DOCSLIB.ORG

Lewis and Clark County Long Range Plan 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY LONG RANGE 2020 PLAN Lewis and Clark County Long Range Plan | 1 Contents I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3 II. Natural Resource Inventory .............................................................................................................................................. 4 Human Resources ..............................................................................................................................................................4 POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS ..............................................................................................................................4 LAND USE .........................................................................................................................................................................5 Soil Resources .................................................................................................................................................................... 6 SOIL SURVEY ................................................................................................................................................................... 6 PARENT MATERIAL ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 GEOLOGIC FEATURES ....................................................................................................................................................10 Water Resources .............................................................................................................................................................. 10 PRECIPITATION .............................................................................................................................................................. 10 WATERSHEDS AND STREAMS ....................................................................................................................................... 10 IRRIGATED LANDS ......................................................................................................................................................... 12 WETLANDS .................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Air and Energy .................................................................................................................................................................. 13 AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................................................................. 13 UTILITIES ........................................................................................................................................................................ 13 Plants and Animals ........................................................................................................................................................... 13 LISTED SPECIES AND SPECIES OF CONCERN ................................................................................................................ 13 CONSERVATION AREAS ................................................................................................................................................. 15 INVASIVE SPECIES .......................................................................................................................................................... 16 DECLINING PLANT COMMUNITIES ............................................................................................................................... 16 WILDFIRE ....................................................................................................................................................................... 16 RANGE ........................................................................................................................................................................... 16 III Conservation activity analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 17 IV. Natural resource problems and desired future outcomes .......................................................................................... 20 IDENTIFIED RESOURCE CONCERNS ................................................................................................................................. 20 Invasive plants ............................................................................................................................................................... 20 Forestry concerns ......................................................................................................................................................... 20 Roads ............................................................................................................................................................................ 20 Range overgrazing......................................................................................................................................................... 21 V. Prioritization of natural resource problems and desired outcomes ........................................................................... 21 VI. Targeted Implementation Plans (TIP) and Investment Portfolios ............................................................................... 22 Partner Contributions ................................................................................................................................................... 25 1 Lewis and Clark County Long Range Plan | 2 APPENDIX A ......................................................................................................................................................................... 27 A1 Minutes NRC Planning Meeting ............................................................................................................................... 27 A2 NRC Meeting Minutes, Lincoln, MT .......................................................................................................................... 29 A3 MRC Meeting minutes, East Valley Fire Hall ........................................................................................................... 31 A4 NRC Meeting Minutes, Augusta, MT ....................................................................................................................... 33 Bibliography ......................................................................................................................................................................... 36 2 Lewis and Clark County Long Range Plan | 3 Figure 1 Location of Lewis and Clark County, Montana I. INTRODUCTION Lewis and Clark County is in West Central Montana. Spanning from the Rocky Mountain Front in the north to the state capital of Helena in the south and encompassing both sides of the Continental Divide. Lewis and Clark County contains a wide diversity of landscapes. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Helena Field Office is establishing this document to better understand conservation needs in this complex county and as a framework to execute the mission of the agency. We deliver conservation solutions so agricultural producers can protect natural resources and feed a growing world. The purpose of this Long-Range Plan is two-fold. First, it will be used to gather data by looking at existing conditions and summarizing the work that has been done so far. Secondly, the data will be analyzed to find and prioritize opportunities for voluntary conservation on private lands. This will be done by incorporating community input from landowners and partners, in order to facilitate a strategic approach to natural resource planning. Additionally, this analysis will guide the use of technical and financial assistance delivered by the Helena Field Office. The authors of this plan are the staff of the Helena Field Office and the Lewis and Clark Conservation District. Comments from stakeholders gathered at a series of community meetings in addition to a mailed survey are incorporated into this plan. The following groups contributed to establishing goals and planning priorities for the next five years (2020-2025). • Lewis and Clark County landowners, • Rural fire chiefs farmers, ranchers, and forest owners • Sun River Watershed Group (SRWG) • Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks • Lewis and Clark Conservation District (FWP) • County commissioners The Long-Range Plan will be revisited and updated as necessary, and at a minimum annually, at the Conservation District Local Work Group meeting. 3 Lewis and Clark County Long Range Plan | 4 II. NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY Human Resources POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS: The population of Lewis and Clark County has grown by almost 7% over the last 8 years. The estimated population is currently 67,773 total residents. 95% of the county’s population resides in the Helena Valley. County residents are not very racially diverse with only 6% of the residents reporting an ethnicity other than white at the time of the last census. There are no recognized native American tribes in the county, and no tribally held lands, however
Recommended publications
  • Helena Interagency Dispatch Center

    Helena Interagency Dispatch Center

    Helena Interagency Dispatch Center Cooperating Agencies: USDA Forest Service- Helena National Forest USDI Bureau of Land Management Montana Dept. of Natural Resources & Conservation- Central Lands Office Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Lewis and Clark, Broadwater, Jefferson and Meagher Counties Helena, Montana NEWS RELEASE For Release Immediately Contact:: Amy Teegarden Office: (406) 495-3747 Cell Phone: (406) 439-9135 FIRE RESTRICTIONS TO BEGIN THIS WEEK HELENA, MONT., July 17, 2007- Stage 1 fire restrictions will be implemented this Friday, by the Helena National Forest and members of the Helena Fire Restrictions division. “Thunderstorms coupled with record-breaking heat this week is a recipe for wildfires and local officials are instituting fire restrictions in an effort to reduce new fire starts.” stated Amy Teegarden, spokesperson for the Helena National Forest. Restrictions on smoking and open fires on federal and state lands, as well as on private-forested lands in Lewis and Clark County will take effect Friday, July 20 at 0001. Restrictions will be enforced on lands administered by the Helena National Forest, Bureau of Land Management and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks in Lewis and Clark, Broadwater and Jefferson Counties. Under the restrictions campfires may be built only in developed recreation sites such as campgrounds and picnic areas. Campfires in rock rings and the use of wood stoves in canvas tents outside of campgrounds and other developed sites are prohibited. The Helena Interagency Dispatch Center provides initial
  • National Register of Historic Places Registration Form

    National Register of Historic Places Registration Form

    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Rev. Oct. 1990) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES REGISTRATION FORM 1. Name of Property historic name: Dearborn River High Bridge other name/site number: 24LC130 2. Location street & number: Fifteen Miles Southwest of Augusta on Bean Lake Road not for publication: n/a vicinity: X city/town: Augusta state: Montana code: MT county: Lewis & Clark code: 049 zip code: 59410 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1986, as amended, I hereby certify that this _X_ nomination _ request for detenj ination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the proc urf I and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property X_ meets _ does not meet the National Register Criterfi commend thatthis oroperty be considered significant _ nationally X statewide X locafly. Signa jre of oertifying officialn itle Date Montana State Historic Preservation Office State or Federal agency or bureau (_ See continuation sheet for additional comments. In my opinion, the property _ meets _ does not meet the National Register criteria. Signature of commenting or other official Date State or Federal agency and bureau 4. National Park Service Certification , he/eby certify that this property is: 'entered in the National Register _ see continuation sheet _ determined eligible for the National Register _ see continuation sheet _ determined not eligible for the National Register_ _ see continuation sheet _ removed from the National Register _see continuation sheet _ other (explain): _________________ Dearborn River High Bridge Lewis & Clark County.
  • Summits on the Air – ARM for Canada (Alberta – VE6) Summits on the Air

    Summits on the Air – ARM for Canada (Alberta – VE6) Summits on the Air

    Summits on the Air – ARM for Canada (Alberta – VE6) Summits on the Air Canada (Alberta – VE6/VA6) Association Reference Manual (ARM) Document Reference S87.1 Issue number 2.2 Date of issue 1st August 2016 Participation start date 1st October 2012 Authorised Association Manager Walker McBryde VA6MCB Summits-on-the-Air an original concept by G3WGV and developed with G3CWI Notice “Summits on the Air” SOTA and the SOTA logo are trademarks of the Programme. This document is copyright of the Programme. All other trademarks and copyrights referenced herein are acknowledged Page 1 of 63 Document S87.1 v2.2 Summits on the Air – ARM for Canada (Alberta – VE6) 1 Change Control ............................................................................................................................. 4 2 Association Reference Data ..................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Programme derivation ..................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 General information .......................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Rights of way and access issues ..................................................................................................... 9 2.4 Maps and navigation .......................................................................................................................... 9 2.5 Safety considerations ..................................................................................................................
  • (Ca. 1.45 Ga), WESTERN NORTH AMERICA: PSEUDOFOSSILS, FACIES, TIDES and SYNDEPOSITIONAL TECTONIC ACTIVITY in a MESOPROTEROZOIC INTRACRATONIC BASIN

    (Ca. 1.45 Ga), WESTERN NORTH AMERICA: PSEUDOFOSSILS, FACIES, TIDES and SYNDEPOSITIONAL TECTONIC ACTIVITY in a MESOPROTEROZOIC INTRACRATONIC BASIN

    SEDIMENTARY, MICROBIAL AND DEFORMATION FEATURES IN THE LOWER BELT SUPERGROUP (ca. 1.45 Ga), WESTERN NORTH AMERICA: PSEUDOFOSSILS, FACIES, TIDES AND SYNDEPOSITIONAL TECTONIC ACTIVITY IN A MESOPROTEROZOIC INTRACRATONIC BASIN A Thesis Submitted to the College of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy In the Department of Geological Sciences University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon By Roy Gregory Rule © Copyright Roy Gregory Rule, July, 2020. All rights reserved. PERMISSION TO USE In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for a Postgraduate degree from the University of Saskatchewan, I agree that the Libraries of this University may make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for copying of this thesis in any manner, in whole or in part, for scholarly purposes may be granted by the professor or professors who supervised my thesis work or, in their absence, by the Head of the Department or the Dean of the College in which my thesis work was done. It is understood that any copying or publication or use of this thesis or parts thereof for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. It is also understood that due recognition shall be given to me and to the University of Saskatchewan in any scholarly use which may be made of any material in my thesis. Requests for permission to copy or to make other uses of materials in this thesis in whole or part should be addressed to: Head of the Geological Sciences Geology Building University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5E2, Canada Or Dean College of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies University of Saskatchewan 116 Thorvaldson Building, 110 Science Place Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5C9, Canada i ABSTRACT Sedimentary, microbial and deformation features in the lower Belt Supergroup (ca.
  • Southwest MONTANA Visitvisit Southwest MONTANA

    Southwest MONTANA Visitvisit Southwest MONTANA

    visit SouthWest MONTANA visitvisit SouthWest MONTANA 2016 OFFICIAL REGIONAL TRAVEL GUIDE SOUTHWESTMT.COM • 800-879-1159 Powwow (Lisa Wareham) Sawtooth Lake (Chuck Haney) Pronghorn Antelope (Donnie Sexton) Bannack State Park (Donnie Sexton) SouthWest MONTANABetween Yellowstone National Park and Glacier National Park lies a landscape that encapsulates the best of what Montana’s about. Here, breathtaking crags pierce the bluest sky you’ve ever seen. Vast flocks of trumpeter swans splash down on the emerald waters of high mountain lakes. Quiet ghost towns beckon you back into history. Lively communities buzz with the welcoming vibe and creative energy of today’s frontier. Whether your passion is snowboarding or golfing, microbrews or monster trout, you’ll find endless riches in Southwest Montana. You’ll also find gems of places to enjoy a hearty meal or rest your head — from friendly roadside diners to lavish Western resorts. We look forward to sharing this Rexford Yaak Eureka Westby GLACIER Whitetail Babb Sweetgrass Four Flaxville NATIONAL Opheim Buttes Fortine Polebridge Sunburst Turner remarkable place with you. Trego St. Mary PARK Loring Whitewater Peerless Scobey Plentywood Lake Cut Bank Troy Apgar McDonald Browning Chinook Medicine Lake Libby West Glacier Columbia Shelby Falls Coram Rudyard Martin City Chester Froid Whitefish East Glacier Galata Havre Fort Hinsdale Saint Hungry Saco Lustre Horse Park Valier Box Belknap Marie Elder Dodson Vandalia Kalispell Essex Agency Heart Butte Malta Culbertson Kila Dupuyer Wolf Marion Bigfork Flathead River Glasgow Nashua Poplar Heron Big Sandy Point Somers Conrad Bainville Noxon Lakeside Rollins Bynum Brady Proctor Swan Lake Fort Fairview Trout Dayton Virgelle Peck Creek Elmo Fort Benton Loma Thompson Big Arm Choteau Landusky Zortman Sidney Falls Hot Springs Polson Lambert Crane CONTENTS Condon Fairfield Great Haugan Ronan Vaughn Plains Falls Savage De Borgia Charlo Augusta Winifred Bloomfield St.
  • Montana Fishing Regulations

    Montana Fishing Regulations

    MONTANA FISHING REGULATIONS 20March 1, 2018 — F1ebruary 828, 2019 Fly fishing the Missouri River. Photo by Jason Savage For details on how to use these regulations, see page 2 fwp.mt.gov/fishing With your help, we can reduce poaching. MAKE THE CALL: 1-800-TIP-MONT FISH IDENTIFICATION KEY If you don’t know, let it go! CUTTHROAT TROUT are frequently mistaken for Rainbow Trout (see pictures below): 1. Turn the fish over and look under the jaw. Does it have a red or orange stripe? If yes—the fish is a Cutthroat Trout. Carefully release all Cutthroat Trout that cannot be legally harvested (see page 10, releasing fish). BULL TROUT are frequently mistaken for Brook Trout, Lake Trout or Brown Trout (see below): 1. Look for white edges on the front of the lower fins. If yes—it may be a Bull Trout. 2. Check the shape of the tail. Bull Trout have only a slightly forked tail compared to the lake trout’s deeply forked tail. 3. Is the dorsal (top) fin a clear olive color with no black spots or dark wavy lines? If yes—the fish is a Bull Trout. Carefully release Bull Trout (see page 10, releasing fish). MONTANA LAW REQUIRES: n All Bull Trout must be released immediately in Montana unless authorized. See Western District regulations. n Cutthroat Trout must be released immediately in many Montana waters. Check the district standard regulations and exceptions to know where you can harvest Cutthroat Trout. NATIVE FISH Westslope Cutthroat Trout Species of Concern small irregularly shaped black spots, sparse on belly Average Size: 6”–12” cutthroat slash— spots
  • Evolution of the Cordilleran Foreland Basin System in Northwestern Montana, U.S.A

    Evolution of the Cordilleran Foreland Basin System in Northwestern Montana, U.S.A

    Evolution of the Cordilleran foreland basin system in northwestern Montana, U.S.A. Facundo Fuentes†, Peter G. DeCelles, Kurt N. Constenius, and George E. Gehrels Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA ABSTRACT episode of marine inundation and black shale 1989; Fermor and Moffat, 1992; Stockmal et al., deposition (Marias River Shale) occurred be- 1992; Beaumont et al., 1993; Plint et al., 1993; New lithostratigraphic and chronostrati- tween the Cenomanian and mid-Santonian, Ross et al., 2005; Miall et al., 2008; Yang and graphic, geochronologic, and sedimentary and was followed by a regressive succession Miall, 2009). This bimodal focus was mainly petrologic data illuminate the history of represented by the Upper Santonian–mid- driven by either the presence of anomalously development of the North American Cor- Campanian Telegraph Creek, Virgelle, and good surface exposures, as in the case of the dilleran foreland basin system and adjacent Two Medicine Formations. Provenance data western interior United States, or by hydro- thrust belt from Middle Jurassic through do not resolve the timing of individual thrust carbon exploration and a large subsurface data- Eocene time in northwestern Montana. The displacements during Cenomanian–early base, as in Canada (Miall et al., 2008). The oldest deposits in the foreland basin system Campanian time. The Upper Campanian ~300-km-long segment of the foreland basin consist of relatively thin, regionally tabu- Bearpaw Formation represents the last major lying within and east of the Cordilleran belt in lar deposits of the marine Ellis Group and marine inundation in the foreland basin . By northwestern Montana remains comparatively fl uvial-estuarine Morrison Formation, which latest Campanian time, a major epi sode of poorly understood in terms of its stratigraphy, accumulated during Bajocian to Kimmerid- slip on the Lewis thrust system had com- basin evolution, and relationship with the kine- gian time.
  • Final Listing Support Document

    Final Listing Support Document

    United States Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. March Washington, D.C. 20460 2011 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Support Document for the Revised National Priorities List Final Rule – ACM Smelter & Refinery Support Document for the Revised National Priorities List Final Rule ACM Smelter and Refinery March 2011 Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................v Introduction................................................................................................................................................vi Background of the NPL.........................................................................................................................vi Development of the NPL.......................................................................................................................vii Hazard Ranking System.......................................................................................................................vii Other Mechanisms for Listing ............................................................................................................viii Organization of this Document.............................................................................................................ix
  • The Future of Stream Access in Montana

    The Future of Stream Access in Montana

    2017 The Best in the West: Stream Access in Montana Public Land/Water Access Association High Water by Mary J. Maxam By Brent Zundel For the Public Land/Water Access Association April 2017 Keeping the public on public lands and waters Overview Montana’s Stream Access Law is widely considered “the best in the west,” arguably the strongest law in the nation in terms of ensuring public access. In short, the public can access any river or stream capable of being used for recreation between the high-water marks, regardless of the navigability of the river or the ownership of the streambed and adjacent property, as long as the user avoids trespass in order to reach the stream. This document provides a history of stream access in Montana, beginning with the original conflicts on the Dearborn and Beaverhead Rivers and continuing to the recently decided battles over access at bridges and the most recent challenge to the Stream Access Law. Early conflicts in the late 1970s and early 1980s led to the groundbreaking Curran The Yellowstone River flows through Paradise Valley, south of Livingston, and Hildreth cases in the Montana. Photo courtesy Brent Zundel Montana Supreme Court. These cases laid the foundation for the groundbreaking 1985 Stream Access Law, which codifies the strong public access rights enjoyed by all Montanans today. Immediately upon passage of the law, it was challenged in district courts, the state supreme court, and even appealed to the federal level. It has withstood all challenges. In the past decade, those fighting against public access have shifted to focus on stream access at bridges, with much of the controversy centering on the iconic Ruby River.
  • Glaciers of the Canadian Rockies

    Glaciers of the Canadian Rockies

    Glaciers of North America— GLACIERS OF CANADA GLACIERS OF THE CANADIAN ROCKIES By C. SIMON L. OMMANNEY SATELLITE IMAGE ATLAS OF GLACIERS OF THE WORLD Edited by RICHARD S. WILLIAMS, Jr., and JANE G. FERRIGNO U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1386–J–1 The Rocky Mountains of Canada include four distinct ranges from the U.S. border to northern British Columbia: Border, Continental, Hart, and Muskwa Ranges. They cover about 170,000 km2, are about 150 km wide, and have an estimated glacierized area of 38,613 km2. Mount Robson, at 3,954 m, is the highest peak. Glaciers range in size from ice fields, with major outlet glaciers, to glacierets. Small mountain-type glaciers in cirques, niches, and ice aprons are scattered throughout the ranges. Ice-cored moraines and rock glaciers are also common CONTENTS Page Abstract ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- J199 Introduction----------------------------------------------------------------------- 199 FIGURE 1. Mountain ranges of the southern Rocky Mountains------------ 201 2. Mountain ranges of the northern Rocky Mountains ------------ 202 3. Oblique aerial photograph of Mount Assiniboine, Banff National Park, Rocky Mountains----------------------------- 203 4. Sketch map showing glaciers of the Canadian Rocky Mountains -------------------------------------------- 204 5. Photograph of the Victoria Glacier, Rocky Mountains, Alberta, in August 1973 -------------------------------------- 209 TABLE 1. Named glaciers of the Rocky Mountains cited in the chapter
  • Upper Sun River Drainage Basin Origin Determined by Topographic Map Interpretation Techniques: Lewis and Clark and Teton Counties, Montana, USA

    Upper Sun River Drainage Basin Origin Determined by Topographic Map Interpretation Techniques: Lewis and Clark and Teton Counties, Montana, USA

    Open Journal of Geology, 2019, 9, 257-277 http://www.scirp.org/journal/ojg ISSN Online: 2161-7589 ISSN Print: 2161-7570 Upper Sun River Drainage Basin Origin Determined by Topographic Map Interpretation Techniques: Lewis and Clark and Teton Counties, Montana, USA Eric Clausen Independent Researcher, Jenkintown, PA How to cite this paper: Clausen, E. (2019) Abstract Upper Sun River Drainage Basin Origin Determined by Topographic Map Inter- A new and fundamentally different regional geomorphology paradigm in pretation Techniques: Lewis and Clark and which massive south- and southeast-oriented meltwater floods flowed across Teton Counties, Montana, USA. Open the entire Missouri River drainage basin is tested by interpreting detailed to- Journal of Geology, 9, 257-277. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojg.2019.95018 pographic maps of the Montana upper Sun River drainage basin region by trying to explain origins of previously unexplained or poorly explained ero- Received: April 8, 2019 sional landforms located upstream from Sun River Canyon (which cuts across Accepted: May 11, 2019 Montana’s north-to-south oriented Sawtooth Range). Mountain passes, Published: May 14, 2019 through valleys, and other drainage divide low points along what are today Copyright © 2019 by author(s) and high mountain ridges, including the North American east-west continental Scientific Research Publishing Inc. divide, are interpreted to be evidence of drainage routes that once crossed the This work is licensed under the Creative region. These drainage divide crossings suggest
  • Summary and Response to Upper Missouri River Reservoir Fisheries Management Plan 2010-2019 Public Comments

    Summary and Response to Upper Missouri River Reservoir Fisheries Management Plan 2010-2019 Public Comments

    Summary and Response to Upper Missouri River Reservoir Fisheries Management Plan 2010-2019 Public Comments Canyon Ferry Walleye The Upper Missouri River Reservoirs Management Plan proposes to manage Canyon Ferry Reservoir as a multi-species fishery with an emphasis on walleye and rainbow trout while recognizing the importance of yellow perch as a sport and forage fish. The management strategy seeks to achieve and maintain a quality walleye fishery while maintaining a balance between walleye abundance and prey availability. If management of walleye population abundance and their predation on desirable sport and forage species is not maintained in a proper balance, all fish populations will suffer and provide diminished angler satisfaction. This balance is particularly difficult to maintain on waters such as Canyon Ferry Reservoir where natural reproduction can be virtually unlimited. Angler harvest regulations are the most cost-effective management tool available to maintain this balance and to increase numbers of desirable sized walleye; however, limits above standard regulations for the Central Fishing District for walleye (5 daily and 10 in possession) are essential to maintain a suitable forage base that will provide growth of walleye into large size groups. Three management alternatives for regulations were proposed by FWP and the Citizen Workgroup for Canyon Ferry to manage the walleye population to attain this goal: Alternative 1: Reduce bag limit to 10 fish daily, 20 in possession with only one fish greater than 28-inches. Maintain 10 fish limit for three years in order to evaluate any changes to walleye population structure. o This alternative will reduce overall angler exploitation of walleye, while continuing to actively manage walleye to reduce predation of other desirable sport fish species.