and white ash. There was 100% survival of the large trees and approximately 80% survival of the small trees and shrubs. The trees and shrubs were free of any disease or insect infestation. There was also no evidence of wildlife damage to the plantings, although the landowners dog was tethered with access to the buffer and was moved beyond the area. The plantings appeared to be stable and hardy.
Downstream section, Stations 18+35 to 16+75:
Four rows of willows were planted above the riprap in the spring of 2002. There is excellent survival and growth in the willows. The riparian area was planted with trees and shrubs during the spring of 2002. There was 100% survival of the large trees and approximately 80% survival of the small trees and shrubs. The trees and shrubs were free of any disease or insect infestation. There was also no evidence of wildlife damage to the plantings. The plantings appeared to be stable and hardy.
STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT:
Several assessments of the condition and performance of the structures occurred during the monitoring year. Below is a list of installed practices and performance evaluations.
a. Placement of a rock vane at Station 30+86. This section had originally been designed for a stone refusal (tieback). It was redesigned to include the rock vane. This involved the placement of 5 cy of rock fill below OHW. The purpose of this vane was to slow bank velocities and encourage deposition along the left bank. It has appropriately slowed velocities along the bank, but little sediment deposition has occurred on the left bank.
b. Place riprap along 125 linear ft. of the left bank from Stations 29+50-30+68 without plan form relocation. This involved the placement of 94 cy of rock fill below OHW. A total of 144 feet of rock riprap was placed on the left bank and a total of 55 feet of rock riprap was placed bordering VT Route 15 bridge. Plan modifications specified 125 feet along bank and to blend road bulk toe to stream bulk toe. Design was modified to install bulk toe riprap at toe of road embankment. The stone was designed to protect the bank from erosion and the VT Route 15 bridge. This is being accomplished, although channel flows are now flowing directly at the road embankment.
c. Installation of double row tree revetment stabilization with stone refusal (tiebacks) from Station 20+40-22+00. This practice performed well for bank stabilization, although now flows have abandoned this channel section.
d. Placement of riprap and log structures along 200 linear feet of streambank from Station 16+50•18+35. This section had originally been designed for placement of tree revetments, but was redesigned with the rock. This involved the placement of about 95 cy of rock fill below OHW. This was designed to slow velocities along the bank. Because of the blow out of the log vanes, velocities have not slowed against the bank, although the riprap is stabilizing the bank from further erosion.
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE:
Before willows were installed at the most downstream section, the bank was sloped back in order to better install the willows. Dave Skinas, the USDA NRCS Archaeologist, came out to the site in order to authorize excavation (sloping). The bank above the riprap was sloped back at a 2:1 slope.
Following two big storm events, one in April 2002 (15th - 19th) and the other on June 17th, 2002, assessments were conducted to see how the structures held up following high water.
Following the April 2002 event, flows in the upstream section above the Route 15 bridge were within the planned channel. Following the June event, flows were now directed at the road embankment (toe of the riprap) and had shifted significantly to the left.
The stream abandoned the meander section bordering the Horner property following the June storm event. The channel avulsed at Station 23+00 following this flood. Prior to construction, this avulsion was blocked with a significant amount of woody debris. During construction, logs were taken from the log jam and installed as the downstream log veins. Although it was believed that this avulsion was very likely, the removal of some of the woody debris may have allowed for this avulsion to occur sooner.
The log vanes at the most downstream section were also blown out. The most downstream log vane was still present following the April storm event, but had moved so it was pointed downstream instead of upstream. We believe this occurrence was due to the fact that the log vanes were not anchored into the bank, but were only anchored into the riprap. The log vanes were not anchored into the bank because the lack of an archaeological inspection. This section of the site was not inspected because tree revetments were originally supposed to be installed at this specific reach. Because one of the log vanes was pulled out, it also destabilized some of the riprap and therefore a section of the rock was blown out.
FISHERIES:
The Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife conducted fish population surveys in Foote Brook in the area of Route 15 in 1995 and 2000. The 2000 survey was done specifically to provide background data with which to evaluate the channel restoration project. It was stated by the biologist that Foote Brook is a high quality brook with significant natural reproduction of rainbow, brown and brook trout. Follow up analysis will determine the effects of the natural channel restoration project of fish populations.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It should be noted that one of the riparian landowners, Camille Lehouillier, wished to extract gravel from the stream during the summer of 2002. There is a gravel removal exemption in the Vermont statutes saying that riparian landowners are allowed to take 50 cubic yards of gravel out of the stream. Because we had the necessary funds, the project team worked with the landowner so that he would buy the gravel this year and we would reimburse him. By purchasing the gravel rather than extracting it from the stream, we will be able to better determine the effectiveness of the restoration practices using bioengineering techniques. In the next year, gravel removal may be a good option for the restoration area.
The project team will be meeting during the winter 02/03 to discuss the structural integrity and complexities of the site.
The riparian vegetation has established itself extremely well. There is no recommendation for additional planting in the spring of 2003 at this time.
Cross sections were developed from the 3-dimensional ground survey and were linked to the river stationing indicated on the base map. The cross sections along with other appropriate data (roughness coefficients, expansion and contraction losses, etc) were coded into the HEC-RAS and an existing condition hydraulic model was developed. The model computes appropriate hydraulic information such as water surface profiles, channel velocities, shear values along the edge of a bank, critical depth locations, hydraulic jumps, and other appropriate information necessary for the use in design of the river stabilization improvements.
Following the approval of improvements, Dubois and King prepared the engineering plans (site plans and site details) for the restoration construction. Modifications to the original plans were made and approved by the Army Corps of Engineers in September, 2001. The As-Built and As-Planted engineering plans were prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Some of these plans have been zipped with and served with this dataset. For additional information about the engineering plans, contact the Lamoille County Natural Resources Conservation District.
Attributes are present that were not developed as part of the NHD dataset and standard, and that are not part of any standards. Note the Attribute Definition Source to identify source agencies.
Attributes are present that were not developed as part of the NHD dataset and standard, and that are not part of any standards. Note the Attribute Definition Source to identify source agencies.