Appendix F

P ROPOSED MOUNTAIN L AKES FISHERY

MONITORING PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 171

APPENDIX F: PROPOSED MOUNTAIN 

LAKES FISHERY MONITORING PLAN 
A PPENDIXES

172 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX F 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................173 

PAST MONITORING: EXISTING DATA, RELIABILITY OF DATA, PROTOCOLS USED.......................174 

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND ASSOCIATED MONITORING NEEDS ................................................174 

KEY DATA CATEGORIES AND SELECTION OF METHODS/PROTOCOLS 

FOR MONITORING..............................................................................................................................183 

Abiotic Categories—Key Data..........................................................................................................191 

Abiotic Categories—Additional Data Potentially Useful ...................................................................191 

Biotic Categories—Key Data............................................................................................................191 

Biotic Categories—Additional Data Potentially Usefull ................................................................... 193 

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK.............................................................................................194 

Technical Advisory Committee Composition....................................................................................195

Framework for Decisions..................................................................................................................196 

Evaluation Thresholds......................................................................................................................197 

PRIORITIES FOR MONITORING.............................................................................................................198 

REFERENCES CITED IN APPENDIX F...................................................................................................199 

APPENDIX F-1 SUGGESTED SURVEY PROTOCOLS ..........................................................................200 

FIGURES 

F-1: Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Monitoring Flow Chart..........................................................189

F-2: Future Adaptive Management Decisions...........................................................................................195

F-3: Basic Decision Framework ................................................................................................................197

TABLES 

F-1: North Cascades Complex Surveys for the 91 Lakes in the Study Area—Protocols, 

Data Categories, and Reliability of Data ..........................................................................................175

F-2: Management Actions for the 91 Lakes..............................................................................................184

F-3: Management Action for Each of the 91 Lakes ..................................................................................185

F-4: Management Actions and Monitoring Objectives ..............................................................................187
Appendix F

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 173

INTRODUCTION 

Adaptive management is a central theme of the three action alternatives analyzed in this Draft Mountain 

Lakes Fishery Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement for the 91 naturally formed mountain 

lakes in the North Cascades National Park Service Complex (North Cascades Complex). Monitoring of 

the 91 lakes is a key component of adaptive management. Adaptive management is based on the 

continuing, iterative process of applying management actions, monitoring consequences, evaluating 

monitoring results against objectives, adjusting management actions, and using feedback to make future 

management decisions. The adaptive management process for the 91 lakes in the study area would 

include evaluating the effects of management actions (for example, management of low densities of 

nonreproducing fish) on biological resources at individual lakes and identifying whether and how these 

practices should be modified to meet the objectives of the selected management action for the lakes. 

Monitoring activities would be selected and designed to test the success and effectiveness of management 

actions at each lake. This proposed mountain lakes fishery monitoring plan (monitoring plan) for the 

North Cascades Complex would provide the basis for the monitoring activities. 

The specific objectives of the monitoring plan are listed below. 

Reduce uncertainty of current conditions by gathering additional information where data 

are lacking. 

Develop, if needed, and implement standardized protocols for data collection that are cost 

effective, efficient, and explicitly linked to management actions. Also, develop 

thresholds/criteria for data evaluation that will facilitate the adaptive management process. 

Perform adaptive management by evaluating the success or failure of management actions 

to conserve/improve biological integrity and provide quality fishing opportunities. 

Sampling under the proposed monitoring plan is not intended to replace monitoring that has been or is 

currently being performed under other programs in the North Cascades Complex (such as long-term 

monitoring). Instead, monitoring would use data already collected and implement sampling protocols 

developed and applied within the North Cascades Complex lakes. One notable example of established 

sampling methods is the set of sampling protocols prepared by Hoffman et al. (2003). Other aquatic 

monitoring efforts include 

Long-term research by the National Park Service (NPS) that was initiated following the 1988 

Supplemental Agreement. The research was performed with the support of the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS)-Biological Resources Division and Oregon State University and 

completed in 2002. Results of this research are summarized in the “Purpose of and Need for 

Action” chapter in the section titled “Summary of Existing Research.” 

Management by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) of fishery 

resources in 17 stocked lakes and 23 lakes with self-sustaining (reproducing) fish populations 

in North Cascades National Park and all lakes in the Ross Lake and Lake Chelan National 

Recreation Areas. Two private groups, the Washington State Hi-Lakers and the Trail Blazers 

Inc., assist the WDFW in collecting fishery data. 
A PPENDIXES

174 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

This proposed monitoring plan is organized as follows: 

Past Monitoring: Existing Data, Reliability of Data, Protocols Used—provides a summary 

of the known physical, chemical, and biological data collected at the 91 lakes in the North 

Cascades Complex that are the subject of the Draft Mountain Lakes Fishery Management 

Plan / Environmental Impact Statement (plan/EIS). 

Management Actions and Associated Monitoring Needs—for each management action, 

provides the needed monitoring efforts and objectives in table and flowchart formats. 

Key Data Categories and Selection of Methods/Protocols for Monitoring—describes key 

data to be used during monitoring and recommends methods best suited for use in 

monitoring the results of the selected management actions. 

Decision Support Framework—describes the basic elements in the process by which the 

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) would make lake management decisions. 

Adaptive Management Framework—discusses how the key data for each lake would be 

evaluated and interpreted to determine if a change in management direction would be 

needed. 

Priorities for Monitoring—describes considerations that would be used when setting 

priorities as to which lakes would be monitored and which data are key to monitoring 

management activities. 

References Cited

PAST MONITORING: EXISTING DATA, 

RELIABILITY OF DATA, PROTOCOLS USED 

A variety of data have been collected from many of the 91 lakes in the North Cascades Complex. The 

most common physical characteristics, water temperature and depth, have been measured for 

approximately 75 of the 91 lakes. Outlet habitat type has only been estimated from Geographic 

Information System (GIS) data but not confirmed in the field. The 21 types of data (abiotic and biotic) 

collected from the 91 study area lakes are provided in table F-1. For each data type, the method used to 

collect the data and the reliability of the data are listed in the table, with additional explanation provided 

in footnotes. In most cases, fishless lakes have less data available than do lakes that currently have fish. 

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND 

ASSOCIATED MONITORING NEEDS 

The 91 lakes in the North Cascades Complex have been placed into one of four categories according to 

the fishery population found in the lake. The four categories are 

1. Lakes that are currently fishless 

2. Likes with high densities of reproducing fish 

3. Lakes with low densities of reproducing fish 

4. Lakes with nonreproducing fish. 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

TABLE F-1: NORTH CASCADES COMPLEX SURVEYS FOR 91 LAKES IN THE STUDY AREA—PROTOCOLS, DATA CATEGORIES, A

Biotic 

Lake Information Abiotic Data Categories Fish Amphibia

Lake Name 

NPS Lake 

Code 

TKN 

(mg/l) 

Surface 

Water 

Temperature 

Lake 

Depth Substrate 

Available 

Spawning 

Habitat 

Outlet 

Habitat 

Type 

Fish 

Presence 

Fish 

Reproductive 

Status 

Fish 

Species 

Present 

Density of 

Reproducing 

Fish 

Status of 

Fish 

Population 

in Outlet 

Snorkel 

Survey 

Visual 

Survey 

Azure MP-09-01 1 X Fishless Battalion MLY-02-01 2 1 X 1 2 2 2 3 2 1 Bear MC-12-01 2 1 X 1 1 1 2 3 Berdeen M-08-01 2 X 1 1 2 2 2 Berdeen (Lower) M-07-01 2 2 X 1 1 2 2 3 2 3 Berdeen (Upper) M-09-01 2 2 2 2 3 2 Blum (Largest/Middle, No. 3) M-11-01 2 X 1 2 1 2 3 Blum (Lower/West, No. 4) LS-07-01 2 1 X X 1 1 1 1 3 2 Blum (Small/North, No. 2) MC-01-01 2 2 X X Fishless 2 Blum (Vista/Northwest, No. 1) MC-02-01 2 1 X X Fishless 2 Bouck, Lower DD-04-01 2 2 X 1 1 1 3 3 Bouck, Upper DD-05-01 1 1 X 1 2 Bowan MR-12-01 1 X 1 2 Coon MM-10-01 1 1 X X 1 2 2 Copper MC-06-01 1 1 X 1 2 Dagger MR-04-01 1 1 X X 1 1 2 1 3 2 2 Dee Dee, Upper MR-15-01 1 1 X 1 2 1 2 2 Dee Dee/Tamarack, Lower MR-15-02 1 1 X 1 2 3 Despair, Lower M-14-01 Fishless Despair, Upper M-13-01 Fishless Diobsud No. 1 LS-01-01 1 1 X 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 Diobsud No. 2, Lower LS-02-01 1 1 X 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 Diobsud No. 3, Upper LS-03-01 1 1 X 1 2 3 Doubtful CP-01-01 1 1 X X 1 1 2 3 2 2 Doug's Tarn M-21-01 2 2 X 1 1 1 2 3 2 East, Lower MC-14-02 2 Fishless 3 East, Upper MC-14-01 Fishless Firn MP-02-01 2 X 1 1 2 3 3 3 Green M-04-01 2 X 1 1 2 2 3 Green Bench LS-04-01 2 X Fishless Hanging MC-08-01 1 Hidden SB-01-01 1 X X 1 3 2 2 3 Hidden Lake Tarn EP-14-01 1 X 1 Hi-Yu M-01-01 1 1 X 1 2 1 Hozomeen HM-02-01 1 1 X X 1 1 1 2 2 2 Ipsoot LS-06-01 1 X No outlet 1 1 2 2 No outlet 1 Jeanita DD-01-01 1 1 X X No outlet 1 2 1 2 No outlet 2 1 
TABLE F-1: NORTH CASCADES COMPLEX MOUNTAIN LAKES SURVEYS—PROTOCOLS, DATA CATEGORIES, AND RELIABILITY 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

Biotic 

Lake Information Abiotic Data Categories Fish Amphibia

Lake Name 

NPS Lake 

Code 

TKN 

(mg/l) 

Surface 

Water 

Temperature 

Lake 

Depth Substrate 

Available 

Spawning 

Habitat 

Outlet 

Habitat 

Type 

Fish 

Presence 

Fish 

Reproductive 

Status 

Fish 

Species 

Present 

Density of 

Reproducing 

Fish 

Status of 

Fish 

Population 

in Outlet 

Snorkel 

Survey 

Visual 

Survey 

Kettling MR-05-01 2 2 X 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 Kwahnesum MC-07-01 2 1 X X 1 2 1 McAlester MR-10-01 2 1 X X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Middle, Lower MC-16-02 2 X Fishless 3 Middle, Upper MC-16-01 2 X Fishless Monogram M-23-01 1 1 X X 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 Monogram Tarn M-23-11 2 3 Nert M-05-01 1 1 X 2 2 1 Noisy Creek, Upper LS-14-01 Fishless No Name PM-01-01 2 1 X 1 Panther Potholes, Lower RD-05-02 1 1 X X 2 1 1 Panther Potholes, Upper RD-05-01 1 1 X X Fishless 1 1 Pegasus EP-10-01 Fishless Pond SE of Kettling Lakes MR-09-01 2 X 1 2 Quill, Lower M-24-02 No outlet 1 3 2 3 No outlet Quill, Upper M-24-01 2 X No outlet 1 3 2 3 No outlet Rainbow MR-14-01 2 1 X 1 1 1 1 3 1 Rainbow, Upper (North) MR-13-01 1 1 X X Fishless 2 1 Rainbow, Upper (South) MR-13-02 1 1 X X 1 1 Rainbow, Upper (West) MM-11-01 1 1 X 1 2 Redoubt MC-11-01 2 2 X Fishless 2 Reveille, Lower MC-21-02 2 2 X Fishless Reveille, Upper MC-21-01 2 1 X Fishless 2 Ridley HM-03-01 1 1 X X 1 2 1 Sky EP-13-01 Fishless Skymo PM-03-01 2 1 X 1 1 1 2 3 2 2 Sourdough PM-12-01 2 X 1 1 1 2 3 Sourpuss ML-01-01 1 1 X Fishless 2 3 Stiletto MR-01-01 2 1 X 1 Stout EP-09-02 X 1 1 1 2 2 Stout, Lower EP-09-01 2 2 X 1 1 1 2 3 2 Sweet Pea ML-02-01 1 1 X X 1 2 3 Talus Tarn M-06-01 1 1 X Fishless 2 3 Tapto, Lower MC-17-03 Fishless Tapto, Middle MC-17-02 1 1 X Fishless Tapto, Upper MC-17-01 2 X Fishless Tapto, West MC-17-04 1 2 X Fishless Thornton, Lower M-20-01 2 1 X 1 3 3 3 3 2 1 Thornton, Middle M-19-01 2 1 X X 1 2 
TABLE F-1: NORTH CASCADES COMPLEX MOUNTAIN LAKES SURVEYS—PROTOCOLS, DATA CATEGORIES, AND RELIABILITY 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

Biotic 

Lake Information Abiotic Data Categories Fish Amphibia

Lake Name 

NPS Lake 

Code 

TKN 

(mg/l) 

Surface 

Water 

Temperature 

Lake 

Depth Substrate 

Available 

Spawning 

Habitat 

Outlet 

Habitat 

Type 

Fish 

Presence 

Fish 

Reproductive 

Status 

Fish 

Species 

Present 

Density of 

Reproducing 

Fish 

Status of 

Fish 

Population 

in Outlet 

Snorkel 

Survey 

Visual 

Survey 

Thunder RD-02-01 1 1 X X Fishless 2 3 Tiny MC-15-01 2 X Fishless 3 Torment ML-03-01 2 1 X X 1 2 3 Trapper GM-01-01 1 1 X X 1 1 2 2 2 2 Triplet, Lower SM-02-01 1 2 X 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 Triplet, Upper SM-02-02 2 2 X 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 Triumph M-17-01 2 X 1 1 Unnamed FP-01-01 Fishless Unnamed MR-11-01 1 1 X X 1 2 3 Unnamed MR-16-01 2 X 2 3 2 1 3 2 Vulcan ML-04-01 1 1 X Fishless 2 3 Wilcox/Lillie, Upper EP-06-01 1 1 X 1 1 1 3 2 Wilcox/Sandie, Lower EP-05-01 2 1 X 1 1 1 3 3 2 Wild MC-27-01 1 1 X Fishless 2 Willow HM-04-01 1 1 X X 1 2 2 

Notes: a. The presence/absence of data and its reliability are presented as a "snapshot" of the data available in April 2004. Additional lake surveys may have been performed, and conditions may change prior to 

Cells marked by an "X" indicate that a reliable survey has been conducted; blank cells indicate that no survey has been conducted. Data Categories: TKN (mg/l): Total Kjeldahl nitrogen determined using OSU protocols for collecting water samples in the field.

1 = High confidence in number because surveys on multiple dates were conducted, the mean has a low standard deviation, or few outliers were present. 2 = Low confidence in number because surveys were only conducted on one date, the mean had a high standard deviation, or two or more values were both higher and lower than 0.045 mg/l. 

Surface Water Temperature: Surface water taken during thermal maxima (warmest period of day) over deepest portion of lake using OSU Protocols.

1 = High confidence in number because surveys were conducted on multiple dates, the mean has a low standard deviation, or few outliers were present. 2 = Low confidence in number because surveys were only conducted on one date, the mean had a high standard deviation, or the range of values was unusually high. 

Lake Depth: Lake depth measured in feet at deepest portion of lake, depth is usually measured with a weighted line, but can be measured with electronic depth finders. Reliable measurements exist for mSubstrate (percentage by type: silt, sand, gravel, cobble, coarse woody debris, etc.): Percentage of substrate types is visually estimated for individual measured segments of shoreline during a survey of p

Available Spawning Habitat (spawning area and type of spawning habitat): No spawning habitat surveys have been conducted. The percentage of available (accessible) spawning gravel in inlet and outle

to be determined, gravel areas can be measured by snorkel surveys in areas where upwelling through gravel is measured or assumed.

Outlet Habitat Type (surface, subsurface, none): Outlet surveyed in field to determine if a surface connection exists part of the season so that fish can physically migrate out from a lake into downstream 

Fish Presence: Fish presence is measured by setting funnel traps, visual observation of shallow areas of lake (by wading or snorkeling), observation of surface feeding activity, hook-and-line fishing, or gil

target of surveys. Visual observation and trapping are likely to be the most successful methods of surveying. 

Fishless = Lake is currently fishless. This information has been determined by either survey or historic information (no reports of observed fish or lake with no recorded reproduction and has not bee

1 = High confidence that fish are present in lake because (1) reproduction well documented, (2) lake has been recently stocked, or (3) recent reports exist of fish observed or caught. 2 = Low confidence in presence of fish because of lack of confidence in available records. 

Fish Reproductive Status (by species/subspecies/hatchery stock): Fish have continued to persist in multiple year classes with no documented stocking occurring. Fish have been observed spawning, an

1 = Lakes with known reproduction at adequate levels to sustain population. 2 = Lakes where limited levels of reproduction are known to occur. 3 = Lakes where limited levels of reproduction are thought to occur. 

Fish Species Present (species/subspecies/hatchery stock): Fish species have been determined through historic records of stocking and examination of catch records. In one case (McAlester Lake), a ge

1 = Fish species/strain/hatchery stock is well documented. 2 = Fish species/subspecies/strain is not fully documented or level of introgression is suspected. 3 = Species of fish that is reproducing is not known. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

Density of Reproducing Fish: The only reliable estimates are from mark-and-recapture studies conducted by OSU.

1 = Density of reproducing fish population has been documented through mark-and-recapture study (OSU protocols). 2 = Density of reproducing fish has not been quantified but estimated based on subjective data and best professional judgment. 3 = Density of reproducing fish has not been documented, and no data other than presence and a general idea of species is available. 

Status of Fish Population in Outlet: The outlet stream of McAlester Lake is the only stream where an assessment of downstream migration of trout introduced into mountain lakes has been documented

(assessment of availability of suitable habitat and visual signs of trout) to determine where fish occur. Backpack electrofishers should be used to confirm the upstream extent of native fish (usually at a barr

fish.

1 = Outlet has been surveyed for presence and type of fish downstream to native fish populations. 2 = Outlet has not been surveyed, but some evidence of downstream migration and colonization is available. 

3 = Outlet has not been surveyed.  No outlet; No surface outlet is known to exist. 

Amphibian Snorkel Survey: OSU protocol was used to determine salamander nearshore population densities by conducting nearshore snorkel transects of randomly selected 100-meter segments of lak

1 = High confidence in data because more than 2 surveys were conducted. 2 = Moderate confidence in data because 1–2 surveys were conducted. The probability of detection of populations was still good, but density data may reflect low recruitment years (weather and oth

Amphibian Visual Survey: Visual surveys of amphibians conducted utilizing methodologies outlined in Olson et al. 1997. Surveys are not quantitative (number/time, area, or distance). Amphibians usuallor dipnet and voucher specimens collected if necessary.

1 = High confidence in presence because amphibians were observed. 2 = Moderate confidence in presence data because more than one survey was conducted. 3 = Low confidence in presence data because only one survey was conducted. 

Amphibian Trapping Survey: Trapping surveys conducted with funnel traps utilizing methodologies outlined in Olson et al. 1997. Some surveys were quantitative (number/time), but it is unlikely that eno

recapture surveys were conducted, so densities were not determined.

1 = High confidence in presence because amphibians were observed. 2 = Moderate confidence in presence data because more than one survey was conducted. 3 = Low confidence in presence data because only one survey was conducted. 

OSU Benthic Macroinvertebrate Survey: Survey used OSU sampling protocols. BMI were collected with kicknets. No habitat data (substrate, riparian vegetation, and aquatic vegetation) were collected.

NOCA Benthic Macroinvertebrate Survey: Survey used NOCA sampling protocols. More intensive sampling of BMI occurred using kicknets for sampling. This protocol is more likely to detect presence o

aquatic vegetation) were collected.NOCA Zooplankton Presence Survey (to document the presence of large copepod species): Surveys used vertical net tows, but information has not been quantified and methodology or equipment docuOSU Zooplankton Presence Survey (to document the presence of large copepod species): Surveys used OSU protocol for vertical (deeper lakes) or horizontal (shallow lakes) net tows. Samples were n

dominant/subdominant taxa. Reliability of presence data is good, but sparse populations may not be documented.OSU Zooplankton Density Survey (to document the presence and density of large copepod species): Surveys used OSU protocol in vertical or horizontal net tows. Data were quantified by determining t

Riparian Vegetation: Percentage of riparian vegetation by type (shrub, forest, talus, forbes) was visually estimated for measured segments of shoreline during surveys of lake perimeters. The total breakd

indicate that a survey was performed. Cells marked with a "P" indicate that this information has been approximated through aerial photo interpretation.

Aquatic Vegetation: The percentage of shoreline with aquatic vegetation present has been visually estimated for measured segments of shoreline during a survey of lake perimeters. The total percentage 
Appendix F

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 183

Management actions for each of the four categories of lakes are described in table F-2. Management 

actions and their associated monitoring requirements would differ for many lakes according to the action 

alternative (B, C, or D) chosen. A list of all 91 lakes and their management actions under each alternative 

are shown in table F-3. Under alternative B, up to 42 lakes may be available for fishing; under 

alternative C, up to 11 lakes may be available for fishing; and under alternative D, all 91 lakes would 

either remain fishless or be returned to a fishless condition. Under the no-action alternative 

(alternative A), current lake management practices would continue. 

For each management action, the monitoring actions and objectives would remain the same, regardless of 

the alternative chosen, such as under management action 2A—remove all reproducing fish. Monitoring 

the recovery of native organisms and maintaining the lake in a fishless state would be the same under 

alternatives B and C. Under management action 2A, four monitoring actions are indicated: 

Monitor effects of chemical fish removal on nontarget organisms (if applicable) 

Monitor effectiveness of fish removal or die off (if applicable) 

Monitor recovery of indicators after fish removal or die off (never restock) 

Monitor riparian vegetation impacts/recovery (if present) 

These monitoring actions are the same for all lakes that fall under management action 2A. 

The various management actions and their monitoring requirements and objectives are listed in table F-4. 

Monitoring actions are shown in the main body of the table, and the monitoring objectives are described 

in footnotes. The process for deciding what monitoring should be performed is illustrated in the 

monitoring flowchart (figure F-1). 

KEY DATA CATEGORIES AND SELECTION 

OF METHODS/PROTOCOLS FOR MONITORING 

Key data are needed in order to determine into what category to place each lake and to monitor the effects 

of the various management actions. These data include such parameters as presence/absence of fish, 

density of fish, fish reproductive status, zooplankton species and abundance, benthic (bottom dwelling) 

macroinvertebrate community composition, lake productivity, lake depth, and lake location relative to the 

Cascade Crest (west or east side). Data already collected or needed to be collected are separated into 

abiotic (physical and chemical) and biotic (fish, amphibians) categories. Within each of these categories, 

data are further identified as either key data or additional data that may be useful but are not critical to 

monitoring the management actions. 
A PPENDIXES

184 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

TABLE F-2: MANAGEMENT ACTIONS FOR THE 91 LAKES

This table presents a standard set of fishery management actions for implementation under alternatives B and C. Note that 

management actions under alternative A would not change from current management, and management actions under 

alternative D only involve discontinuing stocking and removing all fish. The standard management actions in this table are 

broken down into classes 1-4, based on the Technical Advisory Committee’s current understanding of the presence, 

reproductive status, and density of fish in the lakes. These standard management actions would require periodic 

monitoring and evaluation to facilitate adaptive management. 

For a lake that is currently fishless: 

1 The lake would remain fishless. 

For a lake with high densities of reproducing fish, apply one of the following management actions: 

2A Remove all reproducing fish. Monitor the recovery of native organisms and keep the lake fishless. 

2B Remove all reproducing fish. Monitor lake conditions and use the results to determine whether or not to restock the 

lake with nonreproducing fish. If the lake is restocked and monitoring results indicate fish are causing major adverse 

impacts, then fish densities would be reduced by changing stocking densities, stocking cycles or the species of 

stocked fish. If these management changes do not work, then discontinue stocking. 

2C Remove all reproducing fish. Implement a resting period (that is, keep the lake fishless for a period of time) to foster 

recovery of native organisms, The duration of the resting period will be determined on a lake-by-lake basis based 

upon monitoring results. If monitoring results indicate favorable recovery of native organisms, then restock the lake 

with low densities of nonreproducing fish and monitor lake conditions. If monitoring results indicate fish are causing 

major adverse impacts, then reduce stocking densities, stocking cycles, or the species of stocked fish. If these 

management changes do not work, then discontinue stocking. 

For a lake with low densities of reproducing fish, apply one of the following management actions: 

3A Remove all reproducing fish. Monitor the recovery of native organisms, and keep the lake fishless. 

3B Evaluate the reproductive status of fish and the status of indicator taxa. If fish density is high enough that impacts on 

indicator taxa may be major, apply prescription 2A, 2B, or 2C. If fish densities and impacts to indicator taxa are low, 

maintain the low fish densities. If monitoring data indicate fish are causing major adverse impacts, then completely 

remove fish. 

3C For lakes with extremely low densities of fish, augment the population with supplemental stocking and monitor 

indicator taxa. If monitoring results indicate fish are causing major adverse impacts, then stop stocking and remove 

all fish. 

For a lake that has been stocked and does not contain a reproducing population of fish, apply one of the 

following management actions: 

4A Discontinue stocking. Monitor the recovery of native organisms. 

4B Lack of data for decision-making. Discontinue stocking and monitor lake conditions. If the lake is restocked and 

monitoring results indicate fish are causing major adverse impacts, then discontinue stocking. 

4C Continue stocking with low densities of fish expected not to reproduce in the lake. If monitoring results indicate fish 

are causing major adverse impacts, then reduce stocking densities, stocking cycles or the species of stocked fish. If 

these management changes do not work, then discontinue stocking. 
Appendix F

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 185

TABLE F-3: MANAGEMENT ACTION FOR EACH OF THE 91 LAKES

Note: Shaded rows indicate lakes that are in Ross Lake and Lake Chelan National Recreation Areas; the other lakes are in the 

national park portion of the North Cascades Complex.

Management Action 

Lake Name 

NPS 

Lake Code 

Current Condition of Lake 

(as represented under alternative A) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Azure MP-09-01 Fishless 1 1 1 

Battalion MLY-02-01 High density reproducing fish 2B 2B 2A 

Bear MC-12-1 High density reproducing fish 2C 2A 2A 

Berdeen M-08-01 High density reproducing fish 2C 2A 2A 

Berdeen, Lower M-07-01 High density reproducing fish 2A 2A 2A 

Berdeen, Upper M-09-01 High density reproducing fish 2A 2A 2A 

Blum (Largest/Middle, No. 3) M-11-01 High density reproducing fish 2B 2A 2A 

Blum (Lower/West, No. 4) LS-07-01 High density reproducing fish 2C 2A 2A 

Blum (Small/North, No. 2) MC-01-01 Fishless 1 1 1 

Blum (Vista/Northwest, 

No. 1) MC-02-01 Fishless 1 1 1 

Bouck, Lower DD-04-01 High density reproducing fish 2C 2C 2A 

Bouck, Upper DD-05-01 Stocked with nonreproducing fish 4A 4A 4A 

Bowan MR-12-01 Stocked with nonreproducing fish 4A 4A 4A 

Coon MM-10-01 Stocked with nonreproducing fish 4C 4C 4A 

Coppera MC-06-01 Stocked with nonreproducing fish 4B 4A 4A 

Dagger MR-04-01 High density reproducing fish 2B 2A 2A 

Dee Dee, Upper MR-15-01 High density reproducing fish 2B 2A 2A 

Dee Dee/Tamarack, Lower MR-15-02 Stocked with nonreproducing fish 4A 4A 4A 

Despair, Lower M-14-01 Fishless 1 1 1 

Despair, Upper M-13-01 Fishless 1 1 1 

Diobsud No. 1 LS-01-01 High density reproducing fish 2A 2A 2A 

Diobsud No. 2, Lower LS-02-01 High density reproducing fish 2B 2A 2A 

Diobsud No. 3, Upper LS-03-01 Stocked with nonreproducing fish 4A 4A 4A 

Doubtful CP-01-01 High density reproducing fish 2C 2A 2A 

Doug’s Tarn M-21-01 High density reproducing fish 2C 2A 2A 

East, Lower MC-14-02 Fishless 1 1 1 

East, Upper MC-14-01 Fishless 1 1 1 

Firn MP-02-01 Low density reproducing fish 3B 3A 3A 

Green M-04-01 High density reproducing fish 2B 2A 2A 

Green Bench LS-04-01 Fishless 1 1 1 

Hanging MC-08-01 High density reproducing fish 2Ab

 2Ab 2Ab

Hidden SB-01-01 Low density reproducing fish 3C 3A 3A 

Hidden Lake Tarn EP-14-01 Stocked with nonreproducing fish 4A 4A 4A 

Hi-Yu M-01-01 Stocked with nonreproducing fish 4B 4A 4A 

Hozomeen HM-02-01 High density reproducing fish 2A 2A 2A 

Ipsoot LS-06-01 Low density reproducing fish 3B 3A 3A 

Jeanita DD-01-01 Low density reproducing fish 3B 3A 3A 

Kettling MR-05-01 High density reproducing fish 2A 2A 2A 

Kwahnesum MC-07-01 Stocked with nonreproducing fish 4A 4A 4A 

McAlester MR-10-01 High density reproducing fish 2B 2B 2A 

Middle, Lower MC-16-02 Fishless 1 1 1 

Middle, Upper MC-16-01 Fishless 1 1 1 

Monogram M-23-01 High density reproducing fish 2C 2A 2A 

Monogram Tarn M-23-11 Stocked with nonreproducing fish 4A 4A 4A 

Nert M-05-01 Stocked with nonreproducing fish 4A 4A 4A 

Noisy Creek, Upper LS-14-01 Fishless 1 1 1 

No Name PM-01-01 Stocked with nonreproducing fish 4C 4A 4A 
A PPENDIXES

186 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

TABLE F-3: MANAGEMENT ACTION FOR EACH OF THE 91 LAKES (CONTINUED) 

Management Action 

Lake Name 

NPS 

Lake Code 

Current Condition of Lake 

(as represented under Alternative A) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Panther Potholes, Lower RD-05-02 Stocked with nonreproducing fish 4A 4A 4A 

Panther Potholes, Upper RD-05-01 Fishless 1 1 1 

Pegasus EP-10-01 Fishless 1 1 1 

Pond SE of Kettling Lakes MR-09-01 Stocked with nonreproducing fish 4C 4C 4A 

Quill, Lower M-24-02 Stocked with nonreproducing fish 4B 4A 4A 

Quill, Upper M-24-01 Stocked with nonreproducing fish 4B 4A 4A 

Rainbow MR-14-01 High density reproducing fish 2C 2C 2A 

Rainbow, Upper (North) MR-13-01 Fishless 1 1 1 

Rainbow, Upper (South) MR-13-02 Stocked with nonreproducing fish 4A 4A 4A 

Rainbow, Upper (West) MM-11-01 Stocked with nonreproducing fish 4A 4A 4A 

Redoubt MC-11-01 Fishless 1 1 1 

Reveille, Lower MC-21-02 Fishless 1 1 1 

Reveille, Upper MC-21-01 Fishless 1 1 1 

Ridley HM-03-01 Stocked with nonreproducing fish 4C 4C 4A 

Sky EP-13-01 Fishless 1 1 1 

Skymo PM-03-01 High density reproducing fish 2C 2A 2A 

Sourdough PM-12-01 High density reproducing fish 2B 2A 2A 

Sourpuss ML-01-01 Fishless 1 1 1 

Stiletto MR-01-01 Stocked with nonreproducing fish 4B 4A 4A 

Stout EP-09-02 Low density reproducing fish 3B 3A 3A 

Stout, Lower EP-09-01 Low density reproducing fish 3B 3A 3A 

Sweet Pea ML-02-01 Stocked with nonreproducing fish 4C 4A 4A 

Talus Tarn M-06-01 Fishless 1 1 1 

Tapto, Lower MC-17-03 Fishless 1 1 1 

Tapto, Middle MC-17-02 Fishless 1 1 1 

Tapto, Upper MC-17-01 Fishless 1 1 1 

Tapto, West MC-17-04 Fishless 1 1 1 

Thornton, Lower M-20-01 Low density reproducing fish 3C 3A 3A 

Thornton, Middle M-19-01 Stocked with nonreproducing fish 4C 4A 4A 

Thunder RD-02-01 Fishless 1 1 1 

Tiny MC-15-01 Fishless 1 1 1 

Torment ML-03-01 Stocked with nonreproducing fish 4A 4A 4A 

Trapper GM-01-01 Low density reproducing fish 3B 3A 3A 

Triplet, Lower SM-02-01 High density reproducing fish 2C 2C 2A 

Triplet, Upper SM-02-02 High density reproducing fish 2A 2A 2A 

Triumph M-17-01 Stocked with nonreproducing fish 4C 4A 4A 

Unnamed FP-01-01 Fishless 1 1 1 

Unnamed MR-11-01 Stocked with nonreproducing fish 4C 4C 4A 

Unnamed MR-16-01 Low density reproducing fish 3B 3B 3A 

Vulcan ML-04-01 Fishless 1 1 1 

Wilcox/Lillie, Upper EP-06-01 High density reproducing fish 2A 2A 2A 

Wilcox/Sandie, Lower EP-05-01 High density reproducing fish 2C 2A 2A 

Wild MC-27-01 Fishless 1 1 1 

Willow HM-04-01 Stocked with nonreproducing fish 4C 4C 4A 

Notes: 

a. In August 2004, a large fish kill was observed in Copper Lake, possibly due to disease. Further surveys are needed to confirm that the lake is 

fishless. 

b. Remove all reproducing fish pending agreement with British Columbia. 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

TABLE F-4: MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND MONITORING OBJECTIVES

Monitoring Objectives: 

(see below for descriptions) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6

Monitoring Actions: 

Management Actions (a)

Perform Baseline 

Measurements 

Monitor Effects of 

Chemical Fish Removal 

on Nontarget Organisms 

(if applicable) 

Monitor Effectiveness of 

Fish Removal or Die Off 

(if applicable) 

Monitor Recovery of 

Indicators After Fish 

Removal or Die Off 

(never restock) (b)

Monitor Indicators 

to Determine Restocking 

After Fish Removal 

or Die Off 

Monitor E

(Re)Stocke

Indicat

Lakes that are Currently Fishless 1 (Lakes to remain fishless) [29,29] Xd (for selected lakes) Lakes with High Densities of Reproducing Fish2A (Treat lakes to remove high-density reproducing fish) [8,22] X (as needed) X X X 2B (Remove reproducing fish, gather information, determine if lake should be restocked) [8,2] X (as needed) X X X X 2C (Remove reproducing fish, allow lake to rest, restock with nonreproducing fish) [11,3] X (as needed) X X X Lakes with Low Densities of Reproducing Fish3A (Treat lakes to remove low density reproducing fish) [0,8] X (as needed) X X X 3B (Evaluate reproductive status of fish, allow low densities of fish) [7,1] X (as needed) X (if needed) X (if needed) X 3C (Supplement low densities of reproducing fish with stocked nonreproducing fish) [2,0] X (as needed) X (if needed) X (if needed) X Lakes with Nonreproducing Fish4A (Discontinue stocking of lake [nonreproducing fish]) [12,21] X (as needed) X X 4B (Discontinue stocking of lake, gather information, determine if lake should be restocked) [5,0] X (as needed) X (if needed) X (if needed) X X 4C (Continue to stock with nonreproducing fish) [9,5] X (as needed) X (if needed) X (if needed) X 

Notes:

a. See table F-2 for full descriptions of the management actions. Numbers in brackets [B,C] are estimated numbers of lakes within each management action under alternatives B and C (see table F-3). b. If needed as input to adaptive management decisions. c. If unacceptable effects occur, a different management action (e.g., fish removal) would be applied. d. X = possible monitoring could occur for each management action. MONITORING OBJECTIVES:1. To supplement existing data with key biological and physical/chemical data as needed for use as baseline in the monitoring program. 2. To evaluate the degree of adverse impact of antimycin on native biota in order to minimize impacts of future antimycin applications. 3. To determine the effectiveness of fish removal and to evaluate if all fish (reproducing or nonreproducing) have been eliminated or if population levels have been reduced, and if additional/different fish r4. In lakes that would be maintained as fishless, to determine recovery of indicators after fish removal or die-off — never restock. Use the monitoring data as input for possible adjustments to thresholds o

5. Prior to any restocking, use the data to determine whether indicators are satisfactorily recovering to permit restocking at an appropriate level. Use the data as input to adaptive management decisions. 6. To determine the impacts of nonnative fish on the native biota. Use the data as input to future adaptive management decisions. 7. To improve knowledge of recreational fishing activity. To understand relative demand for fishing and focus mitigation measures where needed. 

8. To determine fish population characteristics. Data would serve as one indicator of the biological condition of the lake and as an indicator of recreational fishing opportunities/experience and the need fo

9. If riparian-zone vegetation is present along shoreline, determine the impacts of trampling of vegetation by anglers. Data on degree of trampling and recovery would be used as input to management dec
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FIGURE F-1: MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT MONITORING FLOW CHART
Appendix F

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 191

A BIOTIC C ATEGORIES — K EY D ATA

Water temperature—required to accurately classify lakes for analysis of biotic data and is 

also used in determining fish removal methodology. 

Water conductivity—required to determine effectiveness of electrofishing for use in removing 

fish. 

Lake depth—required to accurately classify lakes for analysis of biotic data and to evaluate 

best methodology to effectively remove fish. Lake depth data is available for most lakes. 

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)—serves as a general indicator of lake nutrient levels and is 

needed to classify lakes for analysis of biotic data. TKN data is available for a moderate 

number of lakes, but the data is from many lakes and is questionable due to the extreme range 

of values recorded or the limited number of data points. 

Substrate percentage by type (silt, sand, gravel, coarse woody debris, etc.)—needed to 

classify lakes by type when analyzing benthic macroinvertebrate (BMI) survey data and may 

be useful in evaluating the biotic integrity of assemblages of other groups of organisms. 

Available spawning area (ASA or available spawning gravel) and spawning habitat (inlet, 

outlet, or beach) type—needed to evaluate the feasibility of fish removal and determine the 

best methodology for fish removal. 

Outlet habitat type (surface, subsurface, none)—needed to determine if it is physically 

possible for fish in mountain lakes to migrate out of lakes into downstream basins. 

Inlet and outlet water flows—needed to determine proper amount of the piscicide antimycin 

needed to eliminate fish, yet not impact other aquatic biota. 

A BIOTIC C ATEGORIES — 

A DDITIONAL D ATA P OTENTIALLY U SEFUL

In addition to TKN, other basic water chemistry/water quality data (pH, water hardness, turbidity, basic 

nutrients) may be available or could be gathered while collecting water samples for TKN measurements. 

This information probably should be collected if additional TKN measurements are needed from 

individual lakes, but may not be necessary for the purposes of monitoring under the plan/EIS. Also, water 

samples for analysis of anthropogenic pollutants (such as methyl-mercury and persistent organic 

pollutants could be collected. Results of these analyses would be used to help understand any observed 

long-term trends in the monitored aquatic communities. 

B IOTIC C ATEGORIES — K EY D ATA

Fish 

Fish Presence—information has already been collected for the 91 lakes; however, after fish 

removal treatments, it would be necessary to survey lakes for fish presence to determine the 

success of removal treatments. If stocking were continued, fishing mortalities may have to be 

monitored to determine suitable stocking rates (densities) of nonreproducing fish. 

Reproductive status of fish in lakes by species/subspecies/hatchery stock—needed in order to 

place each lake into one of the three categories used in the monitoring plan. It would also be 
A PPENDIXES

192 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

used to classify lake by type for the analysis of survey data; that is, fish reproductive status 

would be required for analysis of BMI survey data under the protocol for the North Cascades 

Complex. 

Species of trout present in lakes—needed in conjunction with reproductive status. This also 

includes examining suspect populations for hybridization. In some cases, genotypes would 

probably have to be determined by USGS biological survey. Tissue samples should be 

collected where fish cannot be identified by physical appearance (phenotype). 

Density of reproducing fish—required in order to place each lake into one of the three 

categories used in the monitoring plan. Also, in lakes where gillnets would be used to reduce 

fish density, the success of treatment would need to be monitored. 

Status of fish population in outlet—needed to assess the potential for escape or extent of 

escape of stocked populations of trout in mountain lakes to downstream water bodies. 

Fishery health—needed as an indication of the quality of sport fishing in lakes that are 

currently stocked or would be stocked. Elements used to determine overall fishery health 

would include growth rates, condition factors, and parasite loads. 

Amphibians 

Three amphibian protocols (snorkel, visual, and trapping) have been utilized during amphibian surveys. 

Since larvae population densities are required for lake management, it is recommended that snorkel 

surveys be used for both presence and density information. All three methodologies could be used to 

determine salamander presence, with snorkeling providing the most reliable presence information. 

Although trapping may be used for mark-and-recapture estimates of population densities, snorkeling 

would be the most practical method of determining population densities of amphibian larvae. Amphibian 

surveys would focus on salamanders, but the presence/abundance of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana 

luteiventris) should also be noted. 

Presence of salamander larvae by species—needed to document the presence of either of the 

two salamander species found in the North Cascades Complex: long-toed salamander 

(Ambystoma macrodactylum) or Northwestern salamander (A. gracile). Although the 

extended rearing period of salamander larvae in lakes (more than one year) increases the 

probability of detection, how appealing larvae are to fish can vary with weather and climate 

conditions. 

Density of salamander larvae by species—needed to evaluate potential impacts of fish to 

salamander populations; same problems as described above. 

Benthic Macroinvertebrates 

Two protocols were used for benthic (bottom dwelling) macroinvertebrate (BMI) surveys. An OSU 

protocol was used for a provisional inventory of species composition at each lake; however, the 

methodology developed by staff at the North Cascades Complex has a greater probability of detecting less 

common or difficult to detect species, and when combined with substrate and vegetation surveys, enables 

a more detailed analysis and better predictions of species assemblages in the study area lakes. 
Appendix F

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 193

Although there is some overlap in the lakes surveyed by the two different protocols, coverage is not 

complete. If the protocol at the North Cascades Complex were used for BMI surveys, additional surveys 

may be required in lakes that have only been surveyed under the OSU protocol. 

Presence and frequency of occurrence of benthic macroinvertebrates by species—needed to 

determine the biodiversity index for BMI, which can be used to evaluate direct fish impacts 

to macroinvertebrates. The season of the year when lakes are surveyed, and the fragmented 

distribution of some species populations, may create issues with the BMI data, which may 

need compensation. 

Zooplankton 

Data describing the presence and density of large copepods are needed to evaluate direct fish impacts on 

zooplankton. Because the presence and densities of individual zooplankton species vary dramatically 

during the ice-free season, the timing of surveys can create an issue with the comparability of these data 

between lakes and from year to year. 

Three protocols have been used for zooplankton surveys. 

Earlier surveys were conducted by the NPS at the North Cascades Complex. Information 

about the survey methodology is not available, but it does not appear to have been 

quantitative and appears to have been used only for identification of a few species (large 

copepods and a few other important taxa). 

Zooplankton surveys were also conducted by OSU using more intensive searches. Most of 

the surveys were not quantitative but only intended to determine presence of each species that 

were the dominant and subdominant species. 

Additional surveys were conducted by OSU using essentially the same protocols used for 

their initial surveys but with the sampled water volume quantified. It was recommended that 

this latter OSU protocol be used to quantitatively measure the presence and density of large 

copepods during lake monitoring. 

B IOTIC C ATEGORIES — 

A DDITIONAL D ATA P OTENTIALLY U SEFUL

Surveys of riparian and aquatic vegetation may be required in conjunction with the BMI surveys at the 

North Cascades Complex to determine the biodiversity index for individual lakes. Other vegetation data 

would be useful in assessing habitat quality for salamanders or the presence of sensitive plant species: 

Riparian vegetation (percent by type: talus, shrub, forbes, forest)—information may be 

needed to classify lakes by type when analyzing BMI survey data and may be useful in 

evaluating the biological integrity of assemblages of other groups of organisms. 

Presence and status of state-listed plant species or other vegetation that is unique or 

particularly sensitive to trampling—information would be useful in deciding whether to 

mitigate for angler use or whether a lake should be closed to restocking. 

Aquatic Vegetation (percent of shoreline with aquatic vegetation)—information also may be 

needed to classify lakes by type when analyzing BMI survey data and may be useful in 

evaluating the biotic integrity of assemblages of other groups of organisms. 
A PPENDIXES

194 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

Width of emergent vegetation—useful in determining the survivability of adult salamanders 

during the breeding season. This could be collected during assessments of the percentage of 

aquatic vegetation. 

Distance to closed-canopy forest—helpful is assessing the availability of adult salamander 

habitat for pond-breeding salamanders. This information has been evaluated through 

interpretation of ortho-photographs, actual field measurements of interpretation of betterquality aerial photographs would provide a better assessment. 

Descriptions of monitoring protocols for each data category are provided in appendix F-1. The 

descriptions include a brief explanation of the protocol itself, the number of lakes where it has been 

performed, and the reason for collecting the data. 

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK 

Once the monitoring program has been initiated and key data collected, as needed, for each lake in the 

program, the data would be evaluated and interpreted to determine if a change in management direction 

would be needed, based on the management objectives. This could be done in a variety of ways, including 

the development and use of a formal decision support model, such as what is used in the Northwest Forest 

Aquatic and Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Plan (Reeves et al. 2004) or by the establishment of a 

decision support framework that would use a designated Technical Advisory Committee to evaluate the 

data, based on a set of criteria or thresholds that would be developed to guide the decision. The committee 

would be charged with 

establishing priorities as to which lakes to monitor and which physical/chemical/biological 

parameters to monitor 

developing and refining evaluation thresholds/criteria 

assessing whether the data indicate that some thresholds have been exceeded or that 

biological integrity of the system is being compromised 

deciding if a change in management actions may be necessary 

making other lake management decisions, as needed 

At this point in time, a formal decision support model has not been developed for use in this proposed 

monitoring plan; rather, the following outlines a decision support framework, or decision protocol, that 

has been developed to provide for a consistent, integrated interpretation of the data, using the best science 

available. The interpretation would drive future adaptive management decisions, as indicated in 

figure F-2. 

Integral to the adaptive management component of the framework, is continued monitoring and 

evaluation, as needed, to ensure the management objectives for the lake(s) are being met. 
Appendix F

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 195

FIGURE F-2: FUTURE ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

T ECHNICAL A DVISORY C OMMITTEE C OMPOSITION

A necessary component of this decision protocol is the establishment of a technical advisory committee 

(TAC) that would review the key data categories and validate reference sites and values; define the 

evaluation factors and criteria; adjust the decision support protocol, as needed, to take into account 

different indicator weights and relations; apply the criteria; and verify the results. This committee must 

include regional and provincial experts who represent interagency and interdisciplinary skills and who 

can draw upon the expertise and knowledge of local research and field staffs, as necessary. The TAC for 

the monitoring plan would consist of key researchers in the NPS, WDFW, and USGS who have been 

involved in past monitoring in the North Cascades Complex. In addition, other TAC members who would 

be familiar with the North Cascades Complex and the ecology of high mountain lakes may include 

informed citizens or the scientific community associated with local universities, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, and U.S. Forest Service. 

Initially, TAC members could include the following: Roy Zipp (Natural Resource Specialist—North 

Cascades Complex), Reed Glesne (Aquatic Ecologist—North Cascades Complex), Bob Pfeifer (Inland 

Fisheries Management Biologist, Habitat Biologist—WDFW), Mark Downen (Inland Fisheries 

Biologist—WDFW), and John Wullschleger (Fisheries Biologist—NPS, Fort Collins, CO). Roy Zipp 

would serve as chairman of the TAC. Bob Hoffman (OSU Research Professor/USGS) would serve as 

technical advisor to the committee. The specific individuals on the TAC would likely change as the 

monitoring program evolves. 
A PPENDIXES

196 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

F RAMEWORK FOR D ECISIONS

The basic framework would initially involve the TAC examining a suite of physical and biological 

indicators (the key data categories discussed above) to evaluate the condition of the subject lake (the 

“observed”), relative to a selected baseline (the “expected”). For each lake, the TAC would examine all 

the key data or indicator values that would be monitored under that lake’s designated management action 

(see table F-3). Then, the TAC would use a multiple-lines-of-evidence approach to determine what level 

of change in the data would indicate a need for a change in management. Biological assemblages would 

be assessed in combination with physical and chemical attributes. The TAC would then interpret the suite 

of data as a whole, examining the indicator values, the amount of difference between “observed” and 

‘expected” values, and the interdependence among various factors to evaluate a lake’s condition and 

condition of shoreline vegetation. 

In general, the “expected” baseline would consist of similar data from a reference lake or lakes—

generally historically fishless lakes of the same or similar class. General lake classes would be assigned 

based on work performed by Lomnicky et al. (1989). The first level of classification would separate the 

lakes into two major geographic regions with large-scale differences in climate, aspect, and vegetation, 

based on location east or west of the hydrological divide (Cascade Crest) of the Cascade Mountains. The 

second level of classification, representing smaller variations in ecological habitat, would also be 

considered. 

Where distribution, habitat requirements, or species assemblages of indicator species or species 

assemblages are better known, reference lakes could be grouped by data specific to the indicator taxa. A 

predictive model for BMI species assemblages has been developed where mountain lakes in the North 

Cascades Complex are classified into six biologically similar groups based on location west (four groups) 

or east (two groups) of the hydrological divide and similarity of their BMI species composition (species 

assemblages), using ordination or clustering methods. Lake classes for predicting presence, species, and 

relative abundance of salamander larvae could be grouped by side of hydrologic divide, range of 

salamander distribution, lake fertility (measured by TKN value), and distance from other known or 

potential breeding lakes. The dominant large copepod (Diaptomus kenai) are strongly associated with 

lakes that have temperatures greater than 50oF, while small copepods (D. tyrrelli) are strongly associated 

with shallow (less than 33 feet in depth) lakes with higher TKN values (Liss et al. 2002). Lake depth and 

TKN values are not correlated with the presence of large copepods, but their relative abundance in lakes 

with high densities of reproducing trout tends to be much higher in lakes greater than 33 feet in depth. 

Data from the subject lake could also be compared with the initial conditions of the lake, or previously 

obtained monitoring results, to see what changes have occurred in the lake over time. Using this as a 

baseline would not imply that this would serve as the desired condition for the lake. It would, however, 

provide a baseline from which it would be possible to determine if application of the management actions 

are resulting in the desired change and the conditions in the lake are moving in the desired direction (in 

other words, is the observed change meeting the management objectives). 

If the TAC agrees (by a consensus decision) that the observed change (such as reduction in fish density 

and reestablishment of indicator taxa) is meeting management objectives, management actions for the 

lake would not be changed. If, however, there has been no change or a significant change from the 

expected/desired value, and this cannot be explained by variables other than fish density or fish condition, 

a change in the management action would be indicated. Figure F-3 provides an illustration of the basic 

decision framework. 
Appendix F

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 197

FIGURE F-3: BASIC DECISION FRAMEWORK

E VALUATION T HRESHOLDS

Absent a formal model, the TAC would be charged with evaluating the levels of change and their 

implication for lake management. The actual thresholds/criteria for each biotic and abiotic parameter 

cannot be defined at this time but would be defined initially by the TAC based on previously collected 

data. Thresholds for each data type would include the actual measurements/observations plus the 

associated data variability. The thresholds would be refined by the TAC as the monitoring program 

progresses. Park- or region-wide trends, as monitored in reference lakes, would be factored into all 

management decisions. Any changes in fishery management would require consideration of all 

appropriate data in a line-of-evidence approach and would require consensus of the TAC. The types of 

thresholds/criteria to be considered by the TAC would include, at a minimum, the following: 
A PPENDIXES

198 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

If the data for a parameter are statistically adequate, a change based on one or two standard 

deviations from expected would be applied. 

If the data for a parameter are quantitative, but could not support a statistical evaluation, 

thresholds based on a percent change from baseline would be applied. 

If the data for a parameter are qualitative, the observed changes would be classified as minor, 

moderate, or major and considered in conjunction with the quantifiable data. 

PRIORITIES FOR MONITORING 

Monitoring priorities must be set to determine which lakes should be monitored and which monitoring 

data types should be collected for each lake monitored. As described earlier, one of the initial activities 

for the TAC would be to establish priorities as to which lakes to monitor and the key data required for 

monitoring. Both prioritization activities would have to consider budget and schedule constraints. The 

following are the factors that would be considered when prioritizing lakes for monitoring: 

Highest Priority—lakes requiring evaluation before a management action could be selected 

and implemented. These lakes would require further inventories of baseline conditions; the 

inventories would provide the basis for longer-term monitoring. 

High Priority—lakes with management actions identified based upon sufficient baseline 

information. These lakes would be monitored to evaluate the success of management actions. 

Low Priority—lakes with management actions identified but no current plans for 

implementation. These lakes would include the larger, deeper lakes in the North Cascades 

Complex that are targeted for fish removal. Also, fishless lakes selected to act as reference 

lakes would be categorized as either low- or high-priority lakes, depending on data needs and 

budget/schedule constraints. Data needs on trends in the North Cascades Complex may be 

satisfied using information compiled from higher-priority lakes or from other monitoring 

programs. 

The factors to consider when prioritizing data types would include 

Highest Priority—data that are considered key data. These data must be collected during 

baseline studies and monitoring in order to make management decisions. 

High Priority—data that would help interpret the key data. These data, while not considered 

key, would help to interpret the consequences of management actions if the key data could 

not be conclusively interpreted. Should be considered for collection if funding and schedule 

permit. 

Low Priority—data that would be nice to gather while a lake is being sampled but would not 

be used directly or indirectly by the NPS to make lake management decisions. Because these 

data may be useful to other researchers or fishery managers, the data may be collected if 

incremental costs and effort would not be excessive and if other sources of funding could be 

identified. 
Appendix F

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 199

REFERENCES 

CITED IN APPENDIX F 

Hoffman, R.L., T.J. Tyler, and G.L. Larson 

2003 Sampling protocols for monitoring abiotic and biotic characteristics of mountain ponds and lakes, 

Draft Version 1.00. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service by the 

U.S. Geological Survey, Corvallis, OR. 

Liss, W.J., G.L. Larson, L. Ganio, T.J. Tyler, and R.L. Hoffman 

2002 Distributions and Abundances of Larval Salamanders (Ambystoma macrodactylum) and Large 

Copepods (Diaptomus sp.) in Relation to Introduced Trout and Abiotic Factors in Mountain Lakes 

in North Cascades National Park Service Complex. In: Liss et al. (2002). 

Lomnicky, G.A., W.J. Liss, and G.L. Larson 

1989 Towards a Classification of the Watersheds and Lakes of North Cascades National Park Service 

Complex. Final Report to the National Park Service. Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State 

University. 107 pp. 

Olson, D.H,. W.P. Leonard, and R.B. Bury (editors) 

1997 Sampling amphibians in lentic habitats. Northwest Fauna Number 4, Society for Northwestern 

Vertebrate Biology, Olympia, WA. 

Reeves, G.H., D.B. Hohler, D.P. Larsen, D.E. Busch, K. Kratz, K. Reynolds, K.F. Stein, T. Atzet, P. Hayes, and 

M. Tehan 

2004 Aquatic and Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Plan for the Northwest Forest Plan. Available at: 

http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/watershed/aremp-compile.htm Accessed on April 18. 
200 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX F-1 

SUGGESTED SURVEY PROTOCOLS 
Appendix F

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 201

APPENDIX F-1: 

SURVEY PROTOCOLS

The categories listed below cover data categories that must be collected in the field, rather than by 

analysis of Geographic Information System (GIS) data and interpretation of aerial photographs. Where 

data (zooplankton presence and relative densities, amphibian presence and densities, water temperature, 

total Kjeldahl nitrogen [TKN]) would be expected to vary significantly over the ice-free season or from 

year to year, multiple samples (three or more) may be required to increase confidence in the collected 

data. 

ABIOTIC CATEGORIES 

P ROTOCOLS FOR O BTAINING K EY D ATA

Surface (epilimnetic) water temperature—from Hoffman et al. (2003). Temperature is measured in 

centigrade over the deepest spot in lakes at 1 meter (3.28 feet) from the surface and again half way to the 

bottom using a hand-held thermometer and a remote thermistor (thermocouple). Temperatures are 

recorded on warm summer days during the warmest period of the day (thermal maxima)—around 

2:00 P.M. 

Surface water temperature has been determined for 74 lakes. Mid-depth temperatures have not been taken 

but are useful in determining if thermal stratification occurs in a lake. Water temperatures are needed in 

the monitoring program to assess lake productivity and characterize lake habitat and expected biotic 

community. 

Lake depth—from Hoffman et al. (2003). A handheld sonar device or calibrated line is used to determine 

a lake’s deepest point. At a minimum, two perpendicular depth transects intersecting at the deepest point 

of the lake are conducted. When determined, the maximum depth and the UTM (Universal Transverse 

Mercator) coordinates of its location are recorded. 

Maximum depths have been determined for 77 lakes. Maximum depths are needed in the monitoring 

program to help determine the most appropriate methods to use to remove fish and to characterize the 

basic lake habitat and expected biotic community. Transect depth profile data are needed to calculate the 

lake volume for use in estimating the volume of antimycin needed to remove fish. 

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)—from Hoffman et al. (2003). Water samples are collected for 

measuring TKN and a suite of water chemistry variables. A minimum of 1 liter sample of filtered lake 

water and 250 milliliters (ml) sample of unfiltered lake water should be collected at the deepest point of 

each lake and processed in the field by methods described in Hoffman et al. (2003). Samples will be 

transported out of the field and stored in a refrigerator for laboratory analysis. Additional samples (field 

duplicates) may be collected to ensure confidence in the repeatability of the data. 

TKN values have been determined for 62 lakes. TKN values are needed in the monitoring program to 

help determine lake productivity and characterize lake habitat and expected biotic community. Additional 

water chemistry variables, including pH, alkalinity, conductivity, total dissolved solids, ammonia, nitrateN, total phosphorus (and cations [positive ions] and anions [negative ions] if desired) may also be 

determined during laboratory analysis of the water samples. Samples for anthrogenic pollutants (e.g., 
A PPENDIXES

202 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

persistent organic pollutants [POPs] or methyl-mercury) may also be collected at the same time as other 

water quality sampling. 

Chlorophyll-a concentration—from Hoffman et al. 2003. Water samples may be collected for 

measuring Chlorophyll-a. A minimum 500 milliliter (ml) sample of filtered lake water should be collected 

at the deepest point of each lake and processed in the field by methods described in Hoffman et al. (2003). 

Samples will be transported out of the field and stored in a freezer until the sample is processed in the 

laboratory. Additional samples may be collected to ensure confidence in the repeatability of the data. 

Chlorophyll-a values have not been determined for any of the lakes. Chlorophyll-a values are needed in 

the monitoring program as an indication (in addition to TKN) of lake productivity. 

Dominant littoral substrate. The dominant littoral (near shore) zone substrate is estimated within 10% 

categories (silt, sand, gravel, cobble, coarse woody debris, etc.) during a visual examination of the 

perimeter of the lake. 

Dominant littoral zone substrates have been determined for 25 lakes. Dominant littoral substrates 

measured in 10% increments is needed to characterize lake habitat and expected biotic community. 

Available spawning area (ASA or available spawning gravel) and spawning habitat (inlet, outlet, or 

beach) type. Stream spawning gravels are assessed by walking all tributary and outlet streams until a 

barrier to upstream migration is reached. The percent of available spawning gravel in each segment is 

estimated and recorded. This data is used to calculate the amount of available stream spawning habitat. 

Available lake spawning gravel can be located by snorkel surveys of the littoral zones of mountain lakes 

during salmonid spawning periods. Generally, this area can be mapped accurately by recording redds 

(spawning areas) or surveying extent of upwelling area with flow metering devices. The recruitment newyear classes of trout fry in most lakes is limited by the available area of spawning gravel, rather than the 

number of available spawning females. 

Field surveys indicate that limited spawning habitat is available at Wilcox/Lillie, Upper Lake (EP-06-01). 

Available spawning area has not been determined for any of the other study area lakes. Data describing 

available spawning habitat are needed as input for determination of the most effective fish removal 

technique and as an indication of the sustainability of trout populations in lakes with low levels of trout 

reproduction. 

Outlet habitat type (surface, subsurface, none). Lake outlets where reproducing trout are present 

should be surveyed to determine if an accessible surface outlet exists that trout can utilize to migrate 

downstream from lakes into downstream basins. Although some lakes have been determined to have no 

outlets based on available mapping data, this should be confirmed in the field. In many cases, mapped 

outlets do not actually flow on the surface or do not receive water from mountain lakes. In other cases, an 

outlet stream may cease to have a surface channel and will flow subsurface for a considerable distance. 

For these reasons, it is recommended that, where there is concern that nonnative fish may enter stream 

basins through mountain lake outlet streams, the outlet stream be surveyed to determine if there is a 

complete surface connection to downstream basins. Surveys should extend to known perennial streams 

and preferably to the upstream limit of native fish distribution. Document any falls considered to be 

barriers to upstream fish migration for the native species in the downstream lake/pond. 

Outlet habitat type has been estimated for all lakes from GIS data, but not confirmed in the field. An 

accurate assessment of outlet habitat type is needed in the monitoring program to assess the potential of 

nonnative trout in mountain lakes colonizing downstream basins. 
Appendix F

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 203

Inlet and outlet flows. Inlet and outlet flows would be measured using a propeller flow meter in a 

measured flow channel (width and depth). By counting the number of revolutions over one minute, the 

flow in cubic feet per second can be calculated. 

Inlet and outlet flows have not been measured at any lakes. These data are needed as input to the estimate 

of the volume of antimycin needed to remove fish. 

BIOTIC CATEGORIES 

P ROTOCOLS FOR O BTAINING K EY D ATA

Fish Surveys 

Fish presence. Rod-and-reel angling, gillnet fishing, visual-encounter surveys, snorkel surveys, seining, 

electrofishing, or trapping can be used to determine fish presence or absence and species present, and with 

the exception of visual-encounter surveys and snorkel surveys, to collect meristic data (e.g., total and fork 

lengths, weight, sex, and age) and tissue samples for genetic analysis or analysis for methyl-mercury or 

persistent organic pollutants. Fish presence has been evaluated for all study area lakes, but data from 

several lakes are not considered reliable. A combination of gillnet and rod-and-reel angling gives the best 

combination of presence by species, meristic data, and tissue samples. Where it is necessary to determine 

the presence of fry (when determining if reproduction is occurring or if fish have been successfully 

removed from a lake), a combination of seining, trapping, snorkel surveys, and visual-encounter surveys 

may be required. 

Where it is necessary to confirm the removal of reproducing populations of fish, a lake should be 

surveyed annually for the presence of fish. A period of at least 3 years with no detection of fish should 

pass before fish removal is considered a success. In lakes where reproduction has not been documented, 

and fish are to be removed through the cessation of stocking, the lake should be surveyed for fish 

approximately 10 years after the last stocking. If fish are observed, but numbers appear to be few, and fish 

are from the age class of the last stocking, the lake should be surveyed for fish presence periodically until 

no fish can be detected. If young fish are observed, the lake should be evaluated for the presence of 

natural reproduction. 

Fish-presence surveys are necessary to confirm the presence or absence of fish, determine species of fish 

present, and to collect meristic data and tissue samples. Confirming the absence of fish requires a more 

intensive effort over a greater period of time than confirming presence and visual means of surveying. 

(Note: visual-encounter surveys and snorkel surveys do not allow the collection of any data other than 

confirmation of the presence of fish, although population densities can be estimated from quantified 

snorkel surveys.) 

Species of trout present in lakes. Fish should be collected by one of the methods listed above under fish 

presence. Bias in sampling should be avoided by using multiple methods of collection to obtain as 

complete a collection of age classes and species present as possible. Fish should be field identified by 

specimen, but photographs and tissue samples (in 95% ethanol) should also be collected for verification 

of the species of fish that are present in the lake. 

The trout species present in lakes have been determined to various degrees of accuracy for all lakes, but 

several lakes need additional data to confirm the identity of species/subspecies/hatchery stock. This 

information is needed to determine if reproducing fish in lakes are not native to the stream basin into 

which the lakes drain. 
A PPENDIXES

204 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

Indices of condition of fish. Fish should be collected by one of the methods listed above (except for 

snorkel surveys and visual-encounter surveys) under “Fish Presence.” Meristic data can be collected and 

recorded from the sampled fish. Indices of condition (such as Fulton Condition Factors), relative 

condition factor, or relative weight can be calculated from measurements of length and weight. The sex, 

species, and time of year that data is collected should be recorded along with meristic data. These factors 

can have a strong bearing on how the data is evaluated (condition can vary by sex, species, age, spawning 

period, and time of year). 

Condition factors have not been collected for the Draft Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement (plan/EIS), but data may be available for some of the 91 study area 

lakes. Indices of fish condition are needed to manage the fishery in lakes where the effects of fish 

stocking are evaluated. Condition factors also may be used as an indication if fish densities have exceeded 

the carrying capacity of a lake, providing a rough approximation of effects on native biota. 

Growth rate of fish. Fish should be collected by one of the methods listed above (except for snorkel 

surveys and visual-encounter surveys) under “Fish Presence.” Meristic data can be collected and recorded 

from the sampled fish. Samples of fish scales and otoliths (particles of calcium carbonate found in the 

inner ear of vertebrates) should also be collected to age fish so that growth rates by length and weight can 

be calculated. The sex, species, and time of year should be recorded along with meristic data. These 

factors can have a strong bearing on how the data is evaluated (condition can vary by sex, species, age, 

spawning period, and time of year). 

Growth rates of fish have not been collected for this plan/EIS, but data may be available for some of the 

lakes. Growth rates are needed to manage the fishery in lakes where fish stocking would continue. 

Growth rates also may be used as an indication if fish densities are having effects on native biota. Growth 

rates can also provide a good approximation of lake productivity. 

Parasite load of fish. Fish should be collected by one of the methods listed above (except for snorkel 

surveys and visual-encounter surveys) under “Fish Presence.” Sampled fish can be dressed in the field 

and the gills, skin, viscera, and muscle tissue examined for the presence of parasites. Sampling of live fish 

is mandatory for parasite examination because many external parasites leave fish within minutes after the 

host’s death. As a result, when using gillnets to sample fish, nets should be sampled frequently. An 

external examination and necropsy (autopsy) conducted in the field may provide useful general 

information, but a complete parasite examination requires at least a good dissection microscope and a 

person with fish health training for a definitive inventory of parasites. This would require transport of 

living fish from the field. As a result, parasite examinations in the field would be limited to judgments of 

the severity of infections by an experienced biologist or technician. Methods described in Murphy and 

Willis (1996) should be used for the examination of fish parasite loads. 

Parasite load data have not been collected for this plan/EIS, but this data may be available for some of the 

lakes. Estimates of fish parasite loads are needed to manage the fishery in lakes where fish stocking 

would continue. Fish parasite loads may be used as an indication if fish densities have exceeded the 

carrying capacity of a lake, providing a rough approximation of effects on native biota. High loads of 

parasites can be a sign of environmental stress, such as low levels of available forage organisms and 

organic and inorganic pollutants. 

Reproductive status of fish in lakes by species/subspecies/hatchery stock. Fish should be collected by 

one of the methods listed above (except for snorkel surveys and visual-encounter surveys) under “Fish 

Presence.” The age of the specimens should be verified through the collection of scales and otoliths as 

described below under the section on density of reproducing fish. Length frequency distributions should 

not be used to distinguish different stocking efforts or year classes (Nelson 1988). Bias in sampling 
Appendix F

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 205

should be avoided by using multiple methods of collection to obtain a complete a collection of age classes 

and species present. At least 20–30 individuals should be collected, if possible. After the ages of collected 

fish are determined by examination in a laboratory, this information should be compared to documented 

fish stocking. The presence of many age classes of fish that were not documented in stocking records can 

be considered documentation of reproduction, with confidence increasing with the number of reproducing 

fish of various age classes present. A single age class, not the product of a documented stocking, may 

represent an undocumented stock and should be regarded as suspect (although many lakes may have 

reproduction only in years with favorable climate and water level conditions). Photographs and tissue 

samples (in 95% ethanol) should also be collected for verification of the species of fish that is 

reproducing in the lake. 

The reproductive status of fish in lakes has been determined to various degrees of accuracy for all lakes, 

but several lakes need additional data to confirm determinations as to reproductive status and the identity 

of species/subspecies/hatchery stock that are reproducing. This information is needed to determine if a 

reproducing population exists in a lake and if the reproducing fish are not native to the stream basin into 

which the lake drains. 

Density of reproducing fish. Mark-recapture methods (Gresswell et al. 1997) and gillnet sampling 

(Nelson 1964, 1972, 1984, 1988) can be used to determine the density of reproducing fish in lakes. 

Snorkel surveys similar to those for salamander larvae (Hoffman et al. 2003) can be used. 

The density of reproducing fish has been determined through mark-and-recapture for 8 lakes and 

population densities based on average densities in the literature for the reproducing species have been 

estimated for an additional 18 lakes. This information is needed to assess the level of effect trout 

populations have on native biota, such as zooplankton (relative abundance of larger copepods), and 

salamander larvae (density and presence). 

Status of fish population in outlet streams. Fish populations in outlet streams may be assessed to 

determine if nonnative fish stocked in mountain lakes are migrating downstream from lakes and either 

hybridizing or replacing native fish populations in downstream basins. In addition, nonnative fish may be 

colonizing reaches of streams above the range of native fish with possible effects on native biota. 

The historic distribution of native fish in streams should be determined as accurately as possible from the 

available literature and fish inventory reports. Fish distribution is usually limited to the first major barrier 

falls on tributary streams, but sometimes there is a gradual loss of fish species diversity as successive 

barrier falls are encountered, while moving upstream. Where there is concern about the escape of 

reproducing trout from mountain lakes into downstream basins, or a need to prioritize lakes for fish 

removal by their effects to native fish populations in downstream basins, the upper limit of fish 

distribution should be approached by the most direct (or easiest route) available. At least two crewmen 

should participate in field surveys. The presence of fish should be determined by a combination of habitat 

evaluation (gradient and pool structure), visual encounter (using Polaroid glasses to more easily observe 

movements of fish in stream pools), and a backpack electrofisher and dip net. If fish cannot be found, 

survey downstream until the upstream limit of native fish distribution is found. Document any falls 

considered barriers to upstream fish migration. (Note: different fish species have different abilities to 

navigate barrier falls.) Sample 20–40 fish (if available) to determine species composition. If nonnative 

fish do not appear to be present, stop downstream survey; however, collect meristic information and 

tissue samples from sampled fish for later analysis of possible hybridization. Take photographs of 

sampled fish. 

Survey either upstream to barrier for native fish or downstream from lake outlet, noting physical barriers 

to upstream movement. If no fish habitat (lower gradient reaches with pools) exists between the lake 
A PPENDIXES

206 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

outlet and upper limit of fish distribution, it is only necessary to survey downstream from the lake until a 

reach of 100 meters (328 feet) of stream is surveyed with no fish encountered. When surveying upstream 

from the limit of native fish distribution, the survey can stop when nonnative fish are first encountered. 

The colonization of a lake’s outlet stream by nonnative trout stocked in the lake has only been 

documented for McAlester Lake. There is some evidence of downstream migration and colonization with 

reproducing populations of trout for 8 lakes. Densities of reproducing fish have been determined through 

mark-and-recapture for 8 lakes, and population densities based on average densities in the literature for 

the reproducing species have been estimated for an additional 18 lakes. This information is needed in the 

monitoring program to assess the extent of colonization of outlet streams and downstream basins by 

nonnative trout stocked in mountain lakes and its effect on native fish and other taxa. 

Amphibian Surveys 

Three amphibian protocols (snorkel, visual, and trapping) have been utilized during amphibian surveys. 

All three methodologies can be used to determine salamander presence, with snorkeling (Hoffman et al. 

2003) providing the most reliable presence information. Trapping (Adams et al. 1997) can also provide 

highly reliable presence information, but the number of traps necessary to approximate detection abilities 

of snorkel surveys may be prohibitive at most mountain lakes. 

Since larvae population densities are required for lake management, it is recommended that snorkel 

surveys be used for both presence and density information when surveying for salamander larvae. In 

addition to snorkel surveys for the determination of salamander larvae presence and densities, a visualencounter survey should be conducted for frogs and toads using protocols outlined in Olson et al. (1997), 

Tyler et al. (1998), Brokes (2000), Hoffman et al. 2003, Thoms et al. (1997), Bury and Major (1997), and 

Crisafulli (1997). If frogs or toads (adults) are documented during visual-encounter survey, dipnets should 

be used to capture specimens, which can either be used for field identification (with photographs), as 

voucher specimens, or as sources of tissue samples for genetic analysis and identification. 

Snorkel surveys for salamander larvae (along with visual-encounter surveys for other amphibians) have 

been conducted in 53 lakes. An additional 7 lakes have had visual-encounter surveys for amphibians. This 

information (presence and abundance of salamander larvae and presence of any other amphibians) will 

provide an estimate of effects of fish on native biota. 

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Surveys 

Two protocols have been used for benthic (bottom dwelling) macroinvertebrate (BMI) surveys. An 

Oregon State University (OSU) protocol was used for a provisional inventory of species composition at 

each lake; however, the methodology developed by personnel at the North Cascades Complex has a 

greater probability of detecting less common or difficult-to-detect species and was combined with 

substrate and vegetations surveys that enable a more detailed analysis and better predictions of species 

assemblages in the study area lakes. BMI survey data from the North Cascades Complex was used to 

develop a BMI index of water quality and biological integrity. Samples are collected using kick-andsweep techniques for approximately 6 minutes at each of five randomly located sites at each lake, within 

the 1 meter (3.28 feet) depth contour. 

BMI data using the North Cascades Complex protocol has been collected at 43 lakes (OSU BMI data is 

available for 23 of these lakes), with BMI data using the OSU protocol collected at an additional 16 lakes. 

The information is needed for the monitoring program to assess the biotic integrity of the BMI data in 

lakes by determining if the BMI assemblages of lakes fall within the their expected range of biodiversity 

or if the assemblages are being affected by high densities of fish. 
Appendix F

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 207

Zooplankton Surveys 

Three protocols were used for zooplankton surveys. Earlier surveys were conducted by personnel at the 

North Cascades Complex using protocols similar to those used by OSU during later surveys (Hoffman 

et al. 2003). These surveys primarily documented the taxa present in lakes and grouped them as dominant 

or subdominant in the zooplankton species assemblages. Zooplankton surveys also were conducted by 

OSU using essentially the same protocols but with the volume of sampled lake water quantified, so 

relative densities of large copepods and D. tyrrelli/volume of water surveyed could be determined for 

each lake. It is recommended that the quantitative OSU protocols be used to measure for the presence and 

density of large copepods and other zooplankton species. Both vertical and horizontal tows should be 

used in deeper lakes, with only horizontal tows 25 meters (82 feet) in length used in lakes less than 

2 meters (6.5 feet) in maximum depth. In lakes that are greater than or equal to ( ≥ ) 2 meters maximum 

depth, at least three replicate vertical tows and one horizontal tow of approximately 25 meters in length 

should be performed. 

Zooplankton presence data has been collected at 53 lakes, with relative abundance data collected at 20 of 

the 53 lakes. Zooplankton presence and relative abundance (at least for large copepods) is needed for the 

monitoring program to assess the effects of trout populations on zooplankton communities. 

Vegetation Surveys 

Surveys of riparian and aquatic vegetation may be useful (but not required) in conjunction with the BMI 

surveys and surveys for other taxa to characterize lake habitat and expected biotic communities. 

Riparian vegetation (percent by type: talus, shrub, meadow, forest). The riparian vegetation is 

estimated within 10% cover categories (shrub, forest, meadow, talus) during a visual examination of the 

perimeter of the lake. Meadow species include both forbs (broad-leaf plants) and graminoids (grasses and 

sedges). 

Riparian vegetation percent by type has been determined through field observation for 43 lakes. Riparian 

vegetation for the remaining lakes has been assessed through interpretation of aerial photographs, but the 

estimates have not been checked through ground observations. Riparian vegetation measured in 10% 

increments may be used to characterize lake habitat and expected biotic community. Both data types 

provide rough cover estimates, but they cannot be used to identify the specific types of vegetation that 

may be present in the riparian communities. The status (trampled or healthy) of the riparian vegetation 

can also be used to estimate usage by recreational anglers. 

Aquatic vegetation (percent of shoreline with aquatic vegetation). The percentage of shoreline with 

aquatic vegetation present in the littoral zone is estimated within 10% categories during a visual 

examination of the perimeter of the lake. 

Aquatic vegetation percentage has been determined for 43 lakes. The percent of shoreline littoral zone 

with aquatic vegetation may be used to characterize lake habitat and expected biotic community. 

Additional vegetation data potentially available, but not necessarily needed, include 

Width of emergent vegetation—This information, which is useful in determining the 

survivability of adult salamanders during the breeding season, could be collected during 

assessments of the percentage of aquatic vegetation. Up to 30% of the breeding adult 

Northwestern salamanders leaving lakes in the Mt. St. Helens Volcanic Monument without 

emergent shoreline vegetation have been observed to be visibly maimed by feeding trout 

(Dr. Crisafulli, pers. comm., 2003). 
A PPENDIXES

208 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

Distance to closed canopy forest—This information has been evaluated through interpretation 

of ortho-photographs; however, actual field measurements of interpretation of better-quality 

aerial photographs would provide a better assessment of the availability of adult habitat for 

pond-breeding salamanders. 

Additional vegetation data not currently available that should be collected include 

Specific types of vegetation present in the riparian zone—The cover categories used to 

characterize the riparian and aquatic vegetation types are very general and do not indicate the 

specific types of vegetation present in those communities. Low, woody shrubs (such as 

Phyllodoce spp.), seedlings, and forbs are more sensitive to trampling and take longer to 

recover than do tall, woody shrubs (such as Salix spp.) and graminoids (Cole and Trull 1992). 

Assessments of the status of riparian vegetation should take into account the types of 

vegetation impacted. Recreational users should be informed to avoid heavily impacted areas, 

especially those communities sensitive to the effects of trampling. 

Presence of state special status species—None of the lakes have been surveyed for the 

presence of riparian or aquatic state special status plant species. Because state special status 

species are rare and often occur in small populations, any trampling of those populations has 

the potential to have a major impact on the species. As resources and funds allow, surveys for 

special status species should be conducted by a qualified plant biologist in conjunction with 

surveys for other biota. 
Appendix F

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 209

REFERENCES 

CITED IN APPENDIX F-1 

Adams, M.J., K.O. Richter, and W.P. Leonard 

1997 “Surveying and monitoring amphibians using aquatic funnel traps.” In: D.H. Olson, W.P. 

Leonard, and R.B. Bury (editors), Sampling amphibians in lentic habitats. Northwest Fauna 

Number 4, Society for Northwestern Vertebrate Biology, Olympia, WA. 

Brokes, B.J. 

2000 Habitat segregation of two ambystomatids in mountain ponds, Mount Rainier National Park. M.S. 

Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 

Bury, R.B. and D.J. Major 

1997 “Sampling pond amphibian communities in montane habitats.” In: D.H. Olson, W.P. Leonard, and 

R.B. Bury (editors), Sampling amphibians in lentic habitats. Northwest Fauna Number 4, Society 

for Northwestern Vertebrate Biology, Olympia, WA. 

Cole, D.N. and S.J. Trull 

1992 Quantifying vegetation response to recreational disturbance in the North Cascades, Washington. 

Northwest Science 66:229-236. 

Crisafulli, C.M. 

1997 “A habitat-based method for monitoring pond-breeding amphibians.” In: D.H. Olson, 

W.P. Leonard, and R.B. Bury (editors), Sampling amphibians in lentic habitats. Northwest Fauna 

Number 4, Society for Northwestern Vertebrate Biology, Olympia, WA. 

Gresswell, R.E., W.J. Liss, G.A. Lomnicky, E.K. Deimling, R.L. Hoffman, and T.J. Tyler 

1997 “Using mark-recapture methods to estimate fish abundance in small mountain lakes.” Northwest 

Science 71(1):39-44.

Hoffman, R.L., T.J. Tyler, and G.L. Larson 

2003 Sampling protocols for monitoring abiotic and biotic characteristics of mountain ponds and lakes, 

Draft Version 1.00. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service by the 

U.S. Geological Service, Corvallis, OR. 

Murphy, B.R. and D.W. Willis (editors) 

1996 Fisheries Techniques, Second Edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Nelson, W.C. 

1964 “Rawah- McIntyre high lakes project.” In: Research in Colorado. Colorado Department of Game, 

Fish and Parks, Denver, CO. 

1972 “Colorado trout lake studies.” In: Colorado Fisheries Research Review 1972. Colorado 

Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Denver, CO. 
A PPENDIXES

210 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

1984 Some preliminary results of Parvin Lake studies 1977-83. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, 

CO. 

1988 High lake research and management in Colorado. Special Report Number 64. Colorado Division 

of Wildlife Aquatic Research, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. 

Olson, D.H., W.P. Leonard, and R.B. Bury (editors) 

1997 Sampling amphibians in lentic habitats. Northwest Fauna Number 4, Society for Northwestern 

Vertebrate Biology, Olympia, WA. 

Thoms, C., C.C. Corkran, and D.H. Olson 

1997 “Basic amphibian survey for inventory and monitoring in lentic habitats.” In: D.H. Olson, W.P. 

Leonard, and R.B. Bury (editors), Sampling amphibians in lentic habitats. Northwest Fauna 

Number 4, Society for Northwestern Vertebrate Biology, Olympia, WA. 

Tyler, T.J., W.J. Liss, L.M. Ganio, G.L. Larson, R. Hoffman, E. Deimling and G.A. Lomnicky 

1998 Interaction between introduced trout and larval salamanders (Ambystoma macrodactylum) in highelevation lakes. Conservation Biology 12:94-115.