Lamoille County Natural Resources Conservation District (LCNRCD) 200404 maps data Tile Structure - NONE http://www.vcgi.org/dataware/ In 2000, Foote Brook was identified as a high priority site for restoration after the extensive countywide stream stability study, Stream Stability Assessment of Lamoille County, Vermont. The study identified the upstream reach of Foote Brook as actively degrading, entrenched, with over-steepened streambanks. In 2001, a natural channel restoration project took place on Foote Brook in Johnson, Vermont, in order to protect the Route 15 road embankment and bridge abutment, stabilize eroding streambanks, enhance fisheries and wildlife habitat, and increase woody riparian buffers. Prior to the implementation of this project, funding was secured to conduct aquatic insect biomonitoring in order to get pre-restoration data. These results are documented in Phase I of the Foote Brook Macroinvertebrate Biomonitoring project (see Cross Reference for the metadata documenting Phase 1). This report represents Phase II or the post-restoration monitoring phase. Sites along Foote Brook were identified in order to document the condition of the benthic macroinvertebrate community above, at, and below the restoration site. Although these data will not be relied upon to determine impairment, or for enforcement actions, results will assess the impact of the physical channel restoration on the biological integrity of the stream. This assessment is designed as a simple screening level assessment that will be able to detect gross changes in the community over time. The project’s goal is to produce data that can be used to supplement more rigorous assessment carried out periodically by the VT DEC. Other important goals of the project were to involve the local community and school groups through education and outreach. By reaching out to the community in this biomonitoring effort, local residents can undertake stewardship efforts to assess, conserve and improve aquatic resources in Lamoille County. 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. 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. Although these data will not be relied upon to determine impairment, or for enforcement actions, results will assess the impact of the physical channel restoration on the biological integrity of the stream. This assessment is designed as a simple screening level assessment that will be able to detect gross changes in the community over time. The project’s goal is to produce data that can be used to supplement more rigorous assessment carried out periodically by the VT DEC. For stream (hydrology) information relative to this dataset, use the shapefile titled 'Lamoille River/Foote Brook Confluence, Lamoille County, Vermont'. For information about Phase I of this study, review metadata and shapefile titled 'Foote Brook Macroinvertebrate Biomonitoring-Phase I, Johnson, Vermont'. The photo inventory of this project has been zipped with the spatial dataset. 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). (previous geoform was 'map') 20021016 20021017 ground condition Complete None planned Near confluence of Foote Brook and Lamoille River in Lamoille County, Vermont -72.708116 -72.704358 44.641362 44.641166 None benthic macroinvertebrates biomonitoring riverbank restoration stream restoration water quality Critter Watch habitat assessment stream ecology phycology Lamoille County Natural Resources Conservation District Lake Champlain Basin Program New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission Lamoille Union High School Peoples Academy Johnson State College channel instability unstable reach channel restoration None Vermont VT Foote Brook Lamoille County Lamoille River United States North America USA Johnson ITIS Chironomidae -- midges Plecoptera -- stoneflies Trichoptera -- caddisflies Ephemeroptera -- mayflies Diptera -- true flies Coleoptera -- beetles Megaloptera -- Dobson, alder, fishflies Lepidoptera -- Borboleta, butterflies, Mariposa, moths Geoff Dates and Jack Byrne in coordination with River Watch Network 1997 first model Portland, OR River Network Merritt, R.W. And K.W., and Cummins 1984 2nd Book chapter Debuque, Iowa Kendall/Hunt W. Patrick McCafferty 1998 2nd Book chapter Sudbury, MA Jones and Bartlett Publishers All organisms are subsequently identified to the family taxonomic level using this following key Geoff Dates and Jack Byrne in coordination with River Watch Network 1997 first model Portland, OR River Network Lamoille County Natural Resources Conservation District (LCNRCD) District Manager mailing and physical address

109 Professional Drive, Suite 2

Morrisville VT 05661 USA (802) 888-9218 lcnature@pwshift.com M-F; 8am - 4:30pm Methods used to process aquatic macroinvertebrates are documented in River Network’s Living Waters: Using Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Habitat to Assess Your River’s Health. Processing involved picking organisms from the sample, sorting the organisms into taxonomic groups, identifying organisms to the family level, and entering data onto raw data sheets. The entire preserved field sample was washed into a # 30-mesh (500 mm) brass sieve. The sample was then transferred into a 12 x 18 inch white enamel tray that had been marked into 12 numbered equal squares. The sample was spread evenly over the tray surface. A random number between 1 and 12 was selected and picking was started on that square in the tray. All organisms are removed from a square before proceeding to the next sequentially numbered square. Picking continues into subsequently numbered squares until ¼ of the sample (3 squares) has been picked. If less than 100 organisms were picked at this point, picking continued until a total of 100 organisms were picked or the entire sample had been picked, whichever came first. Sub-sampling details were recorded on bench sheets. Removed organisms were sorted to major taxonomic groups and placed in appropriately labeled vials in 90% ethyl alcohol for further identification. All organisms are subsequently identified to the family taxonomic level using the following keys: A Simple Picture Key: Major Groups of Benthic Macroinvertebrates Commonly found in Freshwater New England Streams Aquatic Entomology: The Fishermen’s and Ecologists’ Illustrated Guide to Insects and their Relatives An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America, 2nd edition. Identifications were recorded on the appropriate data sheets. Each taxonomic family for each sample was preserved in glass vials with 90% ethyl alcohol. During three of our laboratory dates, we had a variety of age groups coming to pick and identify bugs. 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. Results at the downstream sites were compared with an upstream control site. Through the Living Waters methods and the Level 2 method, ten metrics were calculated. Organisms were identified to the following taxonomic levels: mollusks to order, worms to class, crustaceans and insects to family. The metrics were calculated and scored using the methods described in 'Living Waters'. QUALITY CONTROL/QUALITY ASSURANCE Volunteer Monitoring Data Volunteers monitoring the condition of our streams, rivers and lakes in becoming a common occurrence around the country. One of the most difficult issues facing volunteer monitoring programs is data credibility. The use of volunteer monitoring data is often looked at skeptically because of doubts about training and quality control procedures. Although the Foote Brook Critter Watch will not be used for impairment or enforcement actions, it will be useful in determining the impact of the physical river restoration on the biological integrity of Foote Brook. It can also be used as supplemental information for more detailed studies done by state or federal agencies or environmental consultants. In order to conduct this project at the highest level of accuracy, a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was developed and strictly followed for the course of the project. During the pre-restoration phase of Foote Brook Critter Watch, problems arose with sample archiving and overall quality control. In order to remedy these issues in this second phase, stringent operation procedures as specified in the QAPP were followed in every phase of the project. Immediate oversight by the project manager occurred at all levels, especially when dealing with sample archiving. In order to verify identifications made, a random collection of organism was sent to the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation’s Biomonitoring and Aquatic Studies Section lab for verification by Steve Fiske and staff. A list of each family identified from all the samples was made in order to determine verification needs. From this list, a random sample of organism was taken from multiple vials. Approximately 5-7 organisms were picked from each vial to represent each family. Out of the 25 families, 8 were incorrectly identified. Because these 8 misidentified families consisted of only a small number of organisms within all of the samples, the project manager was able to re-identify all of these particular families to the correct taxa. We cannot guarantee 100% accuracy, but based on findings from the DEC BASS lab, identifications appear to be greater than 90% accurate. The list demonstrates the BASS lab findings. Samples have been preserved in 90% ethyl alcohol and will be kept in the possession of the District for any further study. individuals Specimens at Lamoille County Natural Resource Conservation District District Manager mailing and physical address

109 Professional Drive, Ste. 2

Morrisville VT 05661 USA 802.888.9218 lcnature@pwshift.com 9-5 Specimens are stored in 90% ethyl alcohol and can be found in nearby storage shed on premises Kingdom Animalia Phylum Arthropoda Subphylum Hexapoda Class Insecta Subclass Pterygota Superorder Neoptera Order Trichoptera Order Diptera Order Coleoptera Order Megaloptera Order Lepidoptera Order Plecoptera Order Ephemeroptera Order Odonata Fabricius Subphylum Crustacea Brünnich, 1772 Class Malacostraca Latreille, 1802 Subclass Eumalacostraca Grobben, 1892 Superorder Peracarida Calman, 1904 Order Amphipoda Latreille, 1816 Order Isopoda Latreille, 1817 Phylum Annelida Class Clitellata Subclass Oligochaeta Phylum Mollusca Class Gastropoda Cuvier, 1797 Class Pelecypoda (Bivalvia Linnaeus, 1758) 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. 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). Lamoille County Natural Resources Conservation District (LCNRCD) District Manager mailing and physical address

109 Professional Drive, Suite 2

Morrisville VT 05661 USA (802) 888-9218 lcnature@pwshift.com M-F; 8am - 4:30pm http://www.vcgi.org GIF GIF Project Manager: Allison Cardwell; 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 Excel, ArcGIS Michelle Gudorf 200402 map Morrisville, VT LCNRCD see www.vcgi.org (EnvironOther_LamRivFoote.txt) Lamoille County Natural Resources Conservation District (LCNRCD) Unpublished Material Figure Morrisville, VT LCNRCD .jpg images of restoration site stations http://www.vcgi.org/pub/dataware/ Lamoille County Natural Resources Conservation District (LCNRCD) Unpublished Material Figure 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. http://www.vcgi.org/pub/dataware/ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Morrisville, Vermont Unpublished Material CAD data .jpg images of CAD plans http://www.vcgi.org/pub/dataware/ Lamoille County Natural Resources Conservation District 200404 map Morrisville, VT LCNRCD Tile Structure - NONE http://www.vcgi.org/pub/dataware/ Lamoille County Natural Resources Conservation District (LCNRCD) 200212 map Tile Structure - NONE http://www.vcgi.org/pub/dataware/ Lamoille County Natural Resources Conservation District (LCNRCD) 200404 map Tile Structure - NONE http://www.vcgi.org/pub/dataware/ 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. "Living Waters: Using Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Habitat to Assess Your River's Health" is available from River Network - http://www.rivernetwork.org/index.cfm. River Network Geoff Dates mailing and physical address

153 State Street

Montpelier VT 05602 USA 802.223.3840 802.436.3033 gdates@rivernetwork.org Geoff Dates and Jack Byrne in coordination with River Watch Network 1997 first model Portland, OR River Network The ground locations of the points in this dataset were not verified by original field personnel. The points represented in this dataset were selected from a Digital ortho photo based on river contours, after the sites were selected on the ground by the same field personnel. The points were digitized 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. There are photo's that were taken of sites .25 and .50 during the data collection on 10/02. Photo's of site .75 did not develop clearly, and were not rephotographed. These photos can be found either zipped with this dataset or linked. ArcGIS software was used to generate the points in this dataset. There are no duplicate features. The dataset is complete; no exclusions of features or attributes to be reported. 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. Field None riffle habitat kick net ethyl alcohol composite sampling Three sites along Foote Brook were chosen for this study. The sites are also determined by their relationship with Foote Brook’s confluence to the Lamoille River. Site 0.25 is 0.25 miles upstream of the confluence, Site 0.50 is 0.50 miles upstream of the confluence and Site 0.75 is 0.75 miles above the confluence. The first site, 0.75, is the upstream reference (control) site, which is upstream of the impaired channel reach. It represents conditions in the stream prior to the impact of the channel instability. The second site, 0.50, is the impact site within the unstable reach. The third site, 0.25, is the recovery site, downstream of the unstable reach. It represents conditions in the stream after the alterations have begun to diminish. Methods used to collect aquatic macroinvertebrates are documented in River Network’s Living Waters: Using Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Habitat to Assess Your River’s Health. This guide to monitoring has been successfully used by citizen and volunteer groups and is consistent with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 'Rapid Bioassessment Protocols' and with the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation Field Methods Manual. Prior to the sampling date, efforts were made through posters to recruit community and school members to participate in the sampling. All data were entered onto field sheets with appropriate site and sampling identifiers, along with additional comments that may be pertinent to the site evaluation. No physical assessments for Rocky Bottom Streams (as noted and collected for Phase I) were conducted for Phase II. The goal was to collect samples that were representative of the overall biological integrity within each stream reach. Samples were collected using an 18 inch wide x 12 inch high rectangular-frame net with a 500 micron mesh size. The net was placed in a riffle area and a rectangular area of stream bottom as wide as the net and one foot upstream from the opening was thoroughly disturbed by hand, ensuring that all organisms were carried into the net. This process was repeated until two high (~1.5-2.5 ft/sec.) and two low (~0.5-1.5 ft/sec.) velocity areas were sampled. Three replicate samples were collected from each riffle. The contents of the net from each replicate were washed into a quart mason jar and preserved with 90% ethyl alcohol. This composite sampling methodology effectively collects samples representative of the macroinvertebrate community of that riffle. Lab None aquatic entomology aquatic insects model affinity EPT family richness Pinkham and Pearson Community Similarity Index Percent composition of functional feeding groups Percent composition of Selected Major Groups Modified family biotic index Percent composition of dominant family Methods used to process aquatic macroinvertebrates are documented in River Network’s Living Waters: Using Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Habitat to Assess Your River’s Health. Processing involved picking organisms from the sample, sorting the organisms into taxonomic groups, identifying organisms to the family level, and entering data onto raw data sheets. The entire preserved field sample was washed into a # 30-mesh (500 mm) brass sieve. The sample was then transferred into a 12 x 18 inch white enamel tray that had been marked into 12 numbered equal squares. The sample was spread evenly over the tray surface. A random number between 1 and 12 was selected and picking was started on that square in the tray. All organisms are removed from a square before proceeding to the next sequentially numbered square. Picking continues into subsequently numbered squares until ¼ of the sample (3 squares) has been picked. If less than 100 organisms were picked at this point, picking continued until a total of 100 organisms were picked or the entire sample had been picked, whichever came first. Sub-sampling details were recorded on bench sheets. Removed organisms were sorted to major taxonomic groups and placed in appropriately labeled vials in 90% ethyl alcohol for further identification. Organisms were identified to the following taxonomic levels: mollusks to order, worms to class, crustaceans and insects to family. All organisms are subsequently identified to the family taxonomic level using the following keys: A Simple Picture Key: Major Groups of Benthic Macroinvertebrates Commonly found in Freshwater New England Streams Aquatic Entomology: The Fishermen’s and Ecologists’ Illustrated Guide to Insects and their Relatives An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America, 2nd edition. Identifications were recorded on the appropriate data sheets. Each taxonomic family for each sample was preserved in glass vials with 90% ethyl alcohol. During three of our laboratory dates, we had a variety of age groups coming to pick and identify bugs. Monitoring Results 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. Results at the downstream sites were compared with an upstream control site. Through the Living Waters methods and the Level 2 method, ten metrics were calculated. The metrics were calculated and scored using the methods described in 'Living Waters' . Refer to 'Living Waters' for interpretation of the results in this dataset. Interpretation of Data and Conclusions Organism Density per Sample All three sites showed somewhat low densities of macroinvertebrates. In order to get 100 organisms from the sample, the entire sample had to be picked and even then, some fell short of the 100 specimen goal. EPT Family Richness This metric emphasizes the orders Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies) which are predominantly intolerant to degraded water quality. The data show relatively even numbers of total taxa and EPT taxa across all sites. The majority of macroinvertebrates represent EPTs. All the sites were comparable to each other, demonstrated by 12 EPT families at Site 0.25 and 0.75 and 11 families at Site 0.50. This demonstrates that no noticeable change in EPT family makeup has occurred at the impact site because of increased sediment loads. The number of EPT taxa also demonstrates favorable water quality conditions. Total Family Richness This metric is a rough measure of the diversity of the macroinvertebrate community. The data shows the control and recovery sites are very similar, with 22 and 20 total taxa, respectively. The impact site has slightly less at 17 taxa. % Composition of Selected Major Groups The data demonstrate that mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies are well represented at all sites. Mayflies made up the majority of organisms at all three sites. These organisms tend to be less tolerant of poor water quality, therefore the abundance of the selected groups in relationship to more tolerant organisms shows good to excellent water quality. % Model Affinity This metric measures the taxonomic order level of similarity to a model based on reference streams in Vermont. The percent composition of the major orders of the macroinvertebrate assemblages reflects a small high gradient stream type model. Based on numbers from New York State to judge the impacts of pollution on benthic macroinvertebrate communities, Sites 0.25 (recovery) has a similarity value of 47% resulting in a “moderately impacted” judgment. Site 0.75 (control) has a value of 59.5 resulting in a “slightly impacted” judgment and Site 0.50 (impact) has a value of 53% resulting in a “slightly impacted” judgment. Modified Family Biotic Index This metric is a rough measure of the pollution tolerance of the community. The results suggest the impact and recovery sites at 2.73 and 2.90, respectively, are in excellent condition, while the control site at 4.14 appears to be in very good condition. Dominants in Common This metric is a comparison of the five most abundant families at the reference, impact and recovery sites. The results are interpreted as follows from Shackleford (1988). The impact site is judged as "no impairment" and the recovery site as having "minimal impairment". Pinkham and Pearson Community Similarity Index This metric compares the families at the impact and recovery sites with the control site. The results of this analysis will range from 0 (no similarity between sites) to 1 (total similarity between the sites). This analysis is somewhat less detailed from that performed by the Vermont DEC, which identifies to genus and species levels. The impact and recovery sites resulted in indexes of 0.44 and 0.30, respectively, indicating the possibility of significant community alterations. This conclusion may be due to the reduced number of organisms found at the control site. Another consideration may be that sampling at the control site was conducted one day after the sampling at the impact and recovery site, which occurred during heavy rain. Water quantities and velocities rose significantly between the sampling day of October 16th and 17th, 2002, from 162 cfs to 570 cfs at the USGS stream gage on the Lamoille River at Johnson. % Composition of Functional Feeding Groups This metric is a rough measure of the diversity of the macroinvertebrate community. The majority of organisms for all three sites composed of scrapers and gathering collectors. The remaining organisms were divided fairly evenly between filtering collectors, predators and shredders. Overall, this indicates a diversity of food sources – fine particulate organic matter in the water column, growth of small algal communities on rocks, coarse particulate organic on the bottom. % Contribution of Dominant Family No sample was dominated by one specific family, supporting the other metrics indication that there is no significant difference between the impact, recovery and control sites. Vermont Center for Geographic Information 2003 map 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. www.vcgi.org see vhd02010005 5000 online 2003 ground condition vhd02010005 Hydrology used to locate point locations measured from distance of confluence of Lamoille River and Foote Brook Data collected in field at three sites (see methods in section 2). 20021016 vhd02010005 Lamoille County Natural Resources Conservation District (LCNRCD) District Manager mailing and physical address

109 Professional Drive, Suite 2

Morrisville VT 05661 USA (802) 888-9218 lcnature@pwshift.com M-F; 8am - 4:30pm Data analyzed in lab (see methods in section 2). 2002 Lamoille County Natural Resources Conservation District (LCNRCD) District Manager mailing and physical address

109 Professional Drive, Suite 2

Morrisville VT 05661 USA (802) 888-9218 lcnature@pwshift.com M-F; 8am - 4:30pm Data summarized -results entered into Excel spreadsheet. Unknown Lamoille County Natural Resources Conservation District (LCNRCD) District Manager mailing and physical address

109 Professional Drive, Suite 2

Morrisville VT 05661 USA (802) 888-9218 lcnature@pwshift.com M-F; 8am - 4:30pm 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. vhd02010005 200403 Michelle Gudorf GIS/Metadata Contractor mailing and physical address

4510 East Hill Road

Craftsbury VT 05826 USA 802.586.7589 mgudorf@earthlink.net 0 Vector Entity point 3 State Plane Coordinate System 1983 4400 0.999964 -72.5 42.5 500000 0 Coordinate Pair 0.000001 0.000001 meters North American Datum of 1983 Geodetic Reference System 80 6378137 298.257 ESRI software attributes Software assigned attributes ESRI ANGLE Software assigned attribute ESRI Unknown Software assigned attribute ESRI AREA Software assigned attribute ESRI Unknown Defines polygon size (Area) ESRI FID Internal feature number. ESRI Sequential unique whole numbers that are automatically generated PERIMETER Software assigned attribute ESRI Unknown Defines perimeter length ESRI PHASE1_P_1 Software assigned attribute ESRI Unknown ESRI standard domain ESRI PHASE1_POI Software assigned attribute ESRI Unknown ESRI standard domain ESRI POLYGONID Software assigned attribute ESRI Unknown ESRI standard domain ESRI SCALE Related to floating point assignment to attribute table and attribute field size ESRI Unknown Standard ESRI domain ESRI SHAPE Feature geometry. ESRI Coordinates defining the features. Unknown Defines file type ESRI T1 (Table 1) 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. Living Waters (Dates 1997) T1_BIOINDX 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. Living Waters (Dates, 1997) 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. T1_CONTDOM 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. Living Waters (Dates, 1997) Interpretation of results: A sample dominated (>50%) by one family may indicate an environmental impact. Represented as PERCENTAGES. T1_EPTRICH 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). Living Waters (Dates, 1997) For most sites, there should be more than 10-12 estimated or identified families. T1_MODAFFN 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: Living Waters (Dates, 1997) Represented as PERCENTAGES T1_ORGDENS 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. Living Waters (Dates, 1997) 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. T1_TOTTAXR 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). Living Waters (Dates, 1997) 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. Site location information Information about the spatial coordinates locating the sampling sites. LCNRCD LOCATION Physical location of site upstream from confluence of Lamoille River and Foote Brook. LCNRCD Miles upstream from confluence (measured in meters in this dataset) SITE_NUMBER Sampling site number assigned by field personnel based on location upstream from confluence of Lamoille River and Foote Brook. LCNRCD 1 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. LCNRCD 2 Site located 0.50 miles upstream from confluence of Lamoille River and Foote Brook. This is the impact site where river restoration will occur. LCNRCD 3 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. LCNRCD SITEDESCRI Description of site relating to study LCNRCD 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. T2 Table 2: The Percent Composition of Major Groups. Values show PERCENTAGES of organisms presence in 12-grid samples from each site. Living Waters (Dates, 1997) T2-OLIGOCH Oligochaeta (Worms) Living Waters (Dates, 1997) Represented as a percentage T2_AMPHIPO Amphipoda (scuds) Living Waters (Dates, 1997) Represented as a percentage T2_CHIRONO Chironomidae (Midges) Living Waters (Dates, 1997) Represented as a percentage T2_COLEOPT Coleoptera (Beetles) Living Waters (Dates, 1997) Represented as a percentage T2_EPHEMER Ephemeroptera (Mayflies) Living Waters (Dates, 1997) Represented as a percentage T2_GASTROP Gastropoda Living Waters (Dates, 1997) Represented as a percentage T2_ISOPODA Isopoda Living Waters (Dates, 1997) Represented as a percentage T2_LEPIDOP Lepidoptera (Moths) Living Waters (Dates, 1997) Represented as a percentage T2_MEGALOP Megaloptera (Dobsonflies, alderflies, fishflies) Living Waters (Dates, 1997) Represented as a percentage T2_ODONATA Odonata (Dragonflies) Living Waters (Dates, 1997) Represented as a percentage T2_OTHDIPT Other Diptera (true flies) Living Waters (Dates, 1997) Represented as a percentage T2_PELECYP Pelecypoda Living Waters (Dates, 1997) Represented as a percentage T2_PLECOPT Plecoptera (Stoneflies) Living Waters (Dates, 1997) Represented as a percentage T2_TRICHOP Trichoptera (Caddisflies) Living Waters (Dates, 1997) Represented as a percentage T4 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. Living Waters (Dates, 1997) T4_FILTCOL Filtering collectors Living Waters (Dates, 1997) Represented as a percentage T4_GATHCOL Gathering Collectors Living Waters (Dates, 1997) Represented as a percentage T4_PREDATO Predators Living Waters (Dates, 1997) Represented as a percentage T4_SCRAPER Scrapers- animals in hard shell (e.g. limpets, snails, clams or mussels) Living Waters (Dates, 1997) Represented as a percentage T4_SHREDDE Shredders - Sow bug or shrimp-like animals Living Waters (Dates, 1997) Represented as a percentage T4_UNKNOWN Unknown type Living Waters (Dates, 1997) Represented as a percentage T5 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. Living Waters (Dates, 1997) T5_BIOINDX 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 Living Waters (Dates, 1997) 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. T5_COMPSHR Percent composition of shredders. Percent composition of shredders (from the percent composition of functional feeding groups (Table 4). Living Waters (Dates, 1997) 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. T5_CONTDOM 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. Living Waters (Dates, 1997) Interpretation of results: A sample dominated (>50%) by one family may indicate an environmental impact. Values represented as PERCENTAGES. T5_EPTRICH 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). Living Waters (Dates, 1997) For most sites, there should be more than 10-12 estimated or identified families. T5_SCR_FIL Ratio of Scrapers / Filtering collectors (from the % composition of functional feeding groups (Table 4). Living Waters (Dates, 1997) 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. T5_TOTTAXR 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). Living Waters (Dates, 1997) 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. T6 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. Living Waters (Dates, 1997) T6_BIOINDX 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. Living Waters (Dates, 1997) PERCENT similarity for this metric compared with reference site T6_COMPSHR Composition of shredders. Percent composition of shredders (from the percent composition of functional feeding groups (Table 4). Living Waters (Dates, 1997) PERCENT similarity for this metric compared with reference site T6_CONTDOM 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. Living Waters (Dates, 1997) PERCENT similarity for this metric compared with reference site T6_EPTRICH 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). Living Waters (Dates, 1997) PERCENT similarity for this metric compared with reference site T6_SCR_FIL Ratio of Scrapers / Filtering collectors (from the % composition of functional feeding groups (Table 4). Living Waters (Dates, 1997) PERCENT similarity for this metric compared with reference site T6_TOTTAXR 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). Living Waters (Dates, 1997) PERCENT similarity for this metric compared with reference site T7 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'. Living Waters (Dates, 1997) SIMILARITY 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" . Living Waters (Dates, 1997) 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. T7_BIOINDX 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. Number is scored based on the percent similarity value listed in Table 6. Living Waters (Dates, 1997) 1 Score of 1 if entry from Table 6 is <50% Living Waters (Dates, 1997) 3 Score of 3 if entry from Table 6 is 50-85% Living Waters (Dates, 1997) 6 Score of 6 if entry from Table 6 is >85% Living Waters (Dates, 1997) T7_COMPSHR Composition of shredders. Number is scored based on the percent similarity value listed in Table 6. Living Waters (Dates, 1997) 1 Score of 1 if entry from Table 6 is <25% Living Waters (Dates, 1997) 3 Score of 3 if entry from Table 6 is 25-50% Living Waters (Dates, 1997) 6 Score of 6 if entry from Table 6 is >50% Living Waters (Dates, 1997) T7_CONTDOM 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. Living Waters (Dates, 1997) 1 Score of 1 if entry from Table 6 is >50% Living Waters (Dates, 1997) 3 Score of 3 if entry from Table 6 is 30-50% Living Waters (Dates, 1997) 6 Score of 6 if entry from Table 6 is <30% Living Waters (Dates, 1997) T7_EPTRICH 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. Living Waters (Dates, 1997) 1 Score of 1 if entry from Table 6 is <70% Living Waters (Dates, 1997) 3 Score of 3 if entry from Table 6 is 70-90% Living Waters (Dates, 1997) 6 Score of 6 if entry from Table 6 is >90% Living Waters (Dates, 1997) T7_SCR_FIL Ratio of Scrapers / Filtering collectors. Number is scored based on the percent similarity value listed in Table 6. Living Waters (Dates, 1997) 1 Score of 1 if entry from Table 6 is <25% Living Waters (Dates, 1997) 3 Score of 3 if entry from Table 6 is 25-50% Living Waters (Dates, 1997) 6 Score of 6 if entry from Table 6 is >50% Living Waters (Dates, 1997) T7_TOTTAXR 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. Living Waters (Dates, 1997) 1 Score of 1 if entry from Table 6 is <40% Living Waters (Dates, 1997) 3 Score of 3 if entry from Table 6 is 40-80% Living Waters (Dates, 1997) 6 Score of 6 if entry from Table 6 is >80% Living Waters (Dates, 1997) TOTALSCORE A sum of the scores for each metric in Table 7 Living Waters (Dates, 1997) Sum of the scores- this information will be used to score overall percent similarity to reference site in column "SIMILARITY" VT Center for Geographic Information mailing and physical address

58 South Main Street, Suite 2

Waterbury VT 05676 USA (802)882-3000 None (802)882-3001 geowiz@vcgi.org 9am - 5pm, M-F EcologicFauna_FOOTEBRKPH2 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. ARCE 8.3 ArcInfo Export file ArcInfo Export File (WinZip self extracting format) WinZIP http://www.vcgi.org/dataware/default.cfm?layer=EcologicFauna_FOOTEBRKPH2 Download from web site. No charge when downloading from the internet, and when no custom processing is required. Download from web site or mail-fax a copy of the VCGI 'Data Request Form' which is available from http://www.vcgi.org/dataware/order_forms About 5 days. Mail or Fax a copy of the VCGI 'Data Request Form' which is available from http://www.vcgi.org/dataware/order_forms ESRI Arc/Info, ArcView, or ArcExplorer software. 20040301 Michelle Gudorf GIS/Metadata Contractor mailing and physical address

4510 East Hill Road

Craftsbury VT 05826 USA 802.586.7589 mgudorf@earthlink.net FGDC Biological Data Profile of the Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata FGDC-STD-001.1-1999 none none