National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

North Cascades National Park Service Complex

N ORTH C ASCADES N ATIONAL P ARK

S ERVICE C OMPLEX

Environmental Impact Statement

Draft Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Plan

V OLUME O N E

M A Y 2005
Comments on this Draft Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Plan / Environmental Impact

Statement (plan/EIS) are welcome. If you wish to respond to the information contained in this

document, you may submit your comments by any one of several methods. It is important to note 

that all comments must be postmarked, transmitted, or logged no later than 90 days from the date 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency filing notice is published in the Federal Register. 

This deadline will be posted on the North Cascades National Park Service Complex website at

http://www.nps.gov/noca/highlakes.htm and will be published in a press release in local and regional

newspapers. Written comments can be mailed to

Bill Paleck, Superintendent

Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Plan/EIS

North Cascades National Park Service Complex

810 State Route 20

Sedro-Woolley, WA 98284-1239

Reviewers are encouraged to submit comments, ideas, or questions online at the National Park Service

Planning, Environment, and Public Comment (PEPC) website (http://parkplanning.nps.gov/noca).

Once at the website, click on the “Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Plan/EIS” link, then click on

“Documents and Links,” then click on the “Draft Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Plan/EIS”

link—this will bring up the draft plan/EIS and a link to an online comment form.

You may hand deliver comments at one of the several public meetings to be announced in the media

following release of this document. Meeting details will be posted on the project website listed above.

Comments can be hand delivered to the North Cascades Complex headquarters in Sedro-Woolley 

(810 State Route 20). Comments can also be faxed to 360.856.1934, attention: Mountain Lakes

Fishery Management Plan/EIS.

We may not consider anonymous comments. However, individual respondents may request that we

withhold their address from the decision-making record, which we will honor to the extent allowable

by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the record a respondent’s

identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this

prominently at the beginning of your comment.

How to

Comment on this Document
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

North Cascades National Park Service Complex, Washington 

Lead Agency: National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Department of the Interior 

Cooperating Agency: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 

This Draft Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement (plan/EIS) evaluates a 

range of alternatives and management actions for 91 naturally formed mountain lakes in the North Cascades 

National Park Service Complex (North Cascades Complex) that currently have, or at one time had, a fish presence 

as a result of either documented or undocumented fish stocking activities. Under natural conditions, these 

91 mountain lakes would be fishless, but available records indicate these lakes have either been stocked in the past 

or are stocked now. This plan/EIS assesses impacts that could result from continuation of the current management 

framework (the no-action alternative) or from implementation of any of the three proposed action alternatives. The 

purpose of the fishery management plan is to guide future actions by the NPS and WDFW that would conserve 

native biological integrity; provide a spectrum of recreational opportunities and visitor experiences, including sport 

fishing; and resolve the long-standing debate and conflicts over fish stocking in the 91 naturally fishless mountain 

lakes in the North Cascades Complex. Upon conclusion of the plan/EIS and decision-making process, one of the 

four alternatives would become the “Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Plan” and guide future actions for a 

period of 15 years. 

Alternative A⎯No Action, Existing Management Framework of 91 Lakes (62 Lakes Have Fish). No new 

management actions were applied. This alternative assumes that the existing management decisions, without any 

new criteria or factors, would continue. 

Alternative B, Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (42 Lakes May Have Fish)

(Preferred Alternative). The proposed management framework would be to eliminate high densities of reproducing 

fish populations from lakes while allowing low densities of reproducing and nonreproducing fish populations in 

select lakes. After monitoring or evaluation, restocking of nonreproducing fish would be allowed in certain lakes 

only if impacts on biological resources could be minimized. Lakes that are currently fishless would remain fishless. 

The possible future outcome would be that recreational fishing opportunities may occur in up to 42 lakes. 

Alternative C, Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (11 National Recreation Area 

Lakes May Have Fish). The proposed management framework would be to eliminate high densities of reproducing 

fish populations from lakes while allowing low densities of reproducing and nonreproducing fish populations in 

select lakes in the Ross Lake and Lake Chelan National Recreation Areas (NRA) and to maintain currently fishless 

NRA lakes as fishless. The possible future outcome would be that 11 NRA lakes may have fish and 11 would be 

fishless, and 69 national park lakes would either remain fishless or become fishless over time. 

Alternative D, 91 Lakes Would Be Fishless (Environmentally Preferred Alternative). The emphasis of this 

alternative would be to eliminate all fish from the mountain lakes in the study area. Currently, 62 of the 91 lakes 

have fish, 29 lakes are fishless. 

The review period for this document will end 90 days after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has accepted 

this document and published a “Notice of Availability” in the Federal Register. All review comments must be 

received by that time and addressed to 

Bill Paleck, Superintendent 

Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Plan/EIS 

North Cascades National Park Service Complex 

810 State Route 20 

Sedro-Woolley, WA 98284-1239 

For further information, write the above address or call the superintendent’s assistant at 360.856.5700, ext 351. 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT iii

The National Park 

Service (NPS) is the 

lead agency for 

development of this 

plan/EIS, and the 

Washington 

Department of Fish 

and Wildlife (WDFW) 

is a cooperating 

agency. 

State Route 20 follows 

the Skagit River and 

Skagit River 

Hydroelectric Project 

for much of its way 

through the North 

Cascades Complex. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

his Draft Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement (plan/EIS) analyzes a range of alternatives and 

management actions for the mountain lakes fishery in the North Cascades 

National Park Service Complex (North Cascades Complex) in Washington State. 

This plan/EIS assesses the impacts that could result from continuation of the 

current management framework (the no-action alternative) or implementation of 

any of the three action alternatives. Upon conclusion of the plan/EIS and 

decision-making process, one of the four alternatives would become the 

“Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Plan” and guide future fishery 

management actions for a period of 15 years. 

This plan/EIS is mostly programmatic in nature, which means it provides a 

framework for taking a range of management actions. Some actions would 

require additional, more site-specific analyses before they could be implemented. 

If additional analyses are required, environmental compliance, including an 

opportunity for public comment, would be completed. 

PROJECT SITE LOCATION 

The 684,000-acre North Cascades Complex is located in the northwest 

part of Washington State, with its northern boundary forming the 

international border with Canada. The North Cascades Complex is 

made up of three NPS administrative units: North Cascades National 

Park, Ross Lake National Recreation Area, and Lake Chelan National 

Recreation Area. These three units make up the geographical study 

area for this plan/EIS, but the focus of this document is the 

91 naturally fishless mountain lakes that have documented stocking 

records, as well as those where no stocking records exist but where 

observations or harvest of fish have been documented. These 91 lakes 

have reproducing and self-sustaining fish populations, have been 

stocked repeatedly because they contain nonreproducing fish, or have 

been stocked in the past but are now fishless. 

The North Cascades Complex contains 561 natural water bodies that include 

lakes, tarns, and ponds. Approximately 245 of these water bodies are considered 

mountain lakes because of their elevation, size, and depth. At least 154 of the 

245 lakes have always been, and would continue to be, fishless regardless of the 

alternative selected. Because no changes in this policy are anticipated for any of 

the 154 lakes, and because they have never been part of the managed fishery at 

the North Cascades Complex, they are not addressed further in this document, 

nor are the reservoirs, streams, and their associated beaver ponds. 

T
E XECUTIVE S UMMARY

iv D R A F T M O U N T A I N L A K E S F I S H E R Y M A N A G E M E N T P L A N 

“Biota” refers to the

combined plant and

animal life of a

particular region.

Biological integrity 

refers to “the 

capability of 

supporting and 

maintaining a 

balanced, integrated, 

adaptive community 

of organisms having a 

species composition, 

diversity, and 

functional 

organization 

comparable to that of 

the natural habitat of 

the region” (Karr and 

Dudley 1981). 

“Map 1” (contained in the envelope that accompanied this plan/EIS) shows the 

locations of the 91 lakes: 69 lakes are in the national park, 7 are in Ross Lake 

National Recreation Area, and 15 are in Lake Chelan National Recreation Area. 

Of the 91 lakes in the study area, 90 are located in designated wilderness 

(Stephen T. Mather Wilderness) that overlays approximately 93% of the North 

Cascades Complex. 

PURPOSE OF THE ACTION 

The purpose of this plan/EIS is to guide management actions by the NPS and 

WDFW in order to 

conserve native biological integrity 

provide a spectrum of recreational opportunities and visitor experiences, 

including sport fishing 

resolve the long-standing debate and conflicts over fish stocking in the 

naturally fishless mountain lakes in North Cascades National Park, Ross 

Lake National Recreation Area, and Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

(which together make up the three NPS administrative units known as 

“North Cascades National Park Service Complex” or “the North Cascades 

Complex”) 

N EED FOR A CTION

In most NPS units, natural resources (including lakes and fish) are managed in 

accordance with the Organic Act of 1916 and NPS Management Policies, which 

allow sport fishing unless it is specifically prohibited (NPS 2001a, 4.4.3), but 

prohibit stocking in most NPS waters. In the North Cascades Complex, fish have 

historically been managed by a combination of agencies and user groups. This is 

partly because the 1968 enabling legislation for the North Cascades Complex 

does not define the fishing and fish-stocking activities that would be allowed 

within its boundaries, and partly because the area has a history of fish 

management by the state of Washington and sport fishing groups. This history of 

fish management pre-dates the 1968 establishment of the North Cascades 

Complex by many years. 

Because of the differences in policies and missions between the WDFW and the 

NPS, the two agencies drafted a Memorandum of Understanding in 1985, 

followed by a Supplemental Agreement in 1988 that established a mutually 

agreed to list of lakes in North Cascades National Park that the WDFW would 

stock with fish as part of its fish management program while further studies were 

being done. A long-term research study was then initiated to determine how 

continued stocking practices would affect native biota in mountain lakes. 

Before this research could be completed, the NPS was challenged in court by the 

North Cascades Conservation Council on several issues relating to management 

of the North Cascades Complex. As a result, the NPS entered into a 1991 

Consent Decree, wherein the NPS agreed to complete its research and then 
Executive Summary

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT v

“conduct a NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] review of the fish 

stocking of naturally fish-free lakes.” The research was completed in July 2002 

(Liss et al. 2002) by a team that included scientists from the U.S. Geological 

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

(OSU). The research was completed in three phases, and full reports of the 

findings are available at http://www.nps.gov/noca/pphtml/relatedlinks.html. This 

plan/EIS was initiated shortly after the research was completed and is the 

document required in the 1991 Consent Decree. 

OBJECTIVES IN TAKING ACTION 

Objectives are more specific statements of purpose that support the goals an 

alternative must meet, to a large degree, for this plan/EIS to be considered a 

success. Meeting objectives to a large degree is part of what makes an alternative 

“reasonable.” Objectives also support the purpose of this plan/EIS as stated in the 

“Purpose of the Action” section above and help to resolve the need for action. 

The following objectives were developed for this plan/EIS: 

Obtain support from interested parties and groups to implement a new 

management plan for mountain lakes within the North Cascades Complex 

should the governing agencies decide a new plan is needed. 

Advance the protection and rehabilitation of native biological integrity by 

maintaining native species abundance, viability, and sustainability. 

Provide a spectrum of recreational opportunities, including sport fishing, 

while minimizing impacts to the biological integrity of natural mountain 

lakes. 

Apply science and research in decision-making at multiple spatial scales 

that include landscape, watershed, lake cluster, and individual lakes. 

Provide to the public and interested parties full and open access to 

available information. 

BACKGROUND

H ISTORY OF F ISH M ANAGEMENT IN 

N ORTH C ASCADES M OUNTAIN L AKES

Settlers began stocking North Cascades lakes in the late 1800s with exotic 

(nonnative) fish. By the 20th century, stocking was a routine management 

practice of the U.S. Forest Service and various counties. In 1933 the Washington 

Department of Game (currently the WDFW) assumed responsibility for stocking 

mountain lakes throughout the state in order to establish and maintain a 

recreational fishery. The department’s involvement grew largely out of the need 

to prevent haphazard stocking by individuals without expertise in biology. With 

particular emphasis on systematic assessment of fish species and stocking rates, 

the department conducted the first high-lakes fisheries research. Since its 

creation, many agencies and groups have collaborated to assist in managing the 
E XECUTIVE S UMMARY

vi D R A F T M O U N T A I N L A K E S F I S H E R Y M A N A G E M E N T P L A N 

Fish stocking

Thunder Lake

 in the early years.

natural resources in the North Cascades Complex. These include state and federal 

agencies, such as the WDFW, and sport fishing groups such as the Washington 

State Hi-Lakers and Trail Blazers, Inc. 

Fish stocking in the mountain lakes took place for many 

years prior to the establishment of the North Cascades 

Complex in 1968; however, the enabling legislation for 

this newly formed unit of the national park system did 

not define the fishing and fish-stocking activities that 

would be allowed within its boundaries; thus, the 

appropriateness of continued fish stocking in the 

naturally fishless mountain lakes was an issue debated 

between the NPS and WDFW for many years. 

To resolve differences in policy and to foster a spirit of 

cooperation, the NPS and WDFW negotiated a series of 

agreements beginning in 1979 that allowed stocking to 

continue in select lakes in the North Cascades Complex. 

Currently, the management of mountain lakes is performed under a temporary 

extension of the 1985 Memorandum of Understanding and 1988 Supplemental 

Agreement between the two agencies. Both of these documents were written “to 

continue cooperative efforts in management of protection and enhancement of 

the fisheries and wildlife resources of mutual concern.” The Memorandum of 

Understanding provided the following three management directives for both the 

NPS and the WDFW: 

To consult with the Department [WDFW] prior to initiating 

research projects or implementing plans, programs, or regulations 

affecting fish and wildlife species distribution, numbers, or public 

use of fish and wildlife found within areas administered by the 

Service [NPS]. 

To practice those forms of management which will benefit fish and 

wildlife, and their habitats, and to maintain or restore their natural 

and historic distribution and abundance, consistent with the 

respective Service [NPS] policies and park objectives. 

To permit the harvest of fish and wildlife in accordance with 

applicable state laws and regulations of the Department [WDFW] 

in those areas under the jurisdiction of the Service [NPS], which 

are open to hunting and/or fishing. It is recognized that some park 

regulations may vary for management purposes. 

To be able to continue stocking in light of NPS policies generally prohibiting it, a 

memorandum from the NPS Director was issued in 1986 (hereinafter referred to 

as the “policy waiver”). The policy waiver states “fishing is an acceptable 

recreational activity in the park, provided it is done consistent with NPS 

Management Policies and with provisions of the General Management Plan, and 

other approved plans.” The policy waiver only allowed stocking with fish species 

that are native to the national park or native to the ecological region. The waiver 

acknowledged long-standing fish-stocking practices and allowed for continued 
Executive Summary

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT vii

The North Cascades Complex 

contains some of the most 

rugged and remote wilderness 

in the contiguous United 

States. 

stocking in select lakes while ecological research was conducted to determine the 

impacts of fish stocking. A long-term research study was initiated by Oregon 

State University soon after the 1988 Supplemental Agreement was finalized. The 

Supplemental Agreement between the NPS and WDFW that permits fish 

stocking in the national park was reaffirmed in February 2000 and again in July 

of 2002. The agreement expired in December 2004, and any future agreements 

between the NPS and WDFW concerning mountain lakes fishery management, 

including fish stocking in the national park, will depend on the outcome of this 

plan/EIS process. 

I MPLEMENTING THE F ISHERY 

M ANAGEMENT P LAN T HROUGH 

C ONGRESSIONAL A CTION

The enabling legislation for the North Cascades Complex does not mention fish 

stocking, and the legislative record regarding fish stocking in the North Cascades 

Complex is not clear. The language in the enabling legislation for the portions of 

the North Cascades Complex in the national recreation areas does affirm that 

fishing is an important recreational use, but it does not mention fish stocking as 

being an appropriate means of fishery management. The Washington Park 

Wilderness Act of 1988 (WPWA) established 93% of the North Cascades 

Complex as Stephen T. Mather Wilderness and directed the NPS to manage the 

wilderness in accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964. At the time the 

WPWA was passed, NPS policies prohibited fish stocking in naturally fishless 

waters, and the WPWA did not include a provision that allowed stocking. 

Although the Wilderness Act implies that management actions that manipulate 

natural processes in wilderness conflict with wilderness values, stocking is not 

expressly prohibited in the Act. According to the definition of wilderness in the 

Wilderness Act, wilderness must retain its “primeval character and influence” so 

that it “appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature.” This 

language has been interpreted in the scientific literature to affirm two closely 

linked values that are fundamental components of wilderness character: 

naturalness and wildness. Naturalness has been defined as the native 

compositions, patterns, and processes of an area. Wildness has to do with 

ensuring that wilderness areas are minimally influenced by human intervention, 

so those who enter wilderness can experience primitive and unconfined forms of 

recreation. Though recreational fishing is widely regarded as an important and 

traditional use of wilderness, the role of stocking to create and maintain an 

artificial fishing opportunity in naturally fishless mountain lakes is viewed by 

many as an artificial manipulation of both wildness and naturalness (Landres 

et al. 2001). These views are supported by a wide body of scientific research into 

the impacts of fish stocking, including findings specific to lakes in the North 

Cascades Complex. However, some disagree with these views and maintain that 

if nonnative fish were stocked appropriately, there would be no unacceptable 

adverse impacts on wilderness values because biological integrity would be 

conserved. 

Fish stocking has been allowed to continue in the North Cascades Complex under 

a 1986 policy waiver. Should a management alternative that allows for continued 

stocking be selected through this plan/EIS decision-making process, a new policy 
E XECUTIVE S UMMARY

viii D R A F T M O U N T A I N L A K E S F I S H E R Y M A N A G E M E N T P L A N 

waiver may not be granted for several reasons. First, various national parks 

(Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park, Yosemite National Park, Glacier National 

Park, Rocky Mountain National Park, and Yellowstone National Park) have 

discontinued stocking. If this plan/EIS process resulted in the selection of an 

alternative that allowed for continued stocking, issuance of a policy waiver to the 

North Cascades Complex could encourage other state fish and wildlife agencies 

to revisit the issue of stocking in NPS units where stocking has been 

discontinued. Second, policy waivers are only temporary and do not provide a 

permanent solution because they can be rescinded as circumstances change. The 

goal of this plan/EIS is to forge a lasting solution for mountain lakes fishery 

management in the North Cascades Complex. Finally, the minimum requirement 

analysis for fish stocking in the Stephen T. Mather Wilderness indicates that 

stocking is not necessary to meet the minimum requirements for administration 

of the area, and the Wilderness Act is unclear whether stocking is allowed in 

designated wilderness areas. For these three reasons, a policy waiver would not 

be pursued if this plan/EIS process resulted in the selection of an alternative that 

included continued fish stocking. 

The NPS has determined that fish stocking in the Stephen T. Mather Wilderness 

would only be implemented if Congress granted the NPS the unambiguous legal 

authority to do so. Therefore, should a management alternative that allows for 

continued stocking be selected through this plan/EIS decision-making process, 

the NPS intends to ask Congress for a change to the North Cascades Complex 

enabling legislation to clarify how the mountain lakes should be managed. The 

following is an example of clarifying legislation that would allow stocking to 

continue in the North Cascades Complex: 

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a fisheries 

management program that includes the stocking of fish in select 

lakes within the North Cascades National Park Service Complex 

is authorized so long as both the National Park Service and the 

State of Washington agree on the lakes, species of fish, and 

number of fish to be stocked. 

A change in the enabling legislation for the North Cascades Complex to allow for 

continued fish stocking would set a precedent for this NPS unit, and possibly 

others that have, or may have in the future, fish-stocking issues. If Congress 

should choose to allow stocking through a change in the enabling legislation, it 

will have clarified that fish stocking is an appropriate activity in the North 

Cascades Complex. That unambiguous clarification would allow the NPS to 

implement any of the management alternatives that include the practice of 

stocking. Congressional action to allow fish stocking would also honor various 

verbal commitments in support of stocking that proponents believe were made by 

federal officials prior to establishing the North Cascades Complex but never 

codified in law. 

Congressional action to clarify enabling legislation is an intricate process that 

could take several years. If the NPS does not receive clarification from Congress 

by the time a record of decision for this plan/EIS is issued, alternative D 

(91 Lakes Would Be Fishless) would be implemented until clarification is 

received. 
Executive Summary

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ix

A PPLICATION OF R ESEARCH

This plan/EIS incorporates the results of the OSU study and other research into 

the impact analysis of the four alternatives for management of the mountain lakes 

fishery. The Technical Advisory Committee for this plan/EIS applied the 

research results and ecological concepts to 

develop management alternatives that conserve biological integrity while 

allowing fish to occur in some lakes 

describe the ecosystem functions and human values that could be 

potentially affected by fishery management actions 

evaluate the potential impacts of management alternatives on ecosystem 

functions and human values 

The use of research results, including widely accepted ecological principles, 

helped to achieve the stated objective of ensuring that decisions would be made 

in accordance with the best available science. 

The Technical Advisory Committee adopted the following common definition of 

biological integrity: 

The capability of supporting and maintaining a 

balanced, integrated, adaptive community of 

organisms having a species composition, diversity, 

and functional organization comparable to that of the 

natural habitat of the region (Karr and Dudley 1981). 

To relate the purpose of “conserving biological integrity” to mountain lakes 

fishery management, the Technical Advisory Committee drew upon one of the 

principle conclusions of the OSU research: the ecological effects of nonnative 

trout are related to the reproductive status and abundance of trout in lakes. The 

Technical Advisory Committee interpreted this finding to mean that lakes with 

the lowest degree of biological integrity (or greatest departure from biological 

integrity or pristine conditions) contained reproducing populations of nonnative 

trout or char that had achieved high densities. On the other end of the biological 

integrity spectrum, the Technical Advisory Committee assumed mountain lakes 

that had never been stocked represented the highest degree of biological integrity. 

The Technical Advisory Committee took the general concept of biological 

integrity and defined it in the context of this plan/EIS. This approach allowed the 

committee to formulate a conceptual framework for “conserving biological 

integrity” by relating how the reproductive status and abundance of nonnative 

trout influenced the biological integrity of the mountain lakes. This conceptual 

framework was used to craft management alternatives B and C based on the 

hypothesis that the biological integrity of mountain lakes could potentially be 

conserved by managing for nonreproducing trout at low densities in some lakes 

and managing for fishless conditions in other lakes. 

The Technical Advisory 

Committee is an 

interdisciplinary planning 

team comprised of NPS 

resource specialists, 

WDFW biologists, and 

other individual resource 

specialists. 
E XECUTIVE S UMMARY

x D R A F T M O U N T A I N L A K E S F I S H E R Y M A N A G E M E N T P L A N 

Adaptive management

incorporates 

monitoring and

research into

conservation actions. 

Specifically, it is the 

integration of

planning, 

management, and

monitoring to test

assumptions in order

to adapt and learn.

D EVELOPING M ANAGEMENT 

A CTIONS FOR A LTERNATIVES B AND C 

During its review of the research, the Technical Advisory Committee defined 

various decision-making criteria (ecological risk factors) for the 91 lakes. Based 

partly on these factors, the committee then developed 10 standard adaptive 

management actions that were applied to a differing subset of lakes in 

alternatives B and C. For alternative A, the management actions were not applied 

to the lakes because it represents current management that would not change if 

alternative A were selected. Only 4 of the 10 management actions were applied 

to lakes under alternative D, which proposes that all 91 lakes would eventually be 

fishless. 

The standardized adaptive management actions are shown in table ES-1, and a 

lake-by-lake application of the management actions is in table ES-2 (these tables 

are located at the end of this executive summary). 

The Technical Advisory Committee recognized that each management alternative 

was developed with scientific information and data that are provisional and 

possibly incorrect. In light of this uncertainty, the committee included the 

principle of adaptive management (see figure ES-1) as an element common to all 

action alternatives and also developed a lake monitoring plan that would 

incorporate adaptive management in order to evaluate management actions and 

create a mechanism for changing those actions if management goals were not 

being achieved. 

ALTERNATIVES 

This plan/EIS evaluates four alternatives for management of the 91 study area 

lakes in the North Cascades Complex (table ES-3 provides a summary 

comparison of the four alternatives). The three action alternatives (B, C, and D) 

have the following elements in common: 

1. Adaptive management. The action alternatives would incorporate the 

principle of adaptive management using monitoring and evaluation to 

determine if management actions were achieving objectives. 

2. Outreach and education. The NPS would establish a long-term public 

outreach campaign to help educate and inform the public about the selected 

alternative. 

3. Partnerships. The NPS would actively seek partnerships with the WDFW, 

fishing groups, and the public to implement fishery management actions. 

4. Lake treatment methods. Each lake has its own particular chemical and 

physical characteristics that dictate the best means of removing fish; 

therefore, methods of removing fish would differ among lakes, but the 

prescribed method (mechanical, chemical, or natural) of fish removal for a 

particular lake would not differ across the alternatives. 
Executive Summary

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xi

FIGURE ES-1: ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROCESS

Mechanical Methods. The three intensive mechanical methods of 

removing fish (gillnetting/electrofishing/trapping) would not be used 

independently but in combination to treat appropriate lakes. A varied 

combination of gillneting, electrofishing, fyke nets, and traps near 

spawning areas would be used to catch and remove fish from lakes 

generally smaller than 5 acres in surface area and less than 30 feet deep. 

The exact choice of equipment would depend upon lake conditions. For 

small mountain lakes, the method that has shown the most promise is 

gillnetting in combination with electrofishing. 

Mitigation measures ⎯ No nets would be left unsupervised. Crews 

would free any wildlife observed in the nets. In order to mitigate 

trampling of shoreline vegetation, crews would be kept small and 

would walk in the lake (to the extent possible), rather than along the 

shoreline when setting nets. 

Chemical Methods. The antibiotic, antimycin, has been used since the 

1960s for fish removal. Small amounts of the chemical are required to 

kill fish because antimycin is toxic to fish in extremely low 

concentrations. The concentration of antimycin necessary to remove fish 

has a fairly wide range of impacts on aquatic organisms, depending upon 

taxonomic groups. For example, the toxicity of antimycin to aquatic 

invertebrates is similar to that of fish (Finlayson et al. 2002). Antimycin 
E XECUTIVE S UMMARY

xii D R A F T M O U N T A I N L A K E S F I S H E R Y M A N A G E M E N T P L A N 

is considered to be harmless to waterfowl, mammals, and humans at the 

relatively minute (4–8 parts per billion) concentrations needed to control 

trout (Rosenlund and Stevens 2002; Schnick 1974). 

Treatment with antimycin would occur during late summer and fall 

because water flows are lowest in the fall, meaning less water is moving 

into and out of the lake. Antimycin would be diluted with lake water and 

then injected into the prop wash of a small motor. Bilge pumps would 

also be used to help mix the chemical in deeper water. Crews on the 

shoreline would use a diluted mixture of antimycin to hand treat areas 

that could not be reached by boat. 

Mitigation measures ⎯ Antimycin that is dripped into a stream 

flowing out of a lake could be carried to downstream waters. 

Because antimycin is very sensitive to oxidation, exposing it to 

oxygen rapidly breaks it down, resulting in loss of toxicity 

(Rosenlund 1992). Potassium permanganate, an oxidizer, would be 

placed at outlet streams to remove residual antimycin and prevent it 

from traveling downstream. Antimycin dose rates would be double 

verified and monitored to prevent inadvertent overdoses, and 

potassium permanganate would be on hand as a contingency 

measure. In order to mitigate trampling of shoreline vegetation, 

crews would be kept small and would walk in the lake (to the extent 

possible), rather than along the shoreline when applying antimycin. 

Crews treating lakes with antimycin would be required to wear eye 

protection and gloves and would also receive safety briefings. 

Natural Methods. Lakes that would be candidates for the natural 

treatment method are those that contain only nonreproducing stocked 

fish. For lakes that contain only stocked fish that do not reproduce, the 

method of treatment may be as simple as ceasing stocking. The initial 

decline in fish densities could be accelerated by providing incentives for 

anglers, such as increased bag limits. For lakes where the rate of 

reproduction is very low and likely not to occur at all in some years, it 

may also be possible to use natural attrition to remove the fish over a 

period of years, especially if natural reproduction has been supplemented 

by stocking of nonreproducing fish. 

Mitigation measures ⎯ Increased trampling of shoreline vegetation 

could occur as a result of incentives that encourage anglers to 

increase the amount of fishing to help reduce fish populations. The 

NPS would provide additional educational information about 

shoreline sensitivity by posting information on bulletin boards, the 

website for the North Cascades Complex, and at visitor centers. 
Executive Summary

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xiii

A LTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION, 

EXISTING MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK OF 91 LAKES (62 LAKES HAVE FISH)

The management framework dictates the parameters under which the fishery 

management program is applied. The framework controls which lakes are 

stocked, stocking densities and frequencies, types of fish, methods used for 

stocking, and monitoring efforts. Under the current management framework for 

alternative A, the 62 lakes that currently contain fish would continue to be 

managed as they are today (see tables ES-1 and ES-2). 

The no-action alternative would continue existing management practices in the 

91 lakes slated for management consideration in the study area. Fish occur in 

62 of the 91 lakes; the remaining 29 lakes are currently fishless and not actively 

managed for fish. This would continue under existing management. Of the 

62 lakes, 40 are in North Cascades National Park and managed by the WDFW 

under the terms of the 1988 Supplemental Agreement to the 1985 Memorandum 

of Understanding. The remaining 22 of 62 lakes are in Ross Lake and Lake 

Chelan National Recreation Areas. The WDFW manages 19 of the 22 lakes as a 

recreational fishery; these 19 lakes are not part of the Supplemental Agreement 

but are managed by the WDFW according to historical practices. Three of the 

22 lakes are also located inside the national recreation areas but are not managed 

under the 1988 Supplemental Agreement nor are they actively managed by the 

WDFW. Table ES-2 shows the status of the 91 lakes. 

The continued stocking of fish in select lakes in the North Cascades Complex has 

occurred under both the Memorandum of Understanding and the Supplemental 

Agreement, in addition to a policy waiver issued by the NPS director in 1986. 

A LTERNATIVE B : PROPOSED ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT OF 91 LAKES 

UNDER A NEW FRAMEWORK (42 LAKES MAY HAVE FISH) (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)

This alternative would conserve biological integrity in lakes by eliminating or 

reducing (if elimination proved infeasible) reproducing fish populations. Sport 

fishing would continue to be managed in lakes where the risks to biological 

integrity could be minimized. The proposed management framework under 

alternative B would be to eliminate high densities of reproducing fish populations 

from lakes in the study area while allowing low densities of reproducing and 

nonreproducing fish populations. Management actions would be applied to the 

91 study area lakes throughout the North Cascades Complex (see tables ES-1 and 

ES-2). Up to 20 lakes would be permanently returned to fishless conditions 

(added to the 29 currently fishless lakes, the potential outcome of this alternative 

would be 49 fishless lakes). The restocking of nonreproducing fish would be 

allowed only where impacts on biological resources could be minimized. Based 

on the best available science, some lakes could be restocked with low densities of 

nonreproducing fish once reproducing fish have been removed. Lakes where 

critical information is missing would not be stocked until that information 

becomes available. An extensive monitoring program would be implemented to 

adjust future management and to avoid unacceptable effects on native biota from 

fish presence. 
E XECUTIVE S UMMARY

xiv D R A F T M O U N T A I N L A K E S F I S H E R Y M A N A G E M E N T P L A N 

A LTERNATIVE C: PROPOSED ADAPTIVE 

MANAGEMENT OF 91 LAKES UNDER A NEW FRAMEWORK (11 LAKES MAY HAVE FISH)

Alternative C applies a new management framework to the 91 lakes in the study 

area, wherein 9 lakes in Ross Lake and Lake Chelan National Recreation Areas 

would have fish, and 2 lakes would be evaluated for restocking. Of the other 

11 lakes in the national recreation areas, 3 would remain fishless, 3 would have 

high-density reproducing fish removed, and stocking would be discontinued in 

5 lakes. The remaining 69 lakes are in the national park portion of the North 

Cascades Complex and would be returned to their natural fishless condition or 

would remain fishless. 

The proposed management framework would eliminate or reduce reproducing 

fish from lakes in the national recreation areas because high densities of 

reproducing fish populations can alter the lake ecosystem and negatively effect 

native biota. Restocking of nonreproducing fish would be allowed only where 

biological resources could be protected in lakes located in the national recreation 

areas. Based on best available science, some lakes could be restocked with 

nonreproducing fish at low densities once reproducing fish have been removed. 

Where critical information is missing, lakes would not be stocked until such 

information becomes available. As with alternative B, a monitoring program 

would be incorporated to adjust future management actions in order to avoid 

unacceptable effects on native biota from fish presence. 

A LTERNATIVE D: 91 LAKES WOULD BE FISHLESS 

(ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)

The emphasis of this alternative would be to eliminate all fish from mountain 

lakes in the study area. Currently, 62 of the 91 study area lakes have fish and 

29 are fishless. Under alternative D, four management actions would be available 

for a given lake (see table ES-2). 

Stocking would be discontinued in all lakes currently stocked, and the stocked 

fish would die off within several years. Reproducing populations of fish would 

be gradually removed over time, and the rate of removal would depend upon the 

availability of resources (funding and personnel) and differences among methods 

of removal. 

Alternative D was crafted to meet the spirit and intent of NPS Management 

Policies by discontinuing stocking and eventually removing reproducing fish 

populations from mountain lakes wherever feasible. 

ISSUES AND IMPACT TOPICS 

Issues are problems, opportunities, and concerns regarding the current and 

potential future management concepts for managing aquatic resources, impacts of 

anglers, and sport-fishing opportunities in the 91 mountain lakes that are included 

in this plan/EIS. The issues were identified by the NPS, WDFW, other agencies, 

and the public throughout the scoping process. The impact topics are a more 

refined set of concerns that were analyzed for each of the management 

alternatives. The impact topics were derived from the issues and were used to 

examine the extent to which a problem would be made better or worse by the 

actions of a particular alternative (the environmental consequences of an 

alternative). 
Executive Summary

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xv

The issues include 

Predation and competition. Nonnative fish have measurably changed the 

composition and abundance of native aquatic organisms in some lakes. The most 

significant impacts are caused by reproducing populations of stocked fish that 

have become self-sustaining. 

Hybridization with native fish. Nonnative fish are dispersing downstream from 

some lakes and hybridizing (interbreeding) with native fish. Hybridization could 

harm bull trout (federally threatened), westslope cutthroat trout, and other native 

trout populations. 

Conflicting social/wilderness values. Some people strongly oppose the 

management of a nonnative fishery in North Cascades Complex mountain lakes 

that were naturally fishless. Others believe that the mountain lakes fishery 

provides an unparalleled opportunity for high-lakes fishing that cannot be 

duplicated elsewhere. 

Legislative ambiguity. The enabling legislation and legislative history for the 

North Cascades Complex are not clear with respect to fishing and fish stocking. 

The NPS believes an affirmative legislative clarification from Congress would be 

needed to justify continued fish stocking in naturally fishless mountain lakes in 

the North Cascades Complex / Stephen T. Mather Wilderness. 

The impact topics analyzed in this plan/EIS include 

Aquatic organisms—includes plankton, macroinvertebrates, amphibians, and native 

fish 

Other wildlife—such as fish-eating wildlife that have benefited from stocked fish at a 

number of lakes in the North Cascades Complex 

Special status wildlife and plant species—includes native fish, amphibians, and other 

vertebrates 

Vegetation—particularly riparian areas 

Cultural resources—includes archeological resources, cultural landscapes, historic 

structures, and ethnographic resources 

Human Health—analyzes potential effects of persistent organic pollutants, methylmercury, and chemical treatments to remove fish 

Visitor use and experience—includes recreational use, social values, and wilderness 

values 

Management and operation of the North Cascades Complex—looks at current and 

future budgets and the costs related to fishery management now and in the future. 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

The environmental impacts of each action alternative were analyzed and 

compared to alternative A (no action). Table ES-4 summarizes the environmental 

consequences of the alternatives for each of the impact topics listed above. 
E XECUTIVE S UMMARY

xvi DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

TABLE ES-1: DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 

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 stopping 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 (see “Appendix F: Proposed 

Monitoring Plan for the Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Plan” for more information on adaptive management). 

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 (see “Appendix F: Proposed Monitoring Plan for the 

Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Plan” for more information on adaptive management). 

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 (see “Appendix F: Proposed Monitoring Plan for the Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Plan” for 

more information on adaptive management). 

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 (see “Appendix F: Proposed Monitoring Plan for the Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Plan” for more 

information on adaptive management). 

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 (see “Appendix F: 

Proposed Monitoring Plan for the Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Plan” for more information on adaptive 

management). 

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 (see “Appendix F: Proposed Monitoring Plan for 

the Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Plan” for more information on adaptive management). 
Tables

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xvii

TABLE ES-2: MANAGEMENT ACTIONS FOR EACH OF THE 91 LAKES

Note: The shaded rows indicate the 22 lakes that are in Ross Lake and Lake Chelan National Recreation Areas; the other 69 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 
E XECUTIVE S UMMARY

xviii D R A F T M O U N T A I N L A K E S F I S H E R Y M A N A G E M E N T P L A N 

TABLE ES-2: MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 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 

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

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

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 xix TABLE ES-3: ALTERNATIVES ELEMENTS SUMMARY Elements Alternative A (No Action) Existing Management Framework of 91 Lakes (62 Lakes Have Fish) Alternative B Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (42 Lakes May Have Fish) (Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (11 National Recreation Area Lakes May Have Fish) 

(E

General Concept Lake management No change in the way the North Cascades Complex fishery is managed. Lakes that are currently stocked would continue to be stocked, lakes with reproducing fish would be allowed to maintain reproducing fish, and all lakes without fish would continue to be fishless. Manage 91 lakes in the study area that have a fish history from either a documented or undocumented history of fish stocking; the 91 lakes would be managed under a new adaptive management framework, which includes taking action to remove fish from select lakes. Manage 91 lakes in the study area that have a fish presence from either a documented or undocumented history of fish stocking. 22 lakes are in the two national recreation areas (NRA) would be managed under a new adaptive management framework, which includes taking action to remove fish from some lakes (11 of the 22 NRA lakes may continue to have fish). 69 lakes in the national park either would remain fishless or be returned to fishless conditions. The 

that presedocufish sfishlewoul

Current and Proposed Management Current and proposed management for fishless lakes Current Management 29 lakes in the study area are currently fishless, including 3 in the national recreation areas and 26 in the national park. Proposed Management 49 lakes in the study area would remain fishless or be actively returned to fishless conditions. Proposed Management 80 lakes in the study area would remain fishless or be actively returned to fishless conditions; this includes 11 lakes in the national recreation areas and 69 lakes in the national park. Prop

91 laremaretur

Current and proposed management of lakes with high densities of reproducing fish Current Management 27 lakes currently contain high densities of reproducing fish. Proposed Management No lakes would contain high densities of reproducing fish. Proposed Management No lakes would contain high densities of reproducing fish. Prop

No ladens
TABLE ES-3: ALTERNATIVES ELEMENTS 

SUMMARY (CONTINUED) 

xx DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN Elements Alternative A (No Action) Existing Management Framework of 91 Lakes (62 Lakes Have Fish) Alternative B Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (42 Lakes May Have Fish) (Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (11 National Recreation Area Lakes May Have Fish) 

(E

Current and Proposed Management (continued) Current and proposed management of lakes with low- densities of fish (reproducing and nonreproducing) Current Management 9 lakes currently contain low densities of reproducing fish. Proposed Management 7 lakes would contain low densities of reproducing fish. Proposed Management 1 lake in a national recreation area and no lakes in the national park would contain low densities of reproducing fish. Prop

No ladens

Current and proposed management of lakes with nonreproducing fish Current Management 26 lakes are currently stocked with nonreproducing fish. Proposed Management 22 lakes would have nonreproducing fish. Proposed Management 8 lakes in the national recreation areas would have nonreproducing fish. No lakes in the national park would be stocked. Prop

No la

Current and proposed management of lakes lacking data Current Management No additional data would be needed to make final management action determinations. Proposed Management 13 lakes would be evaluated under a new adaptive management framework prior to determining management action. Proposed Management 2 lakes in the national recreation areas would be evaluated under a new adaptive management framework prior to determining management action. Prop

No aneedmandete

Outcome of continuing current management framework or implementing proposed new adaptive management framework Current Management Outcome Of the 91 lakes in the study area, 62 would continue to have fish 29 would remain fishless. Possible Future Outcome Of the 91 lakes in the study area, 29 lakes would have fish 49 lakes would be fishless 13 lakes would be evaluated before determining management action. Possible Future Outcome Of the 91 lakes in the study area, 

9 lakes would have fish80 lakes would be fishless 2 lakes would be evaluated before determining management action. 

PossOf th91 lafishletime 

Implementation The NPS would seek clarification 

from Congress as to whether stocking should be an accepted practice in the North Cascades Complex. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. No c

be ne
TABLE ES-3: ALTERNATIVES ELEMENTS SUMMARY (CONTINUED)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xxi Elements Alternative A (No Action) Existing Management Framework of 91 Lakes (62 Lakes Have Fish) Alternative B Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (42 Lakes May Have Fish) (Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (11 National Recreation Area Lakes May Have Fish) 

(E

Current and Proposed Management (continued) Consistency with NPS Management Policies (NPS 2001a) This alternative is not consistent with existing NPS Management Policies regarding fish stocking and the introduction of exotic species. This alternative is not consistent with existing NPS Management Policies regarding fish stocking and the introduction of exotic species. This alternative is consistent with existing NPS Management Policies regarding fish stocking and the introduction of exotic species into national recreation areas lakes. This 

exist

Policand tspec

Fish species (and strains) stocked (under alternative A) or fish species (and strains) proposed to be stocked under alternatives B and C • Golden Trout • Coastal Cutthroat Trout (Lake Whatcom Strain) • Rainbow Trout (Mt. Whitney Strain) • Rainbow Trout (Ross Lake Strain) • Westslope cutthroat trout (twin Lakes Strain • Rainbow Trout (Mt. Whitney Strain) • Rainbow Trout (Ross Lake Strain) • Golden Trout • Rainbow Trout (Mt. Whitney Strain) No laCurrent and proposed reproducing fish species (and strains) to be maintained under alternatives A, B, and C • Rainbow Trout (Packwood Lane Strain) • Westslope Cutthroat Trout (Twin Lakes Strain) • Brook Trout • Coastal cutthroat Trout (Lake Whatcom Strain) • Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout • Rainbow Trout (Strain unknown) • Westslope Cutthroat Trout (Strain unknown) • Golden Trout • Westslope Cutthroat Trout (Twin Lakes Strain) • Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout • Westslope cutthroat trout (Twin Lakes Strain) • Westslope cutthroat (Unknown Strain) Two 

contapopu• W

(Tw

• W

St
TABLE ES-3: ALTERNATIVES ELEMENTS 

SUMMARY (CONTINUED) 

xxii DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN Elements Alternative A (No Action) Existing Management Framework of 91 Lakes (62 Lakes Have Fish) Alternative B Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (42 Lakes May Have Fish) (Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (11 National Recreation Area Lakes May Have Fish) 

(E

Current and Proposed Management (continued) Fish hatchery locations • Arlington Hatchery, Washington • Eells Springs Hatchery, Washington • Marblemount Hatchery, Washington • WDFW Bellingham Hatchery, Washington • WDFW Chelan Hatchery, Washington Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. No laStocking density Stocking density varies from year to year; see table 6 for stocking density of the most recent stocking efforts. Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. No laSpecific times of year for stocking Stocking occurs during the ice- free period, which varies from year to year, but on average is between mid-July to mid- September; stocking can occur as early as mid-May or as late as mid-October depending on weather conditions. Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. No laStocking methods (and performed by whom) Fixed-wing aircraft (by WDFW). Backpack (by WDFW and volunteers from Trail Blazers, Inc.). Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. No la
TABLE ES-3: ALTERNATIVES ELEMENTS SUMMARY (CONTINUED)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xxiii Elements Alternative A (No Action) Existing Management Framework of 91 Lakes (62 Lakes Have Fish) Alternative B Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (42 Lakes May Have Fish) (Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (11 National Recreation Area Lakes May Have Fish) 

(E

Lake Treatments to Manage the Fishery Mechanical methods (using gill and fyke nets/electrofishing/ trapping/exclusion of habitat) No mechanical methods are used to remove fish. 8 lakes 10 lakes 11 laChemical methods (using chemicals that kill fish) No chemical methods are used to remove fish. 19 lakes 25 lakes 25 laNatural methods (discontinue stocking) No natural methods are used to remove fish. 12 lakes 21 lakes 26 laMonitoring Program Trail Blazers and Hi-Lakers perform periodic surveys. From 1968 to 2001, 133 anglers filed 90 reports for 31 lakes. Reports yield estimates of fish abundance, growth, and species composition, as well as angler effort, success, and usage. Continue monitoring macroinvertebrates and expand to include stocked lakes. WDFW would continue to collect data from Trail Blazers and Hi-Lakers. Continue monitoring visitor use. Data related to fishing would be useful in determining adaptive management, especially fish stocking. Same as alternative A, with additional monitoring of • species assemblages in lakes with fish • visitor use relating to fishing • species assemblages and collecting of physical data needed before treating lakes for fish removal • recovery of species assemblages after treating lakes for fish removal Same as alternative B. Sam
TABLE ES-3: ALTERNATIVES ELEMENTS 

SUMMARY (CONTINUED) 

xxiv DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN Elements Alternative A (No Action) Existing Management Framework of 91 Lakes (62 Lakes Have Fish) Alternative B Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (42 Lakes May Have Fish) (Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (11 National Recreation Area Lakes May Have Fish) 

(E

Mitigation No mitigation occurs under alternative A. Nonreproducing fish would be stocked to prevent establishment of reproducing, self-sustaining populations of fish. Reproduction would be limited by inducing genetic sterility or selecting hatchery strains that cannot reproduce due to spawning habitat limitations and/or timing of spawning limitations (e.g., Mount Whitney rainbow trout). For lakes with no spawning habitat, fish native to the surrounding watershed (e.g., Ross Lake rainbow trout in the Skagit River basin) would be stocked. Over the long term, the WDFW would also work toward creating hybrid, sterile hatchery strains to further minimize the risks of in-lake reproduction and downstream dispersal and hybridization with native fish. Where applicable, stocking would be rotated to allow resting periods so native species could recover. Stocking methods could be limited to horse or backpack to limit impacts on other park visitors. Protocols for fish removal would be strictly enforced to avoid impacts on other species and on worker and visitor safety (see appendix I). Same as alternative B. SamCost of Implementation Approximately $270,000 over the next 15 years. Approximately $2.14 million over the next 15 years. Approximately $2.84 million over the next 15 years. Appr

next 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xxv

TABLE ES-4: SUMMARY OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES

Impact Topics 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Existing 

Framework of 91 Lakes 

Alternative B 

Proposed Adaptive 

Management of 91 Lakes 

under a New Framework 

(42 Lakes May Have Fish) 

(Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative C 

Proposed Adaptive 

Management of 91 Lakes 

under a New Framework 

(11 National Recreation Area 

Lakes May Have Fish) 

91 La

P

Aquatic Organisms  Aquatic organisms (including 

plankton, macroinvertebrates, and amphibians) would continue to experience long-term negligible to minor adverse impacts from fish predation and competition in lakes stocked with low densities of nonreproducing fish. In lakes with high densities of reproducing fish, certain plankton and macroinvertebrates would continue to experience long-term moderate to major adverse impacts from intensive predation and competition. Long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts on amphibians would continue in lakes with reproducing populations of fish, limited refugia, relatively high nutrient (for example, high total Kjeldahl nitrogen) availability, and limited lake connectivity to other water bodies with suitable amphibian habitat. Long-term moderate to major adverse impacts from hybridization between native and nonnative fish would continue to persist. Short- and long-term adverse cumulative impacts on aquatic organisms would vary widely depending upon trends in aquatic ecosystem stressors such as air pollution, development in surrounding watersheds, and climate change. Overall, the cumulative impacts associated with other actions in the area, added to the impacts predicted under alternative A, would result in short- and long-term minor to 

Impacts on aquatic organisms in lakes stocked with low densities of nonreproducing fish would be the same as alternative A, except these impacts would decline further in the future as stocking is curtailed or eliminated in lakes based upon adaptive management decisions pertaining to stocking. Removal of reproducing populations of fish from select lakes would eventually result in long-term beneficial effects on aquatic organisms in those lakes; however, removal of reproducing fish populations would take many years. Until fish are removed, minor to major impacts on aquatic organisms would persist as described in alternative A. Mechanical methods of fish removal (netting, trapping, spawning habitat exclusion) would have short-term negligible to minor adverse impacts on aquatic organisms. Chemical methods of fish removal (application of the piscicide antimycin) would have short-term negligible to moderate adverse impacts on certain aquatic organisms. Compared to alternative A, the risk of hybridization would decline over the long term as reproducing populations of fish are removed, and fewer nonnative fish dispersed downstream from lakes. The risk of hybridization, however, would not be entirely eliminated primarily because reproducing populations of nonnative fish are now present in many 

Impacts on aquatic organisms would be similar to alternative B except impacts would only occur in national recreation area lakes that would continue to be stocked with low densities of nonreproducing fish. Removal of reproducing populations of fish from lakes in the national park portion of the North Cascades Complex would have the same effects on aquatic organisms as under alternative B. Impacts of mechanical and chemical methods of fish removal would be the same as under alternative B. Impacts on native fish from hybridization between native and nonnative fish would be the same as under alternative B. Compared to alternative A, there would be a long-term beneficial cumulative impact on populations of native aquatic organisms because a minimum of 51 lakes (all lakes in the national park unit and select national recreation area lakes) would eventually become fishless. Shortand long-term adverse cumulative impacts on aquatic organisms from threats other than nonnative fish would be similar to alternative B. Impairment of aquatic organisms across the study area would not occur under alternative C. 

Comparebeneficiaaquatic oreturned stocked faquatic ceventuall(that is, pthis woulbeneficiaorganismRemoval of fish froNorth Cathe same organismImpacts methods same as Impacts 

hybridizanonnative under altComparewould be cumulativnative aqstudy areCascadebecome term advaquatic othan nonto alternaImpairmeacross thoccur un
TABLE ES-4: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES (CONTINUED) 

xxvi DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN Impact Topics Alternative A (No Action) Existing Framework of 91 Lakes Alternative B Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (42 Lakes May Have Fish) (Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (11 National Recreation Area Lakes May Have Fish) 

91 La

P

Aquatic Organisms (continued) potentially major adverse impacts on plankton, macroinvertebrates, and amphibians, and/or certain species of native fish in individual lakes in the study area but with overall minor to moderate adverse impacts for the region. Impairment of aquatic organisms across the study area would not occur under alternative A. drainages throughout the North Cascades Complex. Impacts over the long term would be minor to moderate and adverse. Compared to alternative A, there would be a long-term beneficial cumulative impact on native aquatic organisms because a minimum of 20 lakes would eventually become fishless. Short- and long-term adverse cumulative impacts on aquatic organisms from threats other than nonnative fish would be similar to alternative A. Impairment of aquatic organisms across the study area would not occur under alternative B. Wildlife The historic and current stocking of fish created suitable conditions for piscivorous wildlife, such as fish- eating ducks, while potentially restricting populations of other species, such as amphibians, that are prey for several wildlife species. Impacts from activities associated with periodic fixed-wing aircraft stocking (noise disturbance) and backpack stocking (human presence and habitat trampling) under alternative A would be short term, negligible to minor, and adverse on wildlife at or near the lakes. Animals that roost or dwell further away from lakes, such an ungulates, bats, rodents, and many forest-dwelling birds, would incur short-term, negligible, adverse impacts or no impacts from stocking activities. Removal of fish would result in the loss of a food source for fish-eating species, requiring them to disperse to other areas in search of resources; because of this, piscivorous wildlife would incur long-term negligible to minor adverse impacts when lakes are returned to fishless conditions. Impacts from stocking activities would be similar to alternative B, except the number of lakes stocked would decrease under alternative B. Mechanical and chemical treatment methods used to remove fish under alternative B would result in short- term negligible to minor adverse impacts on wildlife, with short-term disturbance to birds and mammals that inhabit the lake and shoreline from the noise of human Impacts on fish-eating species from removal of fish would be similar to alternative B. Impacts from stocking activities would be similar to alternative B, except the number of lakes stocked would substantially decrease under alternative C. Impacts from mechanical and chemical treatment methods would be the same as alternative B. Cumulative impacts would be similar to alternative A. Impairment of wildlife species across the study area would not occur under alternative C. Alternativ

minor to on fish-ewould befish woulfor fish-eto relocatoutside tComplexwhich wodecreasereturning conditionUnder altactivities benefit to disturbed disturbanactivities
TABLE ES-4: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES (CONTINUED)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xxvii Impact Topics Alternative A (No Action) Existing Framework of 91 Lakes Alternative B Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (42 Lakes May Have Fish) (Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (11 National Recreation Area Lakes May Have Fish) 

91 La

P

Wildlife (continued) None of the 91 lakes are currently treated for fish removal under alternative A; therefore, wildlife in or near the lakes would not incur impacts from lake treatments. The impacts associated with other projects and fishery management actions in the area plus impacts from potential airborne pollution, added to the impacts predicted under alternative A, would result in long- term minor adverse cumulative impacts on wildlife populations and communities in the region. Impairment of wildlife species across the study area would not occur under alternative A. presence and helicopters used to transport equipment for mechanical treatment. Cumulative impacts would be similar to alternative A. Impairment of wildlife species across the study area would not occur under alternative B. Impacts 

be the saCumulatisame as Impairmethe study alternativ

Special Status Wildlife Species Based on available information, fixed- wing aircraft noise and human disturbance associated with periodic fish-stocking activities under alternative A would have a range of short-term negligible to minor effects on special status wildlife species. Fish removal does not occur under alternative A, so there would be no impacts on special status wildlife species from lake treatments to remove fish. Fish-stocking activities under alternative B would have a range of short-term negligible to minor effects on some special status wildlife species but would be reduced from the effects that would occur under alternative A. The use of the chemical, antimycin, to remove fish is not known to have adverse impacts on amphibians. There would be long-term beneficial effects on some aquatic species because most high-density reproducing populations of fish would be replaced with low-density nonreproducing stocked fish. Fish-stocking activities under alternative C would have a range of short-term negligible to minor effects on some special status wildlife species but would be reduced from the effects that would occur under alternatives A and B. Short-term impacts related to lake treatments to remove fish would be minor, mostly due to noise from helicopters transporting lake treatment equipment and human disturbance during treatment activities. Impacts from the use of antimycin to remove fish would be the same as under alternative B. All fish st

discontinShort-tertreatmenminor, mhelicoptetreatmendisturbanactivitiesantimycin same as 
TABLE ES-4: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES (CONTINUED) 

xxviii DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN Impact Topics Alternative A (No Action) Existing Framework of 91 Lakes Alternative B Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (42 Lakes May Have Fish) (Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (11 National Recreation Area Lakes May Have Fish) 

91 La

P

Special Status Wildlife Species (continued) Based on the available information, alternative A would have no adverse effects on federally listed species from fish stocking. Regarding federally listed species: 21 species may be affected but are not likely to be adversely affected (American peregrine falcon, California wolverine, Canada lynx, gray wolf, grizzly bear, marbled murrelet, Northern goshawk, Northern spotted owl, Pacific fisher, Yuma myotis, long- eared bat, bald eagle, harlequin duck, little willow flycatcher, olive- sided flycatcher, Cascades frog, Columbia spotted frog, northern red-legged frog, bull trout, Chinook salmon, Coho salmon). 2 species would incur no effect (tailed frog and Western toad). 1 species may be affected and is likely to be adversely affected (westslope cutthroat trout)—effects would be limited to one drainage downstream from McAlester Lake as a result of documented hybridization and colonization. Regarding state-listed species that are not federally listed, 6 species would incur short-term negligible to minor adverse impacts (solely from noise related to stocking activities), and the common loon would incur short-term negligible adverse impacts. Continuation of stocking would provide beneficial effects by Based on the available information, alternative B would have no adverse effects on federally listed species from fish stocking or lake treatments to remove fish. Regarding federally listed species: 23 species may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected: Same as A, with the addition of the Western toad, and western cutthroat trout. 1 species would incur no effect (tailed frog). Regarding state-listed species that are not federally listed, 6 species would incur short-term negligible to minor adverse impacts from noise related to stocking and lake treatment activities, and the common loon would incur long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts due to the removal of its primary food source from Hozomeen Lake. Cumulative impacts would be the same as under alternative A. Impairment of special status wildlife species across the study area would not occur under alternative B. Based on the available information, alternative C would have no adverse effects on federally listed species from fish stocking or lake treatments to remove fish. Regarding federally listed species: 23 species may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected: Same as alternative B. 1 species would incur no effect (tailed frog). Regarding state-listed species that are not federally listed, 6 species would incur short-term negligible to minor adverse impacts from noise related to stocking and lake treatment activities, and the common loon would incur long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts due to the removal of its primary food source from Hozomeen Lake. Cumulative impacts would be the same as under alternative A. Impairment of special status wildlife species across the study area would not occur under alternative C. Based on 

alternativeffects ofrom lake Regardin

22 speare noaffectefalcon, Canadbear, lmarblegoshawolive-sfisher, bat, baCascafrog, nWestesalmonwestslo2 spec(Casca

Regardinare not fwould incadverse fish remocommon moderate removal ofrom HozCumulatisame as Impairmespecies anot occur 
TABLE ES-4: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES (CONTINUED)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xxix Impact Topics Alternative A (No Action) Existing Framework of 91 Lakes Alternative B Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (42 Lakes May Have Fish) (Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (11 National Recreation Area Lakes May Have Fish) 

91 La

P

Special Status Wildlife Species (continued) supporting an adequate food base for nesting loons near Hozomeen Lake and other stocked lakes. Cumulative impacts on each special status species from projects or actions occurring throughout the region would be adverse; however, alternative A would contribute only a small increment to overall cumulative impacts. Impairment of special status wildlife species across the study area would not occur under alternative A. Special Status Plant Species Fish-stocking activities at lakes with shoreline meadow or shrub vegetation would have short-term negligible to minor adverse impacts on any special status plants in the shoreline areas of lakes in cross- country zones or near camps with low visitor use. Stocking activities at lakes in zones or near camps with medium to high visitation would result in short- term negligible to major adverse impacts on any special status plants. No lakes are treated for fish removal under alternative A. Trampling by stock (horses, mules, llamas) and visitors (anglers and other visitors) would likely result in minor to moderate cumulative impacts at some lakes and moderate to major at others, depending on the intensity of use and location of sensitive plants. Fewer lakes would be stocked under alternative B. Trampling during stocking activities may result in negligible to minor adverse impacts at lakes in cross-country zones or near camps that have low visitor use and negligible to moderate adverse impacts on any special status plants that may be present in the shoreline of lakes that are in zones or near camps that receive medium to high use. There would long-term beneficial effects on special status plant species at lakes where stocking would not occur. Select lakes would be treated for fish removal under alternative B. Trampling during mechanical and chemical lake treatment activities may result in short-term negligible to minor adverse impacts on any special status plants that may be present in the shoreline of lakes that are in cross-country zones or near camps Impacts from stocking activities would be similar to alternative B, except that with considerably fewer lakes stocked, impacts would be reduced to negligible to minor and adverse over the long term. Impacts from mechanical and chemical lake treatment activities to remove fish would be similar to alternative B, although a higher number of lakes would be treated for fish removal under alternative C than under alternative B. Cumulative impacts would be similar to alternative B, except as fish stocking is eliminated in the park, impacts would be reduced to negligible over the long term. Impairment of special status plant species across the study area would not occur under alternative C. Fish stoc

alternativlong-term status plaMechanictreatmenwould resalternativCumulatisame as Impairmespecies anot occur 
TABLE ES-4: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES (CONTINUED) 

xxx DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN Impact Topics Alternative A (No Action) Existing Framework of 91 Lakes Alternative B Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (42 Lakes May Have Fish) (Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (11 National Recreation Area Lakes May Have Fish) 

91 La

P

Special Status Plant Species (continued) Impairment of special status plant species across the study area would not occur under alternative A. that receive medium to high visitor use, and negligible to minor adverse impacts at lakes in zones or near camps that have low visitor use. Cumulative impacts would be similar to alternative A but would be reduced as fish are removed from lakes. Impairment of special status plant species across the study area would not occur under alternative B. Vegetation Fifty-nine of the 62 lakes in the study area where fishing would continue have meadow and/or shrub vegetation. Of these, about 75% have low to medium visitation, and vegetation would experience only negligible impacts. The remaining 25% that have high visitation would continue to experience long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts from trampling. Forest shoreline vegetation would generally not be affected more than a negligible or minor level from visitor use, including angling. Cumulative impacts would be negligible to moderate and adverse over the long term. Impairment of vegetation across the study area would not occur under alternative A. Twenty-nine of the 35 lakes in the study area where fishing would continue have meadow vegetation that is sensitive to trampling. Eleven of the 29 lakes are within cross- country zones or near camps that would continue to experience low visitor use, with resulting negligible to minor adverse impacts. Eighteen of the 29 lakes are within cross-country zones or near camps that would continue to experience medium to high visitor use, and vegetation would experience negligible to moderate impacts. In addition to the 29 lakes that are currently fishless in alternative A, alternative B would return 20 lakes to a fishless condition with possible negligible to moderate benefits to shoreline meadow vegetation over time. Temporary negligible to moderate adverse impacts on shoreline vegetation from trampling related to chemical or mechanical lake treatments would occur, and continued fishing as a means of natural removal would have Alternative C would provide substantial long-term benefits to meadow and sensitive forest vegetation from the return of 51 additional lakes to fishless conditions compared to alternative A. The majority of these lakes have meadow vegetation, and 29 of the 51 lakes are located in cross-country zones or near camps that receive a medium to high level of use. To the extent this use is attributable to fishing and fishing-related stock use, benefits to vegetation would occur at these lakes. Of the 9 lakes where fishing would continue, 6 are in cross- country zones or near camps that experience light use now, which would most likely continue to have negligible adverse impacts on vegetation. Three lakes are in cross- country zones or near camps that would continue to experience medium or high use, with resulting negligible to moderate adverse impacts on meadow vegetation. One lake may continue to experience minor or even moderate impacts on Under alt

lakes woconditionVegetatioexperiencThe degrfrom negwould deuse, accevegetatiomajority ovegetatiouse, and fishing, a opportunbenefits tvegetativnegligible on shoretrampling mechanicoccur, anmeans oshort-term adverse Adverse negligible 
TABLE ES-4: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES (CONTINUED)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xxxi Impact Topics Alternative A (No Action) Existing Framework of 91 Lakes Alternative B Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (42 Lakes May Have Fish) (Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (11 National Recreation Area Lakes May Have Fish) 

91 La

P

Vegetation (continued) short-term negligible to moderate adverse impacts. Adverse cumulative impacts would be negligible to moderate and long term. Impairment of vegetation across the study area would not occur under alternative B. shoreline forest vegetation. Temporary negligible or minor adverse impacts on shoreline vegetation from trampling related to chemical or mechanical lake treatment would occur, and continued fishing as a means of natural removal would have short-term negligible to moderate adverse impacts. Adverse cumulative impacts would be negligible to moderate and long term. Impairment of vegetation across the study area would not occur under alternative C. Impairme

study arealternativ

Cultural Resources Alternative A would not change the number of lakes for fishing or the number of anglers using them over the long term. Potential adverse impacts of unknown intensity on archeological resources would be mitigated to negligible to minor. Mitigation would also help keep impacts on historic structures from exceeding minor levels. Potential impacts on cultural landscapes would be mitigated to no greater than minor. No impacts on ethnographic resources are anticipated. For the purpose of compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, there would be no adverse effect on cultural resources. Adverse cumulative impacts would range from negligible to minor over the long term. Possible impacts on archeological resources that would result from preparation of mechanical fish removal equipment and helicopter use (and associated landing pads adjacent to lakes) to transport the equipment would be mitigated to negligible to minor through survey and monitoring prior to use. Possible adverse impacts on historic structures are of unknown magnitude but would not likely exceed negligible to minor. Potential impacts on identified cultural landscapes would be mitigated to no greater than minor. The temporary water-quality degradation from chemicals used to remove fish would potentially result in adverse impacts of unknown intensity on ethnographic resources used by Native Americans for traditional purposes. Such impacts would be The impact of reduced sport-fishing opportunities would result in negligible impacts on archeological resources in general, with beneficial effects as a result of the return of one lake identified as sensitive to a fishless state. Adverse impacts on historic structures are likely to be negligible; the elimination of fishing at one particularly sensitive lake would result in a benefit to historic structures. Cultural landscapes in the study area may incur no greater than minor adverse impacts; in one case, a benefit to the resources would be realized. Impacts on ethnographic resources would likely be mitigated to negligible. For the purpose of compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, there would be no adverse effect on cultural resources. Under alt

effects of of the moarea woufishing acarcheoloCascadespecificaidentified cultural rbenefits bdisturbancultural lanegligiblerealized alandscapeliminatecomplianNational there wocultural r
TABLE ES-4: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES (CONTINUED) 

xxxii DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN Impact Topics Alternative A (No Action) Existing Framework of 91 Lakes Alternative B Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (42 Lakes May Have Fish) (Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (11 National Recreation Area Lakes May Have Fish) 

91 La

P

Cultural Resources (continued) Impairment of cultural resources across the study area would not occur under alternative A. mitigated to negligible through an agreement with the NPS, affected Tribes, and the State Historic Preservation Office regarding the timing of management activities and locations of specific areas that should be avoided. For the purpose of compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, there would be no adverse effect on cultural resources. Adverse cumulative impacts would range from negligible to minor over the long term. Impairment of cultural resources across the study area would not occur under alternative B. There would be beneficial cumulative impacts for cultural resources from reduced human activity at a number of mountain lakes. Impairment of cultural resources across the study area would not occur under alternative C. Cumulati

beneficiaImpairmeacross thoccur un

Visitor Use and Experience Recreational Use Impacts on non-anglers under alternative A would primarily be related to noise and disruption from fixed-wing aircraft stocking activities. Such adverse impacts would be negligible and temporary but would continue over the long term as stocking activities continue. Anglers would experience long-term beneficial impacts because they would continue to enjoy fishing activities unchanged from the past. Cumulative impacts would result from the partial loss of the Stehekin Valley Road due to flooding that occurred in the fall of 2003. The fate of the road is currently uncertain. If the road is not repaired, then access to backcountry portions of the Stehekin Adverse impacts on non-anglers under alternative B would primarily be related to lake treatment methods. These impacts would be negligible to minor adverse over the long term. Removal of fish from some lakes would reduce visitor use and have some long-term beneficial impacts on non-anglers seeking greater solitude in the backcountry. Impacts on most anglers overall would be minor to moderate, adverse, and long term from management actions under alternative B compared to alternative A. Major adverse impacts would occur to some anglers who believe fishing in North Cascade Complex lakes is a truly unique experience that cannot be duplicated elsewhere. Same as alternative B. Major adverse impacts would occur to some anglers who believe fishing in North Cascade Complex lakes is a truly unique experience that cannot be duplicated elsewhere. Same as 

Major adto some in North Ctruly uniqbe duplicOverall, cmoderateThe cumaccess in flood damadverse 

users. 
TABLE ES-4: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES (CONTINUED)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xxxiii Impact Topics Alternative A (No Action) Existing Framework of 91 Lakes Alternative B Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (42 Lakes May Have Fish) (Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (11 National Recreation Area Lakes May Have Fish) 

91 La

P

Visitor Use and Experience (continued) Recreational Use (continued) Valley may be more difficult, and this would reduce the amount of backcountry visitation. Some visitors might enjoy the increased solitude and wilderness setting, while others might lament the reduced access to backcountry areas in the Stehekin Valley, including fishable lakes. Therefore, adverse cumulative impacts on visitor use would be minor to moderate over the long term. Cumulative impacts related to angler displacement to overused areas outside the North Cascades Complex would overall be minor to moderate, adverse, and long term. The cumulative impact of reduced access in the Stehekin Valley due to flood damage would be minor adverse or beneficial to backcountry users. Social Values Continuation of existing management actions under alternative A would have a beneficial effect on the social values of anglers and angler groups because stocking and sport fishing would not change. Impacts on social values of conservationists and conservation groups would be long term, moderate to major, and adverse. Continuation of management actions as described in alternative A would not alter angler use; therefore, cumulative impacts on social values of anglers would be long term and beneficial. Continuation of management actions as described in alternative A would have a moderate to major adverse cumulative impact on conservationists and conservation groups. Alternative B would have a minor adverse impact on the social values of anglers and angler groups over the long term because some level of stocking and sport fishing would continue over the long term. Impacts on social values of conservationists and conservation groups would be beneficial for some who would support the new management framework but moderate to major adverse and long term for those who oppose any stocking of lakes over the long term. Alternative B would have a moderate to major adverse cumulative impact on conservationists and conservation groups, but some may support the adaptive management approach, which may reduce impacts to some degree. Cumulative impacts on anglers and angling groups would be moderate to major, adverse, and long term, but some may support the adaptive management approach, which may reduce impacts to some degree. Cumulative impacts related to flood damage to upper Stehekin Valley Road would be minor to moderate, adverse, and long term. Alternative C would have a moderate to major adverse impact on the social values of anglers and angler groups over the long term because sport fishing would eventually be eliminated in the national park, and many anglers and angler groups believe that fishing in the park is a unique opportunity that cannot be duplicated elsewhere. Impacts on social values of conservationists and conservation groups would be the same as under alternative B. Cumulative impacts would be the same as under alternative B. Alternativ

to major values of over the those whthis expeto pursue North Caimpacts oconservagroups wCumulatisame as 
TABLE ES-4: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES (CONTINUED) 

xxxiv DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN Impact Topics Alternative A (No Action) Existing Framework of 91 Lakes Alternative B Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (42 Lakes May Have Fish) (Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (11 National Recreation Area Lakes May Have Fish) 

91 La

P

Visitor Use and Experience (continued) Wilderness Values Backpack stocking would have a short- and long-term negligible direct impact on visitor solitude. Given the brief and infrequent nature of fixed- wing aircraft stocking, there would be a short- and long-term minor adverse impact on opportunities for solitude. Sport-fishing opportunities would remain at current levels. This would result in long-term negligible impacts on opportunities for solitude for those areas that receive relatively little use, and would result in long-term minor adverse impacts on opportunities for solitude for those areas that receive high use. Impacts on other visitors’ opportunities for primitive recreation in high-use areas over the summer would be long-term minor to moderate and adverse. Those with an anthropocentric perspective (valuing human use and enjoyment of wilderness) would experience negligible long-term impacts under alternative A. Those with strong biocentric views (support protection of natural processes in wilderness areas) of wilderness would experience major, long-term adverse impacts by the continued fishery management practices under alternative A. Impacts on wilderness users who are unaware that fish are present in the lakes would be negligible over the long term. Cumulative impacts on fishing opportunities in mountain lakes from Backpack and fixed-wing aircraft stocking would result in impacts similar to alternative A, except fewer lakes would be stocked. Fishery management actions would reduce sport-fishing opportunities compared to alternative A. This would result in a long-term minor beneficial impact on opportunities for solitude in some areas. However, some lakes in certain high-use areas would remain fishable, resulting in minor adverse impacts on opportunities for solitude over the long term. The impacts on solitude from fish removal activities would be minor to moderate and adverse over the long term. Anglers who choose to fish elsewhere due to the reduced fishing opportunities would experience long- term minor adverse impacts. Anglers who believe the fishing experience cannot be duplicated elsewhere would experience long-term major adverse impacts. Impacts on other visitors’ opportunities for primitive recreation in high-use areas over the summer would be minor to moderate adverse over the long term. Those with anthropocentric perspective would experience negligible long-term impacts under alternative B. Those with an anthropocentric perspective may view the application of a science-based adaptive management plan as a negligible impact, and some may view this as beneficial. Those with strong biocentric views of wilderness would experience long-term major Backpack and fixed-wing aircraft stocking would result in impacts similar to alternative A, except to a lesser degree because fewer lakes would be stocked, and these lake would only be in the national recreation areas. Fishery management actions would reduce sport-fishing opportunities compared to alternatives A and B. Sport-fishing opportunities would be eliminated in national park lakes but would continue to exist in select national recreation area lakes. This would result in a long-term moderate beneficial impact on opportunities for solitude in some areas. However, some lakes in certain high-use areas would remain fishable, resulting in long-term minor adverse impacts on opportunities for solitude. Impacts on solitude from fish removal activities would be long term minor to moderate and adverse. Anglers who choose to fish elsewhere due to the reduced fishing opportunities would experience long-term minor adverse impacts. Anglers who believe the fishing experience cannot be duplicated elsewhere would experience major adverse long-term impacts. Impacts on visitor opportu- nities for primitive recreation in high- use areas over the summer would be long term minor to moderate and adverse. Those with an anthropocentric perspective would experience long- term moderate adverse impacts under alternative C due to the loss of Sport-fish

vastly redalternativthe North cease, afrom all lawould resmajor beopportunwhere fiseliminateopportunin the nincomplete feasible, adverse solitude. Impacts activities and adveAnglers welsewheropportunterm minwho beliecannot bwould exadverse 

The cesswildernesbeneficiaThose wiperspectterm majwith an amay view science-bplan to reimpact, abeneficia
TABLE ES-4: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES (CONTINUED)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xxxv Impact Topics Alternative A (No Action) Existing Framework of 91 Lakes Alternative B Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (42 Lakes May Have Fish) (Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (11 National Recreation Area Lakes May Have Fish) 

91 La

P

Visitor Use and Experience (continued) Wilderness Values (continued) reduced access would likely be negligible over the short and long terms. There would be a long-term major adverse cumulative impact on those who believe that continued stocking and continued presence of reproducing fish populations under alternative A would compromise natural processes in wilderness. There would be long-term negligible cumulative impacts on those who believe that human use and enjoyment of wilderness should continue. adverse impacts from fishery management actions under alternative B. Some with biocentric perspectives would view the application of a science-based adaptive management plan as beneficial over the long term. Impacts on wilderness users who are not aware that fish are present in the lakes would be negligible over the long term. Cumulative impacts on fishing opportunities in mountain lakes from reduced access would likely be negligible over the short and long terms. There would be a long-term major adverse cumulative impact on those who believe that the continued stocking (as proposed under alternative B) in wilderness and continued presence of reproducing populations of fish would compromise natural processes in wilderness. There would be long-term negligible cumulative impacts on those who believe that human use and enjoyment of wilderness should continue. Depending on one’s views regarding the application of science- based adaptive management principles in wilderness areas, cumulative impacts would be long term beneficial or adverse. Fishery management actions, including fish removal, would have a minor adverse cumulative impact on solitude over the long term. fishable lakes in the national park; however, fishing opportunities would still remain in wilderness areas in select national recreation area lakes. Those with an anthropocentric perspective may view the application of a science-based adaptive management plan as a negligible impact, and some may view this as beneficial over the long term. Those with strong biocentric views of wilderness would experience long- term major adverse impacts from the fishery management actions under alternative C. Some with biocentric perspectives may view the application of a science-based adaptive management plan as beneficial over the long term. Impacts to wilderness users who are not aware that fish are present in the lakes would be negligible over the long term. Cumulative impacts on fishing opportunities in mountain lakes from reduced access would likely be negligible over the short and long terms. There would be a long-term major adverse cumulative impact on those who believe that the stocking proposed under alternative C and continued presence of reproducing populations of fish would compromise natural processes in wilderness. There would be long-term negligible cumulative impacts on those who believe that human use and Those wi

wilderneslong-term all fish wfeasible) with a bioview the based adbeneficiato those not be awbeen rembe negligCumulatiopportunreduced negligible terms. Thterm benthose whstocking presence of fish woprocessemajor adanglers wand enjoycontinueregarding based adprinciples wilderneseither woover the managemremoval, cumulativthe long t
TABLE ES-4: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES (CONTINUED) 

xxxvi DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN Impact Topics Alternative A (No Action) Existing Framework of 91 Lakes Alternative B Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (42 Lakes May Have Fish) (Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (11 National Recreation Area Lakes May Have Fish) 

91 La

P

Visitor Use and Experience (continued) Wilderness Values (continued) enjoyment of wilderness should continue. Depending on one’s views regarding the application of science- based adaptive management principles in wilderness areas, cumulative impacts either would be beneficial or adverse over the long term. Fishery management actions, including fish removal, would have a long-term minor adverse cumulative impact on solitude. Due to the cessation of stocking in national park lakes, long-term moderate beneficial cumulative impacts on wilderness values would be expected. stocking, 

beneficiawildernesover the of anglerwould rescumulativanglers d

Human Health Alternative A would have negligible impacts on human health over the long term from the consumption of stocked fish that may have been exposed to persistent organic pollutants and methyl-mercury, and no adverse impacts on human health from any lake treatment chemicals since none would be used. Cumulative impacts on human health would be negligible adverse over the long term. Impacts from stocking decisions and consumption of stocked fish would be the same as alternative A. Proposed chemical treatments that would be used to remove fish from 19 lakes would have long-term negligible adverse impacts on human health. Cumulative impacts on human health would be negligible to minor adverse over the long term. Impacts from stocking decisions and consumption of stocked fish would be the same as alternative A. Impacts from the proposed chemical treatment of 25 lakes would be the same as alternative B. Cumulative impacts on human health would be the same as alternative B. Impacts f

from prevbe the saImpacts ftreatmensame as Cumulatiwould be 
TABLE ES-4: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES (CONTINUED)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xxxvii Impact Topics Alternative A (No Action) Existing Framework of 91 Lakes Alternative B Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (42 Lakes May Have Fish) (Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (11 National Recreation Area Lakes May Have Fish) 

91 La

P

Socioeconomic Resources Alternative A would have long-term negligible impacts on the local and regional economies. Estimated revenues from mountain lake angling account for roughly $1 out of every $100,000 spent in the three-county region. The effects of continuation of the current fishery management program on some local businesses in the Stehekin area would be beneficial since some patrons may also engage in sport fishing in the mountain lakes located in Lake Chelan National Recreation Area. Expenditures associated with sport fishing in the mountain lakes in the North Cascades Complex would continue to have long term negligible cumulative impacts on the local and regional economies. Similar to alternative A but with potential long-term major adverse impacts on a limited number of businesses in Stehekin due to reduced fishing opportunities in mountain lakes. Cumulative impacts would be similar to alternative A. Similar to alternative B, except that anglers who no longer would have fishing opportunities in high mountain lakes in the national park may choose to fish in the national recreation areas. This would have a beneficial long-term impact on local businesses in Stehekin. However, if the number of anglers choosing to fish in the mountain lakes in the recreation areas substantially decrease, there would be a long-term major adverse impact on some businesses in Stehekin. Cumulative impacts on the local and regional economies overall would be long term and negligible, while some businesses in Stehekin may experience long-term major adverse impacts because other visitor uses are not expected to increase substantially. There would be beneficial economic impacts on Stehekin area businesses if anglers chose to fish in the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area because fishing in the mountain lakes outside of the national recreation areas would be eliminated. Overall, t

economieterm negimpacts ffishing in study areA, some experiencimpacts uprimary sanglers wlakes. Overall, clong term

Management and Operations Alternative A would have a negligible to minor adverse impact on management and operations over the long term. Total implementation costs would be $270,000 over a 15-year period and would primarily be borne by the WDFW. Average annual costs would be approximately $18,000 per year. Alternative B would have moderate adverse impacts on management and operations over the long term, assuming all sources of funding remain fairly constant. Total implementation costs would be approximately $2.14 million over the next 15 years. Average annual costs for implementation are projected at Alternative C would have similar moderate adverse impacts on management and operations as alternative B over the long term. Total implementation costs would be approximately $2.84 million over the next 15 years. Average annual costs would be similar to alternative B, but Alternativ

adverse operationassuming fairly conimplemeapproxim

next 15 y
TABLE ES-4: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES (CONTINUED) 

xxxviii DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN Impact Topics Alternative A (No Action) Existing Framework of 91 Lakes Alternative B Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (42 Lakes May Have Fish) (Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (11 National Recreation Area Lakes May Have Fish) 

91 La

P

Management and Operations (continued) Cumulative impacts would be negligible to minor and adverse over the long term. approximately $112,100 for the first three years. As experience is gained conducting lake treatment and management, the number of lakes treated increases, raising costs to nearly $150,000 per year. Future stocking would be funded and implemented by the WDFW. However, should a long-term increase in NPS base funding for fishery management become available, implementing alternative B would have negligible to minor adverse impacts over the long term. Other sources of funding would be sought to reduce impacts on the park’s operating budget. Cumulative adverse impacts on operations could arise from the need to respond to future unanticipated events such as flooding, wildfire, or other events. However, the magnitude of adverse impacts may range from negligible to major depending on the severity of individual future events, which could reduce the amount of potential funding available to implement the fishery management plan or cause the NPS to shift priorities to respond to more pressing needs. the additional lakes targeted for fish removal would increase the total cost. Future stocking would be funded and implemented by WDFW. Similar to alternative B, if a long-term increase in NPS base funding becomes available, adverse impacts would become minor. Other sources of funding would be sought to reduce impacts on the park’s operating budget. Cumulative impacts would be the same as alternative B. for fish re

alternativaverage fish stockprotectiounsanctioincrease Other sosought to park’s opCumulatisame as 
Table of

Contents
This Draft Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Plan / Environmental

Impact Statement is organized by the chapters listed below. Each of the

chapters has its own “mini” table of contents on the back of the corresponding

divider page to give you an idea how the chapter is organized.

P URPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

ALTERNATIVES

AFFECTED E NVIRONMENT

E NVIRONMENTAL C ONSEQUENCES

C ONSULTATION AND C OORDINATION

REFERENCES

GLOSSARY , ACRONYMS , AND I NDEX

Welcome
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xli

CONTENTS 

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................3 

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ..........................................................................................3 

Purpose of the Plan ..........................................................................................................................3 

Need for Action ...............................................................................................................................4 

OBJECTIVES IN TAKING ACTION...................................................................................................5

PROJECT SITE LOCATION ................................................................................................................6 

BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................10 

ADMINISTRATIVE BACKGROUND...............................................................................................10 

History of Fish Management in North Cascades Mountain Lakes ................................................10 

User Groups’ Involvement in North Cascades Complex Fishery Management ............................14 

SUMMARY OF EXISTING RESEARCH ..........................................................................................15 

SCOPING PROCESS AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .........................................................................24 

ISSUES AND IMPACT TOPICS ........................................................................................................24 

Aquatic Organisms.........................................................................................................................24 

Other Wildlife................................................................................................................................25 

Special Status Species....................................................................................................................26 

Vegetation......................................................................................................................................26 

Cultural Resources.........................................................................................................................27 

Visitor Use and Experience ...........................................................................................................27 

Human Health................................................................................................................................28 

Socioeconomic Resources .............................................................................................................28 

North Cascades Complex Management and Operation .................................................................28 

ISSUES DISMISSED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION..........................................................29 

Minority and Low-Income Populations.........................................................................................29 

Floodplains.....................................................................................................................................29 

Special Status Species....................................................................................................................29 

Visitor Safety .................................................................................................................................29 

Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands ...........................................................................................29 

RELATED LAWS, POLICIES, PLANS, AND CONSTRAINTS.............................................................30 

GUIDING LAWS AND POLICIES ....................................................................................................30

NPS Organic Act of 1916 ..............................................................................................................30 

NPS Management Policies (2001).................................................................................................31 

Director’s Order 12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and 

Decision Making and Handbook.............................................................................................33 

North Cascades National Park Service Complex Enabling Legislation ........................................33 

Purpose and Significance of North Cascades National Park Service Complex.............................34 
C ONTENTS

xlii DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

PLANNING DOCUMENTS FOR NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK 

SERVICE COMPLEX...................................................................................................................37 

General Management Plan.............................................................................................................37 

Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................................37 

Resource Management Plan...........................................................................................................38 

MANAGEMENT IN WILDERNESS..................................................................................................38 

Washington Parks Wilderness Act and the Wilderness Act of 1964.............................................38 

Wilderness Management Plan........................................................................................................39 

RELATED LEGISLATION AND POLICIES.....................................................................................39 

Washington State Environmental Policy Act.................................................................................39 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Goals, Policies, and Objectives ............................40 

Statewide Fish Policy.....................................................................................................................40 

Statewide Fishing Regulations.......................................................................................................40 

OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY PLANS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS ..............................................41 

U.S. Forest Service ........................................................................................................................41 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ......................................................................................................41 

National Marine Fisheries Service.................................................................................................41 

Local Plans and Policies ................................................................................................................43 

Tribal Government Interests ..........................................................................................................43 

ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................47 

STUDY AREA DEFINITION....................................................................................................................48 

ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS......................................................................................49 

OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES....................................................................................................49 

REVIEW OF EXISTING DATA.........................................................................................................50 

APPLICATION OF RESEARCH........................................................................................................50 

DEVELOPMENT OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS FOR ALTERNATIVES B AND C..................54 

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS...............................................................................................................64 

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION—EXISTING MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK OF 91 

LAKES (62 LAKES HAVE FISH)......................................................................................................72 

GENERAL CONCEPT ........................................................................................................................72 

IMPLEMENTING THE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN THROUGH 

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION ......................................................................................................73 

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ...........................................................................................................75 

CURRENT FISHERY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM .......................................................................76 

Current Management Framework..................................................................................................76 

Current Stocking Program .............................................................................................................76 
Contents

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xliii

Current Lake Treatments to Manage the Fishery...........................................................................79 

Current Mitigation .........................................................................................................................80 

Current Monitoring Program .........................................................................................................80 

Cost of Implementation..................................................................................................................81 

ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES ..............................................................82 

MANAGING NORTH CASCADES AS A COMPLEX, AS OPPOSED TO DISCRETE UNITS ....82 

MONITORING, DATA COLLECTION, AND FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF LAKES ................82 

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................83 

OUTREACH AND EDUCATION ......................................................................................................84 

PARTNERSHIPS.................................................................................................................................85 

LAKE TREATMENT METHODS......................................................................................................86 

Mechanical Methods......................................................................................................................86 

Chemical Methods .........................................................................................................................91 

FEASIBILITY OF FISH REMOVAL .................................................................................................94 

Natural Treatment Methods ...........................................................................................................95 

ALTERNATIVE B: PROPOSED ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT OF 91 LAKES UNDER A NEW 

FRAMEWORK (42 LAKES MAY HAVE FISH) (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)........................98 

GENERAL CONCEPT ........................................................................................................................98 

IMPLEMENTING THE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN THROUGH 

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION ....................................................................................................100 

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS .........................................................................................................100 

PROPOSED FISHERY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ...................................................................101 

Proposed Management Framework .............................................................................................101 

Proposed Stocking Program.........................................................................................................101 

Proposed Lake Treatments to Manage the Fishery......................................................................103 

Proposed Mitigation.....................................................................................................................103 

Proposed Monitoring Program.....................................................................................................103

Cost of Implementation................................................................................................................103 

ALTERNATIVE C: PROPOSED ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT OF 91 LAKES UNDER 

A NEW FRAMEWORK (11 LAKES MAY HAVE FISH)...............................................................106 

GENERAL CONCEPT ......................................................................................................................106 

IMPLEMENTING THE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN THROUGH 

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION ....................................................................................................108 

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS .........................................................................................................108 

PROPOSED FISHERY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ...................................................................109 

Proposed Management Framework .............................................................................................109 

Proposed Stocking Program.........................................................................................................109 
C ONTENTS

xliv DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

Proposed Lake Treatments to Manage the Fishery......................................................................111 

Proposed Mitigation.....................................................................................................................111 

Proposed Monitoring Program.....................................................................................................111 

Cost of Implementation................................................................................................................111 

ALTERNATIVE D: 91 LAKES WOULD BE FISHLESS (ENVIRONMENTALLY 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) .......................................................................................................112 

GENERAL CONCEPT ......................................................................................................................112 

IMPLEMENTING THE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN THROUGH 

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION ....................................................................................................112 

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS .........................................................................................................112 

PROPOSED FISHERY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ...................................................................113 

Proposed Management Framework .............................................................................................113 

Proposed Stocking Program.........................................................................................................114 

Proposed Lake Treatments to Manage the Fishery......................................................................114 

Proposed Mitigation.....................................................................................................................114 

Proposed Monitoring Program.....................................................................................................114 

Cost of Implementation................................................................................................................115 

HOW ALTERNATIVES MEET OBJECTIVES ...............................................................................115 

ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION ..........................................118 

CONSISTENCY WITH SECTIONS 101(B) AND 102(1) OF THE NATIONAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT .................................................................................................119 

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ......................................................................122 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................147 

GENERAL PROJECT SETTING......................................................................................................147 

Geographic Setting.......................................................................................................................147 

Wilderness ...................................................................................................................................148 

Geologic Overview ......................................................................................................................149 

Hydrology of the North Cascades Complex ................................................................................150 

Overview of Mountain Lakes ......................................................................................................152 

Mountain Lakes Water Quality....................................................................................................154 

Origin of Mountain Biota.............................................................................................................155 

AQUATIC ORGANISMS ........................................................................................................................157 

INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................157 

INTRODUCTION TO LAKE ECOLOGY........................................................................................157 

How Aquatic Systems Work: Food Chains/Webs and Nutrient Cycling ....................................157 

How Organisms Are Organized: Ecosystems, Communities, Populations, 

and Metapopulations .............................................................................................................160 
Contents

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xlv

PLANKTONIC ORGANISMS..........................................................................................................161 

Phytoplankton ..............................................................................................................................161 

Zooplankton.................................................................................................................................162 

MACROINVERTEBRATES.............................................................................................................163 

AMPHIBIANS ...................................................................................................................................165 

Long-Toed Salamander................................................................................................................165 

Northwestern Salamander............................................................................................................168 

OTHER AMPHIBIANS.....................................................................................................................169 

Rough-Skinned Newt...................................................................................................................170 

Pacific Tree Frog..........................................................................................................................170 

FISH ...................................................................................................................................................171 

Native Fish Species......................................................................................................................171 

Nonnative Fish in Mountain Lakes..............................................................................................175 

WILDLIFE................................................................................................................................................179 

MAMMALS.......................................................................................................................................179 

BIRDS ................................................................................................................................................180 

Raptors.........................................................................................................................................180 

Waterfowl ....................................................................................................................................181 

Passerines.....................................................................................................................................182 

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS ......................................................................................................182 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES..................................................................................................................183 

FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES .....................................................................................................183 

California Wolverine ...................................................................................................................183 

Canada Lynx................................................................................................................................184 

Gray Wolf ....................................................................................................................................184 

Grizzly Bear.................................................................................................................................185 

Pacific Fisher ...............................................................................................................................185 

Yuma Myotis ...............................................................................................................................185 

Long-eared Bat ............................................................................................................................185 

American Peregrine Falcon..........................................................................................................186 

Bald Eagle....................................................................................................................................186 

Harlequin Duck............................................................................................................................186 

Marbled Murrelet.........................................................................................................................187 

Northern Spotted Owl..................................................................................................................187 

Northern Goshawk.......................................................................................................................187 

Little Willow Flycatcher..............................................................................................................187 

Olive-sided Flycatcher.................................................................................................................188 

Cascades Frog..............................................................................................................................188 

Columbia Spotted Frog................................................................................................................189 

Northern Red-Legged Frog..........................................................................................................189 

Tailed Frog...................................................................................................................................190 
C ONTENTS

xlvi DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

Western Toad...............................................................................................................................190 

Bull Trout.....................................................................................................................................191 

Chinook Salmon ..........................................................................................................................191 

Coho Salmon................................................................................................................................192 

Westslope Cutthroat Trout...........................................................................................................192 

OTHER SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES.............................................................................................193 

Animals........................................................................................................................................193 

Black-backed Woodpecker ..........................................................................................................193 

Common Loon .............................................................................................................................193 

Golden Eagle................................................................................................................................194 

Lewis’ Woodpecker.....................................................................................................................194 

Merlin...........................................................................................................................................194 

Pileated Woodpecker ...................................................................................................................194 

Vaux’s Swift ................................................................................................................................194 

Plants............................................................................................................................................195 

VEGETATION.........................................................................................................................................196 

WEST SIDE .......................................................................................................................................197 

EAST SIDE ........................................................................................................................................198 

Deciduous Trees ..........................................................................................................................198 

Riparian Vegetation .....................................................................................................................198 

CULTURAL RESOURCES .....................................................................................................................201 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................201 

Historic Structures and Districts ..................................................................................................202 

Ethnographic Resources...............................................................................................................203 

Cultural Landscapes.....................................................................................................................203 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE .......................................................................................................204 

TYPES OF RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES IN THE NORTH CASCADES 

COMPLEX ..................................................................................................................................204 

Hiking and Backcountry Camping...............................................................................................205 

Climbing and Mountaineering .....................................................................................................206 

Stock Use and Horseback Riding ................................................................................................207 

Fishing .........................................................................................................................................207 

SOCIAL VALUES.............................................................................................................................212 

Attitudes Toward Wildlife ...........................................................................................................212 

Social Values of Anglers and Angler User Groups .....................................................................214 

Social Values of Conservation Groups........................................................................................215

WILDERNESS VALUES..................................................................................................................217 

HUMAN HEALTH ..................................................................................................................................219 

HUMAN HEALTH CONCERNS WITH POTENTIAL CONSUMPTION OF 

CHEMICALLY TREATED FISH ..............................................................................................219 
Contents

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xlvii

HUMAN HEALTH CONCERNS WITH POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO METHYLMERCURY AND PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS THROUGH 

CONSUMPTION OF EXPOSED FISH......................................................................................220 

SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES .........................................................................................................221 

WHATCOM COUNTY .....................................................................................................................222 

General Background, Land Use, and Population.........................................................................222 

Economy and Industry Trends.....................................................................................................223 

Tourism........................................................................................................................................224 

Local Businesses..........................................................................................................................224 

SKAGIT COUNTY............................................................................................................................224 

General Background, Land Use, and Population.........................................................................224 

Economy and Industry Trends.....................................................................................................225 

Tourism........................................................................................................................................225 

Local Businesses..........................................................................................................................225 

CHELAN COUNTY ..........................................................................................................................225 

General Background, Land Use, and Population.........................................................................225 

Economy and Industry Trends.....................................................................................................226 

Local Businesses..........................................................................................................................226 

CURRENT ESTIMATED SPORT FISHING EXPENDITURES TO THE 

REGIONAL ECONOMY............................................................................................................227

CURRENT ESTIMATED SPORT FISHING EXPENDITURES TO THE 

LOCAL ECONOMY...................................................................................................................228 

NORTH CASCADES COMPLEX MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS..........................................229 

RESOURCES MANAGEMENT.......................................................................................................229 

EDUCATION AND INTERPRETATION ........................................................................................230 

MAINTENANCE...............................................................................................................................230 

CONCESSIONS.................................................................................................................................230 

ENFORCEMENT ..............................................................................................................................231 

PARK FUNDING ..............................................................................................................................231 

CURRENT COST OF THE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ...........................................231 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................235 

SUMMARY OF LAWS AND POLICIES.........................................................................................235 

GENERAL METHODOLOGY FOR ESTABLISHING IMPACT THRESHOLDS 

AND MEASURING EFFECTS BY RESOURCE.............................................................................237 

GENERAL ANALYSIS METHODS ................................................................................................237 
C ONTENTS

xlviii DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................................................238 

Analysis Period............................................................................................................................238 

Geographic Area Evaluated for Impacts......................................................................................238 

Duration and Type of Impacts .....................................................................................................239 

Future Trends...............................................................................................................................239 

IMPACT THRESHOLDS..................................................................................................................239 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS METHOD .........................................................................239 

IMPAIRMENT ANALYSIS METHOD............................................................................................241 

AQUATIC ORGANISMS ........................................................................................................................243 

GUIDING REGULATIONS AND POLICIES..................................................................................243 

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS.......................................................................................244 

Geographic Area Evaluated for Impacts......................................................................................244 

Outcomes of the Management Actions........................................................................................244 

Impact Criteria and Methodology................................................................................................245 

Impact Threshold Definitions ......................................................................................................246 

IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON AQUATIC ORGANISMS...........................................251 

Alternative A (No Action): Existing Management Framework of 91 Lakes 

(62 Lakes Have Fish) ............................................................................................................251 

Alternative B: Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework 

(42 Lakes May Have Fish) ....................................................................................................261

Alternative C: Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework 

(11 Lakes May Have Fish) ....................................................................................................267

Alternative D: 91 Lakes Would Be Fishless................................................................................273 

WILDLIFE................................................................................................................................................278 

GUIDING REGULATIONS AND POLICIES..................................................................................278 

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS.......................................................................................279 

Geographic Area Evaluated for Impacts......................................................................................279 

Outcomes of Management Actions..............................................................................................280

Impact Criteria and Methodology................................................................................................280 

Impact Threshold Definitions ......................................................................................................280 

IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON WILDLIFE ..................................................................281 

Alternative A (No Action): Existing Management Framework of 91 Lakes 

(62 Lakes Have Fish) ............................................................................................................282 

Alternative B: Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework 

(42 Lakes May Have Fish) ....................................................................................................286

Alternative C: Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework 

(11 Lakes May Have Fish) ....................................................................................................289

Alternative D: 91 Lakes Would Be Fishless................................................................................291 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES..................................................................................................................294 
Contents

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xlix

GUIDING REGULATIONS AND POLICIES..................................................................................294 

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR SPECIAL STATUS 

WILDLIFE SPECIES ..................................................................................................................295 

Geographic Area Evaluated for Impacts......................................................................................295 

Outcomes of the Management Actions........................................................................................295 

Impact Criteria and Methodology................................................................................................296 

Impact Threshold Definitions for Federally Listed Special Status Wildlife Species...................296 

IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES.................298 

Alternative A (No Action): Existing Management Framework of 91 Lakes 

(62 Lakes Have Fish) ............................................................................................................298 

Alternative B: Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework 

(42 Lakes May Have Fish) ....................................................................................................309

Alternative C: Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework 

(11 Lakes May Have Fish) ....................................................................................................315

Alternative D: 91 Lakes Would Be Fishless................................................................................320 

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES ..............324 

Vegetation Type...........................................................................................................................325 

Presence or Absence of Fish........................................................................................................325 

Accessibility of the Lakes to Anglers ..........................................................................................325 

Federally Listed Plants.................................................................................................................326 

Impact Threshold Definitions for State Listed Special Status Plant Species...............................327 

IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES.......................328 

Alternative A (No Action): Existing Management Framework of 91 Lakes 

(62 Lakes Have Fish) ............................................................................................................328 

Alternative B: Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework 

(42 Lakes May Have Fish) ....................................................................................................329

Alternative C: Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework 

(11 Lakes May Have Fish) ....................................................................................................331

Alternative D: 91 Lakes Would Be Fishless................................................................................333 

VEGETATION.........................................................................................................................................335 

GUIDING REGULATIONS AND POLICIES..................................................................................335 

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR VEGETATION ...................................................335 

Sources of Information ................................................................................................................336 

Assumptions.................................................................................................................................337 

Definitions of Intensity Levels.....................................................................................................339 

IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON VEGETATION............................................................339 

Alternative A (No Action): Existing Management Framework of 91 Lakes 

(62 Lakes Have Fish) ............................................................................................................339 

Alternative B: Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework 

(42 Lakes May Have Fish) ....................................................................................................342

Alternative C: Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework 

(11 Lakes May Have Fish) ....................................................................................................344
C ONTENTS

l DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

Alternative D: 91 Lakes Would Be Fishless................................................................................348 

CULTURAL RESOURCES .....................................................................................................................350 

GUIDING REGULATIONS AND POLICIES..................................................................................350 

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS.......................................................................................351 

Geographic Area Evaluated for Impacts......................................................................................352 

Definitions of Intensity Levels.....................................................................................................352 

IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES .........................................................................356 

Alternative A (No Action): Existing Management Framework of 91 Lakes 

(62 Lakes Have Fish) ............................................................................................................358 

Alternative B: Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework 

(42 Lakes May Have Fish) ....................................................................................................361

Alternative C: Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework 

(11 Lakes May Have Fish) ....................................................................................................363

Alternative D: 91 Lakes Would Be Fishless................................................................................364 

SECTION 106 SUMMARY...............................................................................................................366 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE .......................................................................................................369 

RECREATIONAL USE.....................................................................................................................369 

GUIDING REGULATIONS AND POLICIES..................................................................................369 

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS.......................................................................................370 

Geographic Area Evaluated for Impacts......................................................................................370 

Impact Threshold Definitions ......................................................................................................370 

IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON VISITOR RECREATIONAL USE .............................371 

Alternative A (No Action): Existing Management Framework of 91 Lakes 

(62 Lakes Have Fish) ............................................................................................................371 

Alternative B: Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework 

(42 Lakes May Have Fish) ....................................................................................................375

Alternative C: Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework 

(11 Lakes May Have Fish) ....................................................................................................381

Alternative D: 91 Lakes Would Be Fishless................................................................................387 

SOCIAL VALUES.............................................................................................................................391 

GUIDING REGULATIONS AND POLICIES..................................................................................391 

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS.......................................................................................391 

Geographic Area Evaluated for Impacts......................................................................................391 

Impact Threshold Definitions ......................................................................................................392 

IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON SOCIAL VALUES ......................................................392 

Alternative A (No Action): Existing Management Framework of 91 Lakes 

(62 Lakes Have Fish) ............................................................................................................392 
Contents

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT li

Alternative B: Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework 

(42 Lakes May Have Fish) ....................................................................................................394

Alternative C: Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework 

(11 Lakes May Have Fish) ....................................................................................................396

Alternative D: 91 Lakes Would Be Fishless................................................................................398 

WILDERNESS VALUES..................................................................................................................399 

GUIDING REGULATIONS AND POLICIES..................................................................................399 

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS.......................................................................................399 

Geographic Area Evaluated for Impacts......................................................................................401 

Impact Threshold Definitions ......................................................................................................401 

IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON WILDERNESS VALUES .......... ................................402 

Alternative A (No Action): Existing Management Framework of 91 Lakes 

(62 Lakes Have Fish) ............................................................................................................402 

Alternative B: Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework 

(42 Lakes May Have Fish) ....................................................................................................405

Alternative C: Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework 

(11 Lakes May Have Fish) ....................................................................................................409

Alternative D: 91 Lakes Would Be Fishless................................................................................413 

HUMAN HEALTH ..................................................................................................................................418 

GUIDING REGULATIONS AND POLICIES..................................................................................418 

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS.......................................................................................418 

Impact Threshold Definitions ......................................................................................................418 

IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON HUMAN HEALTH .....................................................419 

Alternative A (No Action): Existing Management Framework of 91 Lakes 

(62 Lakes Have Fish) ............................................................................................................419 

Alternative B: Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework 

(42 Lakes May Have Fish) ....................................................................................................420

Alternative C: Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework 

(11 Lakes May Have Fish) ....................................................................................................422

Alternative D: 91 Lakes Would Be Fishless................................................................................423 

SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES .........................................................................................................425 

GUIDING REGULATIONS AND POLICIES..................................................................................425 

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS.......................................................................................425 

Geographic Area Evaluated for Impacts......................................................................................425 

Impact Threshold Definitions ......................................................................................................425 

IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES............................426 

Alternative A (No Action): Existing Management Framework of 91 Lakes 

(62 Lakes Have Fish) ............................................................................................................426 
C ONTENTS

lii DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

Alternative B: Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework 

(42 Lakes May Have Fish) ....................................................................................................428

Alternative C: Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework 

(11 Lakes May Have Fish) ....................................................................................................430

Alternative D: 91 Lakes Would Be Fishless................................................................................432 

MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS ..................................................................................................434 

GUIDING REGULATIONS AND POLICIES..................................................................................434 

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS.......................................................................................434 

Geographic Area Evaluated for Impacts......................................................................................435 

Impact Threshold Definitions ......................................................................................................435 

IMPACTS OF THE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES ON NORTH CASCADES 

COMPLEX MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS .................................................................436 

Alternative A (No Action): Existing Management Framework of 91 Lakes 

(62 Lakes Have Fish) ............................................................................................................436 

Alternative B: Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework 

(42 Lakes May Have Fish) ....................................................................................................437

Alternative C: Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework 

(11 Lakes May Have Fish) ....................................................................................................442

Alternative D: 91 Lakes Would Be Fishless................................................................................445 

SUSTAINABILITY AND LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT..................................................................447 

Alternative A (No Action): Existing Management Framework of 91 Lakes 

(62 Lakes Have Fish) ............................................................................................................447 

Alternative B: Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework 

(42 Lakes May Have Fish) ....................................................................................................447

Alternative C: Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework 

(11 National Recreation Area Lakes May Have Fish) ..........................................................448 

Alternative D: 91 Lakes Would Be Fishless................................................................................448 

IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES...................................450 

Alternative A (No Action): Existing Management Framework of 91 Lakes 

(62 Lakes Have Fish) ............................................................................................................450 

Alternative B: Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework 

(42 Lakes May Have Fish) ....................................................................................................450

Alternative C: Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework 

(11 National Recreation Area Lakes May Have Fish) ..........................................................451 

Alternative D: 91 Lakes Would Be Fishless................................................................................451 

ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT COULD NOT BE AVOIDED .................................................................452 

Alternative A (No Action): Existing Management Framework of 91 Lakes 

(62 Lakes Have Fish) ............................................................................................................452 

Alternative B: Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework 

(42 Lakes May Have Fish) ....................................................................................................452

Alternative C: Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework 

(11 National Recreation Area Lakes May Have Fish) ..........................................................452 

Alternative D: 91 Lakes Would Be Fishless................................................................................453 
Contents

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT liii

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

HISTORY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT..............................................................................................457 

THE SCOPING PROCESS................................................................................................................457 

Internal Scoping...........................................................................................................................457 

Public Scoping .............................................................................................................................458 

AGENCY CONSULTATION............................................................................................................459 

USDA—Forest Service................................................................................................................459 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife .............................................................................460 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.......................................................................................460 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ....................................................................................................460 

National Marine Fisheries Service...............................................................................................461 

Native American Tribes...............................................................................................................461 

Washington State Historic Preservation Office ...........................................................................461 

U.S. Geological Survey................................................................................................................462 

LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS...............................................................................463 

LIST OF RECIPIENTS......................................................................................................................465 

Federal Departments and Agencies .............................................................................................465 

Tribal Governments and Organizations.......................................................................................465 

State of Washington Government................................................................................................465 

State of Washington Agencies.....................................................................................................466 

Washington Counties...................................................................................................................466 

State of Oregon ............................................................................................................................466 

Organizations and Businesses......................................................................................................467 

Media and Publications................................................................................................................467 

Canada .........................................................................................................................................467 

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHARTER FOR THE MOUNTAIN LAKES 

FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ............468 

Functions......................................................................................................................................468 

Definitions ...................................................................................................................................469 

REFERENCES 

REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................................473 

GLOSSARY, ACRONYMS, INDEX 

GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................................................491 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................500 

INDEX ......................................................................................................................................................502 
C ONTENTS

liv DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

FIGURES 

1: Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................................................7 

2: Mountain Lakes in the North Cascades Complex with a History of Fish Stocking.............................9

3: Management Model for Conserving Biological Integrity in Mountain Lakes ...................................52 

4: Status of 91 Lakes under Alternative A .............................................................................................73 

5: Adaptive Management Process ..........................................................................................................85 

6: Status of 91 Lakes under Alternative B............................................................................................100 

7: Status of 91 Lakes under Alternative C............................................................................................108 

8: Food Web for a Lake with Fish........................................................................................................159 

9: 2003 Visitor Bsackcounty Overnight Use Activities .......................................................................209 

TABLES

1: Ecological Risk Factors for New Management Framework ..............................................................55 

2: Principles for Managing the Mountain Lakes Fishery to Conserve Biological Integrity...................56 

3: Decision Criteria for Management Actions........................................................................................57 

4: Description of Management Actions..................................................................................................65 

5: Management Actions for Each of the 91 Lakes .................................................................................66 

6: Status of Fish Reproduction and Cycle, Stocking Density, and Species of Fish Stocked 

Comparison of Alternatives A, B, and C............................................................................................68 

7: Mechanical and Chemical Treatment Methods for Lakes with Reproducing Nonnative Fish...........88 

8: Factors that May Affect the Feasibility of Successfully Removing Reproducing 

Populations of Fish from Lakes..........................................................................................................96 

9: Natural Treatment Methods for Lakes with Nonreproducing Fish ....................................................97 

10: Proposed Management Actions for Alternative B..............................................................................99 

11: Methods Used for Transporting Fish to Lakes Stocked under Alternatives A, B, and C.................104 

12: Proposed Management Actions for Alternative C............................................................................107 

13: Proposed Management Actions for Alternative D ...........................................................................112

14: Alternatives Elements Summary ......................................................................................................123 

15: Summary of Environmental Consequences......................................................................................129 

16: Analyses of How Alternatives Meet Objectives ..............................................................................143 

17: Range of Physical Attributes for Mountain Lakes with a History of Fish Stocking........................153 
Contents

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT lv

18: Native Fish Species ..........................................................................................................................172 

19: Passerine Birds That Utilize Riparian Areas in the North Cascades Complex ................................182 

20: Federally Listed Special Status Species Potentially Occurring in the North Cascades 

Complex ...........................................................................................................................................184 

21: State of Washington Special Status Species with No Federal Status...............................................193 

22: Total Visitation to the North Cascades Complex, 1996 to 2002......................................................204 

23: Lakes Accessible by Horseback.......................................................................................................207 

24: Relative Popularity of Various Activities in the North Cascades Complex.....................................210 

25: Day-Use Angling Statistics ..............................................................................................................211 

26: People’s Perceptions of Animals in American Society....................................................................213 

27: Whatcom County Demographics .....................................................................................................223 

28: Skagit County Demographics...........................................................................................................224 

29: Chelan County Demographics..........................................................................................................226 

30: Estimated Base Funding for the North Cascades Complex..............................................................232 

31: Summary of Impact Thresholds – Aquatic Organisms ....................................................................247 

32: Outcomes of Applying Aquatic Organism Impact Thresholds ........................................................252 

33: Sound Level Comparison Chart .......................................................................................................283 

34: Estimated Total Costs of the Fishery Management Program under Alternative B ..........................438 

35: Estimated Costs of Fish Removal for Management Actions under Alternative B...........................440 

36: Estimated Costs of Fish Removal for Management Actions under Alternative C...........................443