DOCSLIB.ORG

The Vermont Management Plan for Brook, Brown and Rainbow Trout Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department January 2018

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Vermont Management Plan for Brook, Brown and Rainbow Trout Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department January 2018 The Vermont Management Plan for Brook, Brown and Rainbow Trout Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department January 2018 Prepared by: Rich Kirn, Fisheries Program Manager Reviewed by: Brian Chipman, Will Eldridge, Jud Kratzer, Bret Ladago, Chet MacKenzie, Adam Miller, Pete McHugh, Lee Simard, Monty Walker, Lael Will ACKNOWLEDGMENT: This project was made possible by fishing license sales and matching Dingell- Johnson/Wallop-Breaux funds available through the Federal Sportfish Restoration Act. Table of Contents I. Introduction ......................................................................................... 1 II. Life History and Ecology ................................................................... 2 III. Management History ......................................................................... 7 IV. Status of Existing Fisheries ............................................................. 13 V. Management of Trout Habitat .......................................................... 17 VI. Management of Wild Trout............................................................. 34 VII. Management of Cultured Trout ..................................................... 37 VIII. Management of Angler Harvest ................................................... 66 IX. Trout Management Plan Goals, Objectives and Strategies .............. 82 X. Summary of Laws and Regulations .................................................. 87 XI. Literature Cited ............................................................................... 92 I. Introduction The management of Vermont's fisheries resources is a multi-faceted program consisting of habitat protection, restoration and enhancement; regulation of angler harvest; and species introductions or restorations, which may include the use of artificially reared (i.e. “cultured”) fish. In addition to its many intrinsic values, fishing in Vermont is also important economically. In 2011, an estimated 131.3 million dollars were spent by anglers in Vermont (U.S. Department of Interior 2014). Brook, brown and rainbow trout are among Vermont's most sought after species, comprising three of the top five fish species preferred by Vermont resident open-water anglers (Connelly and Knuth, 2010). These anglers spent over one million days of their open-water angling effort in 2009 pursuing these three trout species in small brooks, larger streams and rivers, and in lakes and ponds throughout Vermont (Connelly and Knuth, 2010). In 1993, the first formal management plan for brook, brown and rainbow trout was adopted in Vermont. The Vermont Management Plan for Brook, Brown and Rainbow Trout provided a comprehensive approach to the management of these important species by integrating public opinion and desires with scientific studies of trout biology and management conducted both in and outside Vermont. The 1993 document served as guidance for fisheries biologists to use in managing Vermont's trout resources and as a public education resource which formally outlined the biological and social justifications of various trout management strategies. This plan serves to update and document the many advances in our understanding of the threats to and management of brook, brown and rainbow trout, as well as changes in public opinion and desires which have occurred since the development of the 1993 “Trout Plan”. The general approach to trout management is described below: It is the goal of the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department to manage the state's trout resources to support wild trout populations and a diversity of quality recreational opportunities. To meet this goal, it is the policy of the Department to: 1) Place priority on implementing effective habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement measures and harvest regulation in conserving and managing the state's wild trout resources. 2) Utilize cultured trout where management of a recreational trout fishery is justified, but cannot be sustained solely through wild trout management. This plan should be considered a working document, subject to adjustment as warranted by changes in environmental or social pressures on Vermont's trout resources, or advances in fisheries management techniques. 1 II. Life History and Ecology Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) Habitat The brook trout is adapted to the widest variety of habitats of the trout species (Flick 1991). It inhabits tiny infertile, high-gradient mountain streams, larger rivers with constant cool water supplies, low-gradient bog streams, beaver ponds and coldwater lakes. Warm water temperatures are the most important factor limiting brook trout distribution. While temperatures exceeding 68° F are widely considered to initiate physiological stress, temperatures exceeding 64° F can be detrimental to growth and survival of fry and juveniles (Raleigh 1982, Argent and Kimmel 2014). Optimum growth occurs between 55 and 65° F and it can tolerate brief periods of up to 72° F (Raleigh 1982). Exposure to temperatures of 75° F for only a few hours is usually lethal (Flick 1991). Dissolved oxygen requirements vary with water temperature. Optimum dissolved oxygen concentrations are near saturation levels (Raleigh 1982). Brook trout tolerate a wider range of pH levels than brown trout or rainbow trout. In laboratory studies brook trout have been shown to withstand extremes of 3.5 to 9.8 (Raleigh 1982). In natural conditions a more realistic low pH is around 4.8 (Flick 1991) with an optimum range between 6.5 and 8.0 (Raleigh 1982). Optimal brook trout habitat in streams is characterized by a 1:1 pool to riffle ratio, silt-free rocky substrate, clear, cold spring-fed water with stable flow and temperature, and well vegetated, stable banks, with abundant instream cover (Raleigh 1982). Brook trout tend to prefer areas out of the main flow with relatively low velocities (about 0.5 ft/sec) and overhead cover such as boulders, vegetation and undercut banks (Scarola 1987, Flick 1991). In lakes and ponds brook trout tend to inhabit shallow, spring-fed areas less than 15 to 20 feet in depth. During hot weather periods they are more likely to seek shallow coldwater seeps rather than retreat to colder depths (Flick 1991). Brook trout occupy various habitats during different life stages and times of the year. Brook trout are known to make movements at the local and watershed scale (Davis et al. 2015) for feeding, spawning, and rearing. Age and Growth In Vermont, brook trout are often slow growing and short lived, rarely exceeding 3 to 4 years of age. Many headwater mountain streams rarely produce brook trout larger than 6 or 7 inches. In more productive waters, especially lakes and ponds, they may live longer and achieve maximum lengths of over 20 inches and weigh several pounds. 2 Age at sexual maturity varies among populations. Males may mature as early as their first year of life but usually mature in their second year. Females mature one year later. Spawning Behavior Spawning generally occurs in late September and early October at water temperatures of between 40 and 50° F (Raleigh 1982). Brook trout generally migrate to areas of spring-fed upwellings in streams or in lake and pond substrates (Webster and Eiriksdottir 1976, Witzel and MacCrimmon 1983, Flick 1991).The female excavates a pit or redd over a ground water upwelling or the tail of a pool in gravel of 0.1 to 2 inches in diameter which is well aerated (Flick 1991). The male fertilizes the eggs as they are deposited, followed by the female covering the eggs with gravel. Eggs may be deposited by one pair over a series of small redds (Scarola 1987). In Vermont, eggs incubate in the gravel over winter. Incubation takes from about 45 days at 50° F to 165 days at 37° F (Raleigh 1982). Newly hatched fry remain in the gravel until their yolk sac is absorbed, then emerge and inhabit shallow, low velocity areas with rock of 4 to 8 inches in diameter, sufficient in size to resist shifting. At the juvenile stage, they move into swifter riffle areas (Raleigh 1982). Food Habits Brook trout appear to be opportunistic sight feeders preferring drifting aquatic macroinvertebrates over benthic (bottom dwelling) organisms when available. Larger individuals may feed on small fish at times, especially in lakes (Raleigh 1982). The brook trout tends to feed more during the day than either the brown or rainbow trout (Scarola 1987). Brown Trout (Salmo Trutta) Habitat Brown trout typically inhabit the lower reaches of cold water streams, characterized by deep, slow- moving pools and runs. They also thrive in larger lakes of sufficient depths to maintain cool water temperatures year-round. As with other trout species, water temperature is a major limiting factor for brown trout. Optimum temperatures range from 53 to 66° F and they can tolerate temperatures near 80° F for short periods. Dissolved oxygen requirements are near saturation levels; greater than 9 mg/l at water temperatures less than 50° F (Raleigh et al. 1986). Brown trout tolerate pH from 5.0 to 9.5 but have an optimal range between 6.8 and 7.8 (Raleigh et al. 1986). Physical habitat favored by brown trout is characterized by low-gradient stream reaches with slow, deep pools and relatively silt-free rocky substrates in riffles. Preferred pool to riffle ratios are high, favoring 50 to 70% pools and 30 to 50% riffle-run habitat. Well vegetated, stable banks and relatively constant stream flows are also important; overhead canopy cover is increasingly important as stream widths and depths decrease (Raleigh et al. 1986). 3 Age and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pierce Mills Hydroelectric Generating Station (FERC No. 2396 VT) Arnold Falls Hydroelectric Generating Station (FERC No
    20091208-5022 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/8/2009 1:26:23 AM Pierce Mills hydroelectric generating station (FERC No. 2396 VT) Arnold Falls hydroelectric generating station (FERC No. 2399 VT) Gage hydroelectric generating station (FERC No. 2397 VT) Passumpsic hydroelectric generating station (FERC No. 2400 VT) St. Johnsbury, Waterford and Barnet, Caledonia County, Vermont 2009 Annual CRMP Report November 30, 2009 This letter report is provided on behalf of the Central Vermont Public Service Corporation (CVPS) in fulfillment of its obligations regarding the Cultural Resource Management Plan (CRMP) for the Pierce Mills, Arnold Falls, Gage and Passumpsic hydroelectric generating stations, collectively referred to as the Project.1 Articles 408, 408, 410, and 408 of the licenses for the Pierce Mills, Arnolds Falls, Gage and Passumpsic generating stations2, respectively, require implementation of the provisions of the Programmatic Agreement (PA) executed on November 4, 1994.3 Under federal law, the FERC is required to consider the effects of hydroelectric projects that it licenses on historic properties. The PA requires the filing of an annual report on activities conducted under the CRMP on the anniversary date of issuance of the license. Monitoring Action to Protect Archaeological Historic Properties Section 3.2.3. of the CRMP describes that the Project will be monitored annually to limit or prevent bank erosion and protect historic properties in conjunction with other resources. Charity Baker, an archaeologist qualified under 36 CFR 61, and Beth Eliason, CVPS Environmental Engineer, conducted the annual monitoring of Project shorelines on October 10 and 29, 2009. The inspection was conducted via canoe to document existing conditions using a handheld Magellan GPS 320 unit, a Canon PowerShot A85 digital camera, and manual notes.
    [Show full text]
  • MMI 53 River Street Dam.Pdf
    TOWN OF ACTON JUNE 7, 2019 | ACTON, MA PROPOSAL Studies Related to the Dam Located at 53 River Street June 7, 2019 Mr. John Mangiaratti, Town Manager Town of Acton Town Manager’s Office 472 Main Street Acton, MA 01720 RE: River Street Dam Removal and Fort Pond Brook Restoration Acton, Massachusetts MMI #4458-02 Dear Mr. Mangiaratti: The Milone & MacBroom team of structural engineers, bridge scour experts, geotechnical engineers, and hydraulic engineers are uniquely qualified to design the dam removal, and evaluate the potential upstream and downstream infrastructure impacts associated with the removal of the Dam at River Street to improve ecological functions of the Fort Pond Brook. When reviewing our proposal, we ask that you consider the following: Our team brings expertise and a proven track record of success in dam removal projects throughout New England. Milone & MacBroom professionals have backgrounds in hydrology and hydraulics, engineering design, fisheries expertise, and wetland biology. Our staff also includes invasive species experts, fisheries biologists, and permitting specialists. We also integrate the creative innovation of our extensive in-house team of landscape architects and frequently include passive recreational park features at our dam removal sites. We have the ability to integrate dam removal with the natural site opportunities through careful analysis and planning so that your project is technically sound, environmentally sensitive, and aesthetically pleasing. Our team of experts has performed many dam removal projects throughout New England and the Northeast. Milone and MacBroom are pioneers in the field, having completed our first dam removals in the 1990s. With over 40 constructed dam removal projects, we have completed more than any other design firm in the Northeast.
    [Show full text]
  • Spawning and Early Life History of Mountain Whitefish in The
    SPAWNING AND EARLY LIFE HISTORY OF MOUNTAIN WHITEFISH IN THE MADISON RIVER, MONTANA by Jan Katherine Boyer A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Fish and Wildlife Management MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Bozeman, Montana January 2016 © COPYRIGHT by Jan Katherine Boyer 2016 All Rights Reserved ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I thank my advisor, Dr. Christopher Guy, for challenging me and providing advice throughout every stage of this project. I also thank my committee members, Dr. Molly Webb and Dr. Tom McMahon, for guidance and suggestions which greatly improved this research. My field technicians Jordan Rowe, Greg Hill, and Patrick Luckenbill worked hard through fair weather and snowstorms to help me collect the data presented here. I also thank Travis Horton, Pat Clancey, Travis Lohrenz, Tim Weiss, Kevin Hughes, Rick Smaniatto, and Nick Pederson of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks for field assistance and advice. Mariah Talbott, Leif Halvorson, and Eli Cureton of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service assisted with field and lab work. Richard Lessner and Dave Brickner at the Madison River Foundation helped to secure funding for this project and conduct outreach in the Madison Valley. The Channels Ranch, Valley Garden Ranch, Sun West Ranch, and Galloup’s Slide Inn provided crucial land and river access. I also thank my fellow graduate students both for advice on project and class work and for being excellent people to spend time with. Ann Marie Reinhold, Mariah Mayfield, David Ritter, and Peter Brown were especially helpful during the early stages of this project.
    [Show full text]
  • Fisheries Management Plan for Black Hills Streams 2015 – 2019
    Fisheries Management Plan for Black Hills Streams 2015 – 2019 South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Wildlife Division Gene Galinat Greg Simpson Bill Miller Jake Davis Michelle Bucholz John Carreiro Dylan Jones Stan Michals Fisheries Management Plan for Black Hills Streams, 2015-2019 Table of Contents I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3 II. Resource Descriptions ........................................................................................................... 4 Black Hills Fish Management Area ...................................................................................... 4 III. Management of Black Hills Fish Management Area Stream Fisheries ...................... 7 Classification of Trout Streams ............................................................................................. 7 Regulations .............................................................................................................................. 7 Stocking .................................................................................................................................... 8 Fish Surveys ............................................................................................................................ 8 Angler Surveys ........................................................................................................................ 9 Habitat and Angler Access ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Progress of Stream Measurements
    Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 125 Series P, Hydrographic Progress Reports, 30 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CHARLES D. WALCOTT, DIRECTOR REPORT PROGRESS OF STREAM MEASUREMENTS THE CALENDAR YEAR 1904 PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF F. H. NEWELL BY R. E. HORTON, N. C. GROVER, and JOHN C. HOYT PART II. Hudson, Passaic, Raritan, and Delaware River Drainages WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1905 Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 125 Series P, Hydrographic Progress Reports, 30 i DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CHARLES D. WALCOTT, DIRECTOR REPORT PROGRESS OF STREAM MEASUREMENTS THE CALENDAR YEAR 1904 PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF F. H. NEWELL BY R. E. HORTON, N. C. GROVER, and JOHN C. HOYT PART II. Hudson, Passaic, Raritan, and Delaware River Drainages WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1905 CONTENTS. Letter of transmittal...................................................... 7 Introduction............................................................. 9 Cooperation and acknowledgments ...... ...^.............................. 18 Hudson Eiver drainage basin. ............................................ 19 Hudson Eiver at Fort Edward, N. Y .............................. 19 Hudson Eiver at Mechanicsville, N. Y............................. 22 Indian Eiver at Indian Lake, Hamilton County, N. Y.............. 24 Hoosic Eiver at Buskirk, N. Y .................................... 24 Mohawk River at Little Falls, N. Y................................ 26 Mohawk Eiver at Dunsbach Ferry Bridge, N. Y.................... 29 Oriskany Creek near Oriskany, N. Y .............................. 32 Starch Factory Creek near New Hartford, N. Y.................... 35 Sylvan Glen Creek near New Hartford, N. Y....................... 37 Graefenberg Creek near New Hartford, N. Y....................... 39 Eeels Creek and Johnston Brook near Deer-field, N. Y.............. 41 Nail Creek at Utica, N. Y......................................... 45 West Canada Creek at Twin Eock Bridge, N. Y...................
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT Flood Resilience
    DRAFT Flood Resilience INTRODUCTION vulnerability, and is informed by future Tropical Storm Irene projections. The devastation caused by flooding The focus of this chapter is how flood during Tropical Storm Irene in 2011 was a resilience, mitigation, and adaptation are massive disaster for the Rutland Region linked to land use, transportation, and many other areas of Vermont. It also education, economic development, as well was a turning point. Out of the recovery as many other aspects of regional and rebuilding efforts from Irene came a planning. This chapter is designed to be a new goal for the state: flood resilience. tool for town officials, non-profits, As the Vermont Climate Assessment puts developers, and individuals to help make all communities flood resilient and to it, the state has “begun to pursue public Courtesy: CBS6 Albany policy that builds resilience within all 256 guide coordination of these actions towns” (VCA, 2014). Examples of the new throughout the Region. priorities include Act 16, the flood resiliency planning statute (24 VSA §4302), as well as new rules for qualifying CURRENT CONDITIONS for state matches for Emergency Relief and Types of Flooding Assistance Fund. Flooding events are Vermont’s most The challenge for Vermont communities frequent and costly type of natural disaster. is “turning vulnerability to resiliency by There are two types of flooding that impact taking action through adaptation and communities in Vermont: inundation and mitigation,” says the Assessment. flash flooding. Inundation is when water Resilience being the ability of the Region to rises onto low lying land. Flash flooding is US Rt.
    [Show full text]
  • 321 Cmr: Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
    321 CMR: DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE 321 CMR 5.00: COLDWATER FISH RESOURCES Section 5.01: Introduction and Purpose 5.02: Definitions 5.03: Criteria and Procedure for Designating Coldwater Fish Resources 5.04: Requests that the Division Evaluate the CFR Status of a Waterbody 5.01: Introduction and Purpose Certain species of fish are sensitive to increases in temperature and require coldwater to fulfill one or more of their life stage requirements. Since the 1940's, the Division has documented the presence of coldwater fish resources (CFRs) in the Commonwealth where these fish occur. In the 1990's, the Division established a list of CFRs to facilitate the tracking and effective monitoring, management and protection of these resources by the Division, other state agencies, and local regulatory authorities, including conservation commissions and planning boards. Under the Department of Environmental Protection's Water Management Act regulations at 310 CMR 36.00: Massachusetts Water Resources Management Program, an applicant proposing a water withdrawal that may affect a CFR designated by the Division pursuant to 321 CMR 5.00 will be required to minimize any impact on the CFR. The Division has not assessed all of the waterbodies in the Commonwealth to determine their status as a CFR. 321 CMR 5.00 codifies the criteria, procedures and related definitions used by the Division to designate waterbodies as CFRs. 321 CMR 5.00 also provides notice of where the Division's current list of CFRs is available for review by regulatory authorities
    [Show full text]
  • Vtrans TS4 NOI, Question D.1 List of First Waters to Which Designated MS4 Areas Discharge, Impairment Status, and Pollutants for Impaired Waters November 17, 2017
    Notice of Intent (NOI) For Stormwater Discharges from the State Transportation Separate Storm Sewer System (TS4) General Permit 3-9007 Submission of this Notice of Intent (NOI) constitutes notice that the entity in Section A intends to be authorized to discharge pollutants to waters of the State under Vermont’s State Transportation Separate Storm Sewer System (TS4) permit. Submission of the NOI also constitutes notice that the party identified in Section A of this form has read, understands and meets the eligibility conditions; agrees to comply with all applicable terms and conditions; and understands that continued authorization under the TS4 General Permit is contingent on maintaining eligibility for coverage. In order to be granted coverage, all information required on this form must be completed and a complete Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) Plan must be submitted. A. Permittee Information 1a. Mailing Address: 1b. Town: 1c. State: 1d. Zip: 2 . Phone: 3. Email: B. Primary contact responsible for overall coordination of SWMP, if different than PEO 1. Name: 2a. Mailing Address: 2b. Town: 2c. State: 2d. Zip: 3. Phone: 4. Email: 5. Additional Contact Name: 6 . Additional Contact Email: C. Partnering organization responsible for Minimum Control Measure (MCM) implementation (if applicable) 1. If you are participating in the Chittenden County Reginal Planning Commission Memorandum Of Understanding to implement MCM1 & MCM2, check here: If you are relying on another entity to implement a MCM, please complete the following: 2. Organization: 3. Contact Name: 4. Minimum Control Measure being implemented: 5a. Mailing Address 5b. Town: 5c. State: 5d. Zip: 6. Phone: 7. Email: 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Y E I O N Inside!
    yeion inside! FALL IN. LOVE 2.7 SECONDS. I IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN LOVE AT FIRST SIGHT IT'S BECAUSE YOU'VE NEVER LAID EYES ON THE JAVATM BEFORE. THIS HIGHLY RESPONSIVE CREEK BOAT MEASURES IN AT 7'9:' WEIGHS ONLY 36 LBS AND ANSWERS YOUR EVERY DESIRE WHEN PADDLING AGGRESSIVE LINES. AND WHEN IT COMES TO DROPPING OVER FALLS. ITS STABILITY AND VOLUME PROVIDE EFFORTLESS BOOFS AND PILLOW- SOFT LANDINGS.WHETHER YOU'RE 7 A BEGINNING CREEKER OR AN OLD HAND, ONCE YOU CLIMB INTO A JAVA YOU'LL KNOW WHY THEY CALL IT FALLING IN LOVE. Forum ......................................4 Features Corner Charc .................................... 8 Letters .................................... 10 When Rashfloods Hit Conservation .................................. 16 IFERC Takes Balanced Approach on Housatonic Access .................................. 18 IAccess Flash Reports Whitewater Releases on the North IFlow Study on the Cascades of the Nantahala Fork Feather IGiving the Adirondacks Back to Kayaks IUpper Ocoee Update Events .................................. 24 Canada Sechon IIf You Compete, You need to Know This IMagic is Alive and Music is Afoot Dams Kill Rivers in Canada Too! INew Method for Paddlers JimiCup 2001 IRace Results ISteep Creeks of New England, A Review Saving the Gatineau! River Voices ................................... 64 IGauley Secrets Revealed IBlazing Speedfulness s Dave's Big Adventure IWest Virginia Designed by Walt Disney INotes on a Foerfather ILivin' the Dream in South America Whitewater Love Trouble .................... 76 Cover: Jeff Prycl running a good one in Canada. Issue Date: JanuaryIFebrua~2002 Statement oi Frequencv: Published bimonthly Authorized Organization's Name and Address: American Whitewater P.O. Box 636 Prmted OII Fit3 ,pled Paper Margreb~lle,NY 12455 American Whitewater Januaty February 2002 ing enough for most normal purposes, but he does have a girlfriend and she has a gun and knows how to use it.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Public Comment on Draft Trout Stream Management Plan
    Assessment of public comments on draft New York State Trout Stream Management Plan OCTOBER 27, 2020 Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor | Basil Seggos, Commissioner A draft of the Fisheries Management Plan for Inland Trout Streams in New York State (Plan) was released for public review on May 26, 2020 with the comment period extending through June 25, 2020. Public comment was solicited through a variety of avenues including: • a posting of the statewide public comment period in the Environmental Notice Bulletin (ENB), • a DEC news release distributed statewide, • an announcement distributed to all e-mail addresses provided by participants at the 2017 and 2019 public meetings on trout stream management described on page 11 of the Plan [353 recipients, 181 unique opens (58%)], and • an announcement distributed to all subscribers to the DEC Delivers Freshwater Fishing and Boating Group [138,122 recipients, 34,944 unique opens (26%)]. A total of 489 public comments were received through e-mail or letters (Appendix A, numbered 1-277 and 300-511). 471 of these comments conveyed specific concerns, recommendations or endorsements; the other 18 comments were general statements or pertained to issues outside the scope of the plan. General themes to recurring comments were identified (22 total themes), and responses to these are included below. These themes only embrace recommendations or comments of concern. Comments that represent favorable and supportive views are not included in this assessment. Duplicate comment source numbers associated with a numbered theme reflect comments on subtopics within the general theme. Theme #1 The statewide catch and release (artificial lures only) season proposed to run from October 16 through March 31 poses a risk to the sustainability of wild trout populations and the quality of the fisheries they support that is either wholly unacceptable or of great concern, particularly in some areas of the state; notably Delaware/Catskill waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Winooski Watershed Landowner Assistance Guide
    Winooski Watershed Landowner assistance Guide Help Protect The Winooski River And Its Tributaries index of resources (a-Z) Accepted Agricultural Practice (AAP) Assistance Landowner Information Series Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA) Natural Resource Conservation Service Backyard Conservation Northern Woodlands Best Management Practices Nutrient Management Plan Incentive Grants Program (NMPIG) Better Backroads Partners for Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commissions Rain Garden Project Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) River Management Program Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Shoreline Stabilization Handbook Conservation Security Program (CSP) Small Scale/Small Field Conservation Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) Trout Unlimited Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) Use Value Appraisal (“Current Use”) Farm Agronomic Practices Program (FAP) UVM-Extension Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP) Vermont Agricultural Buffer Program (VABP) Farm*A*Syst Vermont Coverts: Woodlands for Wildlife Farm Service Agency Vermont Low Impact Development Guide Forest Bird Initiative Vermont River Conservancy Forest Stewardship Program VT DEC Winooski River Watershed Coordinator Friends of the Mad River Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) Friends of the Winooski River Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) Wildlife Habitat Management for Vermont Woodlands Lake Champlain Sea Grant Winooski Crop Management Services Land Treatment Planning (LTP) Winooski Natural Resources Conservation District
    [Show full text]
  • Dams in the Passumpsic River Watershed
    Table of Contents General Description of the Passumpsic River Watershed .................................................. 1 Uses, Values, Special Features of the Passumpsic Watershed ......................................... 2 Waterfalls, Cascades, Gorges, and Swimming Holes ..................................................... 2 Significant Natural Communities...................................................................................... 2 Public Lands and Private Conservation Land in the Basin .............................................. 2 Water Quality/Aquatic Habitat Assessment Basinwide ....................................................... 3 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 3 Overall Assessment of Lake, Pond, River, Stream Uses ................................................ 4 Assessment of Cause and Sources affecting River, Stream, Lake, Pond Uses .............. 5 Passumpsic River up to the Branches and some tributaries ............................................... 7 Description ....................................................................................................................... 7 Sampling Results and Assessment Information .............................................................. 8 River and Stream Assessment Summary ...................................................................... 12 Lakes and Ponds ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]