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
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.
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')
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
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.
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).
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.
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.
Note: Table 6 will continue this process of calculating the summary of metrics. Table 7 will provide the scoring.
0-3.75 = No Impairment
3.76-6.50 = Moderate Impairment
6.5 = Severe Impairment
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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
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.