Alternatives
You are now in the "Alternatives" chapter.

Here are the topics you can read about.

I NTRODUCTION 4 7

S TUDY A REA DEFINITION 4 8

ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT P ROCESS 4 9

ALTERNATIVE A: (NO ACTION ) E XISTING MANAGEMENT

F RAMEWORK OF 91 L AKES (62 L AKES HAVE FISH) 72

ELEMENTS C OMMON T O AL L ACTION ALTERNATIVES 82

ALTERNATIVE B: P ROPOSED A DAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

O F 91 L AKES UNDER A NE W FRAMEWORK

(42 LAKES MA Y HAVE FISH) (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 98

ALTERNATIVE C: P ROPOSED A DAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

O F 91 L AKES U NDER A NE W F RAMEWORK

(11 L AKES MA Y HAVE FISH) 106

ALTERNATIVE D: 91 L AKES WOULD BE FISHLESS

( E NVIRONMENTALLY P REFERRED ALTERNATIVE ) 112

ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION 118

C ONSISTENCY WITH S ECTIONS 101(B) AND 1 0 2 (1) O F THE

NATIONAL E NVIRONMENTAL P OLICY AC T 119

E NVIRONMENTALLY P REFERRED ALTERNATIVE 122 

Welcome
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 47

INTRODUCTION 

his “Alternatives” chapter describes the various actions that could be 

implemented for current and future management of the mountain lakes 

fishery in the North Cascades National Park Service Complex (the North 

Cascades Complex). The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires 

that federal agencies explore a range of reasonable alternatives and provide an 

analysis of what impacts the alternatives could have on the natural and human 

environment. The “Environmental Consequences” chapter of this Draft Mountain 

Lakes Fishery Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement (plan/EIS) 

presents the results of the analyses. The alternatives under consideration must 

include a “no-action” alternative as prescribed by 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 1502.14. The no-action alternative in this plan/EIS is the 

continuation of current management of the mountain lakes fishery, and it 

assumes that the National Park Service (NPS) would not make major changes to 

the current fishery management program. The three action alternatives presented 

in this chapter were derived from the recommendations of the interdisciplinary 

planning team and through feedback from the public during the public scoping 

process. The interdisciplinary planning team (also referred to as the Technical 

Advisory Committee) is comprised of NPS resource specialists, Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) biologists, and other individual 

resource specialists. 

The three action alternatives analyzed in this plan/EIS meet, to a large degree, the 

management objectives for the North Cascades Complex and also the purpose of 

and need for action as expressed in the “Purpose of and Need for Action” 

chapter. Because each of the action alternatives is responsive to the objectives, 

they are considered “reasonable.” 

T
48 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

STUDY AREA DEFINITION 

The study area for this plan/EIS is the North Cascades Complex (see “Map 1” 

located in the envelope that accompanied this document) and the 91 naturally 

formed mountain lakes in the 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. The records were compiled from databases 

maintained by the NPS, WDFW, and volunteer groups such as the Washington 

State Hi-Lakers and Trail Blazers, Inc. Some lakes without a recorded history of 

fish stocking are included in the study area as well. These are lakes known to 

contain fish as a result of undocumented stocking by humans or from being 

connected to a lake or stream that serves as a source of fish. Two fishless lakes 

that have a history of fish presence (Silver and Pyramid) are in Research Natural 

Areas. Research Natural Areas were established in the North Cascades 

Complex’s 1988 General Management Plan (NPS 1988b) for the purposes of 

scientific research. A total of 245 mountain lakes are in the North Cascades 

Complex, and at least 154 of these lakes have always been fishless and would 

continue to be fishless under any alternative. Because they would remain fishless, 

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

are not analyzed in this plan/EIS. 

The 91 lakes addressed in this plan/EIS are dotted throughout the North Cascades 

Complex: 7 are in Ross Lake National Recreation Area, 15 are in Lake Chelan 

National Recreation Area, and 69 are located in the North Cascades National 

Park (see “Map 1” in the envelope that accompanied this document). Of the 

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

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

Complex. 

Historically, all mountain lakes in the North Cascades Complex, including the 

91 lakes defined for this analysis, were naturally fishless. The fish species 

currently present in these lakes are not native to the lakes in accordance with NPS 

Management Policies (NPS 2001a) that define nonnative species. However, 

some native fish species (native to the watershed and streams) reside in the 

streams connected to the lakes. For instance, species of fish, such as bull trout, 

cutthroat trout, and rainbow trout, are native to the streams in the study area. 

Notable aquatic species native to mountain lakes include the long-toed 

salamander, the Northwestern salamander, and certain species of planktonic 

organisms and macroinvertebrates because they were present naturally prior to 

fish stocking. 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 49

Green Lake, Green 

Lake with Bacon Peak 

in the background, 

Wilcox Lakes, and 

Coon Lake. 

ALTERNATIVES 

DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 

OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES 

The management actions are discussed in detail in this 

chapter under the sections titled “Development of 

Management Actions for Alternatives B and C” and 

“Management Actions.” The management actions were 

applied to each of the alternatives as follows: 

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 current 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 management 

actions were applied on a lake-by-lake basis over the 

entire study area using the approach described below in 

the section titled “Development of Management Actions 

for Alternatives B and C.” The emphasis of alternative B 

would be to eliminate high-density reproducing fish from 

study area lakes in order to more closely approximate 

natural biological conditions. Fish would occur in lakes 

where impacts on biological resources from low-density 

reproducing or nonreproducing fish populations could be 

minimized. 

Alternative C: Proposed Adaptive Management of 

91 Lakes under a New Framework (11 National 

Recreation Area Lakes May Have Fish). The goal of alternative C is that 

9 lakes in Ross Lake and Lake Chelan National Recreation Areas would have 

fish, and 2 lakes would be evaluated for restocking. The other 11 lakes in the 

national recreation areas either would remain fishless or become fishless. The 69 

lakes in the national park would be returned to their natural fishless condition or 

would remain fishless. These actions would bring high alpine lake management 

in the North Cascades Complex more in line with current NPS management 

practices. While NPS Management Policies (NPS 2001a, 4.4.4.1) state that in 

general, “exotic species will not be introduced into parks,” policies also state, “in 

some situations, the Park Service may stock native or exotic animals for 

recreational harvesting purposes, but only when . . . such stocking is in a national 

recreation area or preserve that has historically been stocked” (NPS 2001a, 

4.4.3). Fish would be allowed in national recreation area lakes where impacts on 

biological resources from low-density reproducing or nonreproducing fish 

populations could be minimized (NPS 2001a). 
A LTERNATIVES

50 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

Biota: The combined 

plant and animal life 

of a particular region. 

Bull trout are native to 

Washington State 

waters and are listed 

as threatened under 

the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Alternative D: 91 Lakes Would Be Fishless (Environmentally Preferred 

Alternative). The goal is that all 91 lakes in the study area would be fishless. 

Fish would be eliminated (to the extent feasible) in lakes that currently contain 

fish, and lakes that are now fishless would remain fishless. 

The following sections describe in detail how these alternatives were developed. 

REVIEW OF EXISTING DATA 

As described in the “Purpose of and Need for Action” chapter, preparation of this 

plan/EIS was to begin upon completion of a 12-year research program initiated 

by Oregon State University (OSU) in 1988. While the majority of research from 

1988 to date focused on the effects of fish stocking on native biota in mountain 

lakes, other information important to fishery management has been developed 

during this time. Over the past several years, species of special concern and new 

listings of threatened and endangered species, such as the bull trout, have created 

the need for additional management of mountain lakes to ensure species were not 

being inadvertently affected by fishery management. The primary user groups of 

the mountain lakes fishery have also collected data important to 

understanding the use of this resource. Information obtained during 

this time has pointed to the concept of biological integrity as an 

overarching goal of lake management, strongly related to the 

reproductive status and abundance of fish in high mountain lakes. 

Challenged with the task of synthesizing existing information, the 

Technical Advisory Committee developed a database that comprehensively 

describes each of the mountain lakes in the scope of this planning effort. A 

variety of records and sources were compiled and queried for each of the 91 lakes 

to describe, among many things, fish stocking history, fish reproduction success, 

chemical and biological conditions, and which lakes had an inlet or outlet leading 

to another lake (see appendix E for a complete description of the attributes of the 

lakes). 

After determining the existing conditions of each lake, the Technical Advisory 

Committee then developed a method to characterize and sort the lakes. 

Characterizing the lakes provided an organizational tool used to help analyze 

resource impacts that could occur under each of the action alternatives described 

in this chapter. It was also a useful tool in gauging how each of the management 

alternatives met the objectives in taking action, as described in the “Purpose of 

and Need for Action” chapter. 

APPLICATION OF RESEARCH 

The 1985 Memorandum of Understanding and 1988 Supplemental Agreement, as 

well as the 1991 Consent Decree (see the “Purpose of and Need for Action” 

chapter for a discussion of these three documents and appendix A for copies), 

called for research that could be used to more fully understand the environmental 

impacts of fish stocking. This information could then be used to develop future 

management decisions. The primary technical challenge in preparing this 
Alternatives Development Process

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 51

The water 

quality parameter 

total Kjeldahl nitrogen, 

or TKN, is a surrogate 

measure for 

lake productivity. 

See appendix F for 

a detailed description 

of TKN. 

plan/EIS involved applying the large body of available ecological knowledge and 

theory. This section provides an overview of how research results and ecological 

concepts were applied 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 “Environmental Consequences” chapter provides further details of how 

research was used to formulate management actions and evaluate their effects. 

The Technical Advisory Committee for this plan/EIS 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 the principal 

conclusions of the OSU research, including 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. 

By taking the general concept of biological integrity and defining it in the context 

of this plan/EIS, this approach allowed the Technical Advisory 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 (see figure 3). 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 OSU research recommended that “a prudent and precautionary management 

strategy would be to maximize protection of all North Cascades Complex lakes 

with relatively high total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)” (Liss et al. 2002). In other 

words, the concentration of TKN could be used as one criterion for selecting 

lakes for stocking and for fish removal. Productive lakes (those with relatively 

high TKN) should remain fishless to provide productive habitat for native 

species, particularly amphibians. 
A LTERNATIVES

52 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

FIGURE 3: MANAGEMENT MODEL FOR CONSERVING BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY IN MOUNTAIN LAKES

Note: This figure illustrates the application of a conceptual biological integrity model (based on Karr 2000) to 

disturbance associated with various states of nonnative fish presence in naturally fishless mountain lakes (Downen 

2004). The model illustrates a theoretical relationship between the reproductive status and abundance of nonnative 

trout and their impact on the biological condition or integrity of mountain lakes. When considered in the context of 

fisheries management, lakes that have always been fishless are believed to have the highest degree of biological 

integrity. In contrast, lakes that have high densities of reproducing trout are believed to have the lowest degree of 

biological integrity, as demonstrated by the OSU research findings. Alternatives B and C were developed based on 

the biological integrity model hypothesis that fishery management actions could conserve biological integrity by (a) 

preventing stocking of currently fishless lakes; (b) removing reproducing populations of fish where feasible; and 

(c) stocking low densities of nonreproducing fish in select lakes according to the management principles described in 

table 2. Removal of reproducing fish populations (especially at high densities) from lakes was also proposed as an 

element common to all action alternatives (WDFW 2003). 
Alternatives Development Process

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 53

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. 

The Technical Advisory Committee initially attempted to adopt the OSU 

research recommendation as a means of selecting lakes to be fishless based on 

impacts of trout. However, this was abandoned out of concern for (a) making 

biologically based decisions centered on a threshold concentration of a single 

water-quality parameter and (b) only protecting one class of ecosystem type 

rather than maintaining a diversity of fishless ecosystems. Instead, the Technical 

Advisory Committee considered TKN as part of a suite of physical, chemical, 

biological, and spatial criteria for determining what lakes could be stocked and 

what lakes should remain fishless. This more complex decision-making process 

accommodated the results of other research (for example, impacts on native fish 

that can occur when nonnative trout migrate downstream from lakes) and aided 

in the consideration of impacts on native organisms at multiple biological scales 

(organism, species, community) and spatial scales (within a lake, lake clusters, 

watersheds). 

In contrast to alternatives B and C, alternative D (91 Lakes Would Be Fishless) 

was crafted to meet the spirit and intent of NPS policies by discontinuing 

stocking and eventually removing reproducing populations of fish from mountain 

lakes wherever feasible. This management alternative was not based specifically 

upon a research finding related to the ecological effects of nonnative fish in 

North Cascades Complex lakes. Instead, alternative D was developed because it 

most closely achieved the spirit and intent of NPS policies regarding 

management of nonnative species. These policies are based upon the wide body 

of scientific evidence that nonnative species can have broad impacts on 

ecosystem functions and values. Alternative D also provides a basis for 

comparing the effects of the no-action alternative (alternative A) and the other 

action alternatives. 

Alternative D emphasizes conservation of biological integrity by establishing a 

goal of completely removing nonnative fish from lakes in the North Cascades 

Complex. Researchers and resource managers have attempted to remove trout 

from mountain lakes in the western United States and Canada, and results have 

been mixed. These results demonstrate that complete removal may not be 

achieved in all lakes containing reproducing fish. Nine lakes have been identified 

where complete removal may not be feasible. Alternative D meets all of the 

management objectives to a large degree, with the exception of offering a 

diversity of recreational opportunities, including sport fishing. However, fishing 

opportunities would continue to be available in the foreseeable future while fish 

removal activities are completed. In addition, fishing opportunities would still 

remain in the reservoirs, rivers, and some streams throughout the North Cascades 

Complex. 

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 Technical Advisory Committee 

included the principle of adaptive management as an element common to all 

action alternatives. Adaptive management “focuses on management as a learning 

process or continuous experiment where incorporating the results of previous 

actions allows managers to remain flexible and adapt to uncertainty” (Grumbine 

1994). The Technical Advisory Committee incorporated the principle of adaptive 

management into each of the management alternatives by developing a lake 
A LTERNATIVES

54 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

monitoring plan (see appendix F) to evaluate management actions and create a 

mechanism for changing those actions if management goals were not being 

achieved. 

The “Affected Environment” chapter of this plan/EIS describes the resources and 

values that could potentially be affected by fishery management actions. The 

OSU research generated a large amount of physical, chemical, and biological 

baseline data on mountain lakes in the North Cascades Complex. The Technical 

Advisory Committee used these data, along with information from other research 

and monitoring efforts by the NPS, WDFW, and Trail Blazers, to build a 

comprehensive database on mountain lakes in the North Cascades Complex. This 

database, largely derived from past and ongoing research activities, was used to 

help understand and describe the resources and values that could be affected by 

fishery management actions. 

The OSU research largely evaluated the ecological effects of nonnative trout on 

aquatic organisms at the scale of individual lakes. To understand the potential 

effects of nonnative fish at broader scales, including the potential impacts from 

downstream dispersal, information from other research and monitoring efforts 

was also extensively used. In the Stehekin River drainage, for example, ongoing 

research into hybridization between native westslope cutthroat trout and 

nonnative rainbow trout was used to evaluate the potential impacts of fishery 

management actions in the drainage. On the west side of the North Cascades 

Complex, bull trout research and monitoring data were used in a similar fashion. 

In summary, this plan/EIS was initiated upon completion of the OSU research 

into the ecological effects of nonnative trout because the research provided a 

critical mass of information. The OSU research contributed greatly to the 

formation of management alternatives and the impact analysis process; however, 

the results of many other research efforts were used to craft the management 

alternatives and evaluate impacts. More thorough descriptions on the role of 

research are provided in the “Environmental Consequences” chapter. 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. 

DEVELOPMENT OF MANAGEMENT 

ACTIONS FOR ALTERNATIVES B AND C 

Various decision-making criteria emerged during the process of reviewing 

research. These refined criteria (ecological risk factors) are described in table 1. 

The Technical Advisory Committee reviewed the conditions of each lake and 

applied the factors in table 1. Then, the principles in table 2 were used to 

determine the management action for each lake. 

Table 3 shows how the ecological risk factors and principles were assigned to 

each lake. A more detailed discussion of how these principles would be applied 

to determine final management actions for each lake can be found in the 

descriptions of each alternative later in this chapter. 
Alternatives Development Process

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 55

TABLE 1: ECOLOGICAL RISK FACTORS FOR NEW MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

Fishless conditions 

currently present 

Is the lake currently fishless? This suggests that protecting currently fishless (though historically stocked)

lakes is biologically beneficial because the lakes are slowly reverting to pre-stocking conditions, and there 

is no compelling reason to alter that process. 

Unique lake features or 

circumstances 

Does the lake posses any unique features or circumstances that would favor fishless conditions, such as 

Geographic Isolation: Is the lake isolated from other water bodies that serve as a refuge or breeding 

habitat for the long-toed salamander? Isolated lakes may be very important for protecting isolated 

populations of salamanders, especially if the surrounding habitat consists of shallow ponds or wetlands 

that could dry up or be otherwise impacted by random natural events. This risk factor acknowledges that 

isolated populations of native species, such as long-toed salamanders that are slow to disperse, must be 

sufficiently distributed across the landscape to ensure their long-term sustainability. Consideration of 

geographic isolation helps to ensure that metapopulations of such amphibian species are adequately 

protected at the broadest spatial scales. 

Species of Conservation Concern: Do rare or unique species (such as the blind amphipod) reside in the 

lake? Blind amphipods are found in at least two park lakes and may be in other lakes that have not been 

sampled. Amphipods are a type of macroinvertebrate that can be an important food source for fish and 

could be inadvertently lost due to predation. Should other organisms of conservation concern be found 

through monitoring, fishery management actions would be adjusted to prevent harm. Could species of 

special concern (such as the bull trout) be affected by the presence of nonnative fish in lakes? Native fish 

species that reside in streams could potentially be affected through hybridization and competition by 

nonnative fish escaping from lakes into streams. 

Under-represented Lake Type: Is the lake large and deep or geologically unique? These lakes are often 

candidates for stocking, and most of the large lakes in the park have traditionally been stocked. 

Therefore, it is necessary to establish a representative number of large, deep lakes as fishless in order to 

protect the unique aquatic organisms that may prefer this type of lake. 

Capacity to serve as 

suitable habitat for, and 

within the range of, 

long-toed salamanders 

Does the lake have the appropriate physical habitat and biological productivity to produce and maintain 

source populations of long-toed salamanders? Long-toed salamanders are biological indicators of an 

unsustainable fish density because they are particularly sensitive to fish predation. Since the long-toed 

salamander is more sensitive than most other amphibians to fish predation, protecting habitat for longtoed salamanders helps to prevent elimination of in-lake populations and protect overall health of 

amphibians in the North Cascades Complex. This criterion recognizes that lakes in the North Cascades 

Complex vary widely in habitat quality for salamanders. The physical, chemical, and biological 

characteristics of lakes make some more suitable than others for nurturing genetically sustainable 

populations of long-toed salamanders. Populations of long-toed salamanders in lakes that provide highquality habitat can withstand the impacts of disturbance (such as drought) and, presumably, recolonize 

the surrounding watershed following disturbance. Long-toed salamanders are only able to reproduce in 

large numbers in lakes that provide high-quality habitat. In addition to reproduction, their offspring must be 

able to survive in numbers that are sufficient for ensuring long-term genetic diversity. To meet this 

criterion, the lake must also be located in what is considered the geographic range of the long-toed 

salamander. 

Shared lake conditions 

exist between the longtoed salamander and 

fish 

Does evidence suggest that a lake can maintain fish populations while allowing salamanders to coexist? 

Situations have been observed in lakes where both fish and salamander populations exist. It is assumed 

that these lakes possess special features such as shallow habitat, large amounts of woody debris, or a 

complex shoreline configuration that protects salamanders from fish predation. 

Presence of high 

density of reproducing 

fish 

Have stocked fish reproduced and overpopulated the lake? High densities of fish have the ability to 

deplete their food base and cause measurable declines and, in some cases, disappearance of native 

aquatic species. This factor seeks to identify lakes that should be considered and prioritized for fish 

removal. 

Macroinvertebrate 

populations are 

suppressed 

Are macroinvertebrate populations within a lake suppressed? Certain taxa of macroinvertebrates are 

sensitive to fish predation. Macroinvertebrates, like amphibians, are good indicators of ecosystem health 

and the effect fish have on the ecosystem. Currently, limited data are available for this criterion, but it is 

an important factor. 

Lake grouping Is the lake a part of a unique grouping where at least one of the lakes should be established as fishless? 

In certain areas, several lakes are located in relatively close proximity (e.g., Hozomeen, Willow, and 

Ridley lakes). Management actions for these lakes need to be considered collectively. This criterion 

suggests that at least one lake in a grouping of lakes in a unique geographical location or physical 

circumstance should be maintained as fishless in order for natural conditions to exist. This concept allows 

for a wide diversity of lake types to be represented in a fishless state. Lakes that contain fish and are in 

relatively close proximity to one another were considered collectively, and management actions were 

tailored to minimize the potential impacts to metapopulations of salamanders in these lake groupings. 

Lack of Information Data is lacking for some lakes. This factor acknowledges uncertainty and the need for gathering additional 

information before taking management actions. 
A LTERNATIVES

56 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

TABLE 2: PRINCIPLES FOR MANAGING THE MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY TO CONSERVE BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY

1. A prudent and precautionary management strategy should protect all lakes that are currently fishless. A lake that is fishless 

today would remain fishless in the future. 

2. Reproducing populations of fish that have achieved high densities would be removed from all lakes where feasible. 

Following removal, the biological conditions of the lakes would be monitored for recovery. Monitoring results would be used 

to decide whether or not the lake could be stocked with low densities of nonreproducing fish. 

3. Lakes that serve as high-quality breeding and rearing habitat for amphibians and are located within the range of long-toed 

salamanders, generally would be returned to a fishless condition, or low densities of nonreproducing fish would be allowed if 

no other criteria applied. However, observations indicate that certain lakes have complex habitat conditions, such as 

extensive shallow areas and woody debris, which would allow amphibian populations to persist in spite of fish predation or 

competition. Where a lake has a long history of stocking and salamanders are known to exist sympatrically (together in the 

same area; for example, Coon Lake), nonreproducing fish would be stocked at low densities. 

4. Certain lakes would be managed as fishless due to unique features. These features include the presence of a species of 

conservation concern; large, deep lakes in fishless conditions (which are underrepresented in the North Cascades 

Complex); geologically unique lakes; and geographically isolated lakes. Geographically isolated lakes need to remain 

fishless to protect metapopulations of salamanders. A lake was considered isolated if (1) it was more than 2,000 feet from 

other permanent water bodies, (2) it was within the range of long-toed salamanders, and (3) there was no evidence that 

salamanders and fish could survive sympatrically. Lakes that possessed these unique features were considered on a larger 

landscape scale to determine if fishless conditions were represented among these lake types. A lake that belonged to an 

underrepresented type in the study area would be returned to a fishless condition. 

5. Benthic (bottom dwelling) macroinvertebrate monitoring data (collected through the NPS long-term ecological monitoring 

program) indicate that certain lakes have suppressed populations of macroinvertebrates. A lake with suppressed 

populations of macroinvertebrates would become fishless or would be evaluated further before determining final 

management action. 

6. In closely grouped lakes, fishless conditions in at least one lake would be maintained to provide fishless habitat for aquatic 

organisms in the localized area. 

7. Where key information for a given lake was lacking for this stage of planning, the lake would be evaluated before 

management actions would be recommended. 

8. Lakes that do not possess any of the identified risk factors (decision criteria) would be considered for stocking to maintain 

fish densities commensurate with the protection of biological integrity. 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 57 TABLE 3: DECISION CRITERIA FOR MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Ecological Risk Factor Lake Name and NPS Lake Code 

Lack of Data

a

Presence of reproducing 

fish (x = at high densities) 

Fishless conditions 

currently present in lake 

Capacity to serve as highquality breeding and rearing 

habitat for amphibians and 

with in the range of longtoed salamanders 

Presence of long-toed 

salamanders 

The lake possesses unique 

features or circumstances 

that would favor fishless 

conditions (isolated lake, 

species of conservation 

concern present, large/deep 

lakes, geologically unique 

lakes) 

The lake is part of a lake 

grouping where fishless 

conditions should be 

represented 

Macroinvertebrate 

populations known 

to be suppressed 

Pri

M

Azure MP-09-01 

 X Prin

Battalion MLY-02-01 

X X X Princ

may 

Bear MC-12-1 

 X F Prin

Berdeen M-08-01 

 X A Prin

Berdeen, Lower M-07-01 

 X X X A Prin

Berdeen, Upper M-09-01 

 X A Prin

Blum (Largest/ Middle, No. 3) M-11-01 

X X X B Princ

may 

Blum (Lower/ West, No. 4) LS-07-01 

 X X B Princ

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

 X X X B Prin

Blum (Vista/Northwest, No. 1) MC-02-01 

 X X X B Prin

Bouck, Lower DD-04-01 

 X C Prin

Bouck, Upper DD-05-01 

 X X C Princ

Bowan MR-12-01 

 X X X Princ

Coon MM-10-01 

 X X Prin
TABLE 3: DECISION 

CRITERIA FOR 

MANAGEMENT 

ACTIONS (CONTINUED)

58 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN Ecological Risk Factor Lake Name and NPS Lake Code 

Lack of Dataa

Presence of reproducing 

fish (x = at high densities) 

Fishless conditions 

currently present in lake 

Capacity to serve as highquality breeding and rearing 

habitat for amphibians and 

with in the range of longtoed salamanders 

Presence of long-toed 

salamanders 

The lake possesses unique 

features or circumstances 

that would favor fishless 

conditions (isolated lake, 

species of conservation 

concern present, large/deep 

lakes, geologically unique 

lakes) 

The lake is part of a lake 

grouping where fishless 

conditions should be 

represented 

Macroinvertebrate 

populations known 

to be suppressed 

Pri

M

Copperc

MC-06-01 

X X X F Princ

may 

Dagger MR-04-01 

X X X Princ

may 

Dee Dee / Tamarack, Lower MR-15-02 

 X G Princ

Dee Dee, Upper MR-15-01 

X X X G Princ

Despair, Lower M-14-01 

 X Prin

Despair, Upper M-13-01 

 X Prin

Diobsud No. 1, separate, not connected LS-01-01 

 X X X M Prin

Diobsud No. 2, Lower LS-02-01 

X X X X M Prin

Diobsud No. 3, Upper LS-03-01 

 X X X X Prin

Doubtful CP-01-01 

 X Princ

Doug’s Tarn M-21-01 

 X Prin

East, Lower MC-14-02 

 X Prin

East, Upper MC-14-01 

 X X Prin

Firn MP-02-01 

X Princ
TABLE 3: DECISION CRITERIA FOR MANAGEMENT ACTIONS (CONTINUED)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 59 Ecological Risk Factor Lake Name and NPS Lake Code 

Lack of Data

a

Presence of reproducing 

fish (x = at high densities) 

Fishless conditions 

currently present in lake 

Capacity to serve as highquality breeding and rearing 

habitat for amphibians and 

with in the range of longtoed salamanders 

Presence of long-toed 

salamanders 

The lake possesses unique 

features or circumstances 

that would favor fishless 

conditions (isolated lake, 

species of conservation 

concern present, large/deep 

lakes, geologically unique 

lakes) 

The lake is part of a lake 

grouping where fishless 

conditions should be 

represented 

Macroinvertebrate 

populations known 

to be suppressed 

Pri

M

Green M-04-01 

X X X Prin

may 

Green Bench LS-04-01 

 X Prin

Hanging MC-08-01 

 X X X Prin

Hidden SB-01-01 

 H Princ

Hidden Lake Tarn EP-14-01 

 H Princ

Hi-Yu M-01-01 

X X X X X Prin

Hozomeen HM-02-01 

 X X E Prin

Ipsoot LS-06-01 

X X X Prin

Jeanita DD-01-01 

X X X Prin

Kettling MR-05-01 

 X X X X Princ

Kwahnesum MC-07-01 

 X X X Prin

McAlester MR-10-01 

X X X X Princ

may 

Middle, Lower MC-16-02 

 X Prin

Middle, Upper MC-16-01 

 X Prin

Monogram M-23-01 

 X X X I Princ
TABLE 3: DECISION 

CRITERIA FOR 

MANAGEMENT 

ACTIONS (CONTINUED)

60 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN Ecological Risk Factor Lake Name and NPS Lake Code 

Lack of Dataa

Presence of reproducing 

fish (x = at high densities) 

Fishless conditions 

currently present in lake 

Capacity to serve as highquality breeding and rearing 

habitat for amphibians and 

with in the range of longtoed salamanders 

Presence of long-toed 

salamanders 

The lake possesses unique 

features or circumstances 

that would favor fishless 

conditions (isolated lake, 

species of conservation 

concern present, large/deep 

lakes, geologically unique 

lakes) 

The lake is part of a lake 

grouping where fishless 

conditions should be 

represented 

Macroinvertebrate 

populations known 

to be suppressed 

Pri

M

Monogram Tarn M-23-11 

 X X I Princ

Nert M-05-01 

 X X X Prin

Noisy Creek, Upper LS-14-01 

 X Prin

No Name PM-01-01 

 Prin

Panther Potholes, Lower RD-05-02 

 Prin

Panther Potholes, Upper RD-05-01 

 X Prin

Pegasus EP-10-01 

 X Princ

Pond SE of Kettling Lakes MR-09-01 

 X X Prin

Quill, Lower M-24-02 

X X J Prin

may 

Quill, Upper M-24-01 

X X J Prin

Rainbow MR-14-01 

 X X X D Princ

Rainbow, Upper (North) MR-13-01 

 X X X D Princ

Rainbow, Upper (South) MR-13-02 

 X X D Princ

Rainbow, Upper (West) MM-11-01 

 D Princ

Redoubt MC-11-01 

 X X Prin
TABLE 3: DECISION CRITERIA FOR MANAGEMENT ACTIONS (CONTINUED)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 61 Ecological Risk Factor Lake Name and NPS Lake Code 

Lack of Data

a

Presence of reproducing 

fish (x = at high densities) 

Fishless conditions 

currently present in lake 

Capacity to serve as highquality breeding and rearing 

habitat for amphibians and 

with in the range of longtoed salamanders 

Presence of long-toed 

salamanders 

The lake possesses unique 

features or circumstances 

that would favor fishless 

conditions (isolated lake, 

species of conservation 

concern present, large/deep 

lakes, geologically unique 

lakes) 

The lake is part of a lake 

grouping where fishless 

conditions should be 

represented 

Macroinvertebrate 

populations known 

to be suppressed 

Pri

M

Reveille, Lower MC-21-02 

 X Prin

Reveille, Upper MC-21-01 

 X Prin

Ridley HM-03-01 

 E Prin

Sky EP-13-01 

 X Princ

Skymo PM-03-01 

 X X Prin

Sourdough PM-12-01 

X X X Prin

may 

Sourpuss ML-01-01 

 X Princ

Stiletto MR-01-01 

X X Princ

Stout EP-09-02 

X Princ

Stout, Lower EP-09-01 

X Princ

Sweet Pea ML-02-01 

 Princ

Talus Tarn M-06-01 

 X X X Prin

Tapto, Lower MC-17-03 

 X Prin

Tapto, Middle MC-17-02 

 X Prin

Tapto, Upper MC-17-01 

 X Prin
TABLE 3: DECISION 

CRITERIA FOR 

MANAGEMENT 

ACTIONS (CONTINUED)

62 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN Ecological Risk Factor Lake Name and NPS Lake Code 

Lack of Dataa

Presence of reproducing 

fish (x = at high densities) 

Fishless conditions 

currently present in lake 

Capacity to serve as highquality breeding and rearing 

habitat for amphibians and 

with in the range of longtoed salamanders 

Presence of long-toed 

salamanders 

The lake possesses unique 

features or circumstances 

that would favor fishless 

conditions (isolated lake, 

species of conservation 

concern present, large/deep 

lakes, geologically unique 

lakes) 

The lake is part of a lake 

grouping where fishless 

conditions should be 

represented 

Macroinvertebrate 

populations known 

to be suppressed 

Pri

M

Tapto, West MC-17-04 

 X Prin

Thornton, Lower M-20-01 

 X X Princ

Thornton, Middle M-19-01 

 Prin

Thunder RD-02-01 

 X Prin

Tiny MC-15-01 

 X Prin

Torment ML-03-01 

 X X Prin

Trapper GM-01-01 

X Princ

Triplet, Lower SM-02-01 

 X X K Princ

Triplet, Upper SM-02-02 

 X K Prin

Triumph M-17-01 

 X X Prin

Unnamed/ FP-01-01 

 X Princ

Unnamed MR-11-01 

 X X Princ

Unnamed MR-16-01 

X X X Prin

Vulcan ML-04-01 

 X Princ

Wilcox/Lillie, Upper EP-06-01 

 X L Prin
TABLE 3: DECISION CRITERIA FOR MANAGEMENT ACTIONS (CONTINUED)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 63 Ecological Risk Factor Lake Name and NPS Lake Code 

Lack of Data

a

Presence of reproducing 

fish (x = at high densities) 

Fishless conditions 

currently present in lake 

Capacity to serve as highquality breeding and rearing 

habitat for amphibians and 

with in the range of longtoed salamanders 

Presence of long-toed 

salamanders 

The lake possesses unique 

features or circumstances 

that would favor fishless 

conditions (isolated lake, 

species of conservation 

concern present, large/deep 

lakes, geologically unique 

lakes) 

The lake is part of a lake 

grouping where fishless 

conditions should be 

represented 

Macroinvertebrate 

populations known 

to be suppressed 

Pri

M

Wilcox/Sandie, Lower EP-05-01 

 X L Princ

Wild MC-27-01 

 X Prin

Willow HM-04-01 

 E Princ

Lake GroupingsA. Berdeen; Berdeen, Lower; Berdeen, Upper B. Blum (Largest/Middle, No. 3); Blum (Lower/West, No. 4); Blum (Small/North, No. 2); Blum (Vista/Northwest, No. 1) C. Bouck, Lower; Bouck, Upper D. Rainbow; Rainbow, Upper (North); Rainbow, Upper (South); Rainbow, Upper (West) E. Hozomeen; Ridley; Willow F. Bear; Copper 

G. Dee Dee, Upper; Dee Dee / TamaracH. Hidden; Hidden Lake Tarn I. Monogram; Monogram Tarn J. Quill, Lower; Quill, Upper K. Triplet, Lower; Triplet, Upper L. Wilcox/Lillie, Upper; Wilcox/Sandie, LM. Diobsud No. 1, separate, not connec

Notes: a. “Lack of Data” indicates lakes where data would have to be obtained prior to taking management actions. b. Refer to table 2 in this “Alternatives” chapter for descriptions of the principles. c. 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. 
A LTERNATIVES

64 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 

Standard management actions were developed and applied to a differing subset 

of lakes in alternatives B and C according to the principles described in table 2. 

Where data are missing, the management action includes an evaluation element 

that would require more information to be collected prior to determining the 

management action. The standardized adaptive management actions shown in 

table 4 emerged from this process. 

A lake-by-lake application of the management actions is in table 5. These 

standard management actions may not be rigidly adhered to indefinitely. All 

management actions would be applied according to the principles of adaptive 

management. Table 6 lists the 62 lakes in the North Cascades Complex managed 

by the WDFW that are known to contain fish; the reproducing fish species 

currently present in 35 of these lakes; and the species, strains, densities, and 

stocking cycles of fish to be stocked under the proposed new management 

frameworks for alternatives B and C. Stocking information for alternative A is 

also shown in this table. 

A summary of the adaptive management concept can be found in this chapter 

under “Elements Common to All Action Alternatives” in the “Adaptive 

Management” section. 
Alternatives Development Process

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 65

TABLE 4: 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). 
A LTERNATIVES

66 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

TABLE 5: 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 
Alternatives Development Process 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 67

TABLE 5: 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. 
68 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

TABLE 6: STATUS OF 

FISH 

REPRODUCTION AND 

CYCLE, STOCKING 

DENSITY, AND 

SPECIES OF 

FISH 

STOCKED 

COMPARISON OF 

ALTERNAT

This plan/EIS is based on adaptive management principles. The cycle, density, and species stocked may change in the future based on monitoring in orresources. The numbers represented in the table below illustrate the estimated stocking cycle, stocking density, and species of fish to be stocked in the 

stocked in the future would be nonreproducing. Proposed stocking density and rotation are based on current lake management. See appendix E for a coattributes of each lake. 

Reproducing Fish 

Species/Strains 

Fish Species/Strains 

Used for Stocking 

Initial Stocking Den

(fry/acre) 

Alternative Alternative Alternative 

Lake Name 

NPS 

Lake Code A B C A B C A B 

Battalion MLY-02-01 OM OM — OM(MW) Need 

dataa

OM(MW) 

Need data OM(MW) 

50 50 

Bear MC-12-1 OCL(TL) — — — OM(MW) — — 60 Berdeen M-08-01 OCL(TL) — — OM(MW) OM(MW) — 50 50 Berdeen, Lower M-07-01 OCL(TL) — — — — — — — Berdeen, Upper M-09-01 OCL(TL) — — — — — — — Blum (Largest/ Middle, No. 3) M-11-01 OM — — OM(MW) — — 50 60 Blum (Lower/ West, No. 4) LS-07-01 SF — — — OM(MW) — — 60 Bouck, Lower DD-04-01 OCL — — OM(MW) OM(MW) — 60 Bouck, Upper DD-05-01 — — — OMA — — 60 — Bowan MR-12-01 — — — OM(MW) — — 125 — Coon MM-10-01 — — — OCL(TL) OCL(TL) OCL(TL) 90 90 Copperb MC-06-01 — — — OM(MW), 

OCC 

Need data OM(MW) 

— 65 65 

Dagger MR-04-01 OC OC OC — — — — — Dee Dee, Upper MR-15-01 — — — OM(MW) Need 

data OM(MW) 

Need data, OM(MW) 

50 50 

Dee Dee/ Tamarack, Lower MR-15-02 — — — OM(MW) OM(MW) OM(MW) 50 50 Diobsud No. 1 LS-01-01 OCL(TL) — — — — — — — Diobsud No. 2, Lower LS-02-01 OCL(TL) — — OM(MW) OM(MW) — 70 70 
Table 6: Status of Fish Reproduction and Cycle, Stocking Density, and Species of Fish Stocked Comparison of Alternatives A, B, a

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 69 Reproducing Fish Species/Strains Fish Species/Strains Used for Stocking Initial Stocking Den

(fry/acre) Alternative Alternative Alternative Lake Name NPS Lake Code A B C A B C A B 

Diobsud No. 3, Upper LS-03-01 — — — OM(MW) OM(MW) — 80 80 Doubtful CP-01-01 OC, OM, OmxOC — — — OM(MW) — — 60 Doug’s Tarn M-21-01 OC — — — OM(MW) — — 60 Firn MP-02-01 OCL(TL) OCL — OM(MW) Need data OM(MW) — 50 50 Green M-04-01 OCL(TL), OM, OCLxOM — — — Need data, OM(MW) — — 60 Hanging MC-08-01 OM — — — — — — 60 Hidden SB-01-01 OM(MW) OM(MW) — OM(MW), OMA OM(MW), OMA — 20, 40 20, 40 Hidden Lake Tarn EP-14-01 — — — OM(MW) — — 40 — Hi-Yu M-01-01 — — — OM(MW) Need data OM(MW) — 100 100 Hozomeen HM-02-01 SF — — — — — — — Ipsoot LS-06-01 OCB OCB — — — — — — Jeanita DD-01-01 OMA OMA — — — — 75 — Kettling MR-05-01 OC, OM, OMxOC — — — — — — — Kwahnesum MC-07-01 — — — OM (MW) OM(MW) — 100 100 McAlester MR-10-01 OCL(TL) OCL(TL) OCL(TL) — — — — — Monogram M-23-01 OCL(TL) — — OM(MW) OM(MW) — 70 70 Monogram Tarn M-23-11 — — — OCL(TL) — — No data — Nert M-05-01 — — — OM(MW) — — 50 — No Name PM-01-01 — — — OM(MW) OM(MW) — 70 70 Panther Potholes (Lower) RD-05-02 — — — OCC — — 100 — 
Table 6: Status of Fish Reproduction and Cycle, Stocking Density, and Species of Fish Stocked Comparison of Alternatives A, B, a

70 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN Reproducing Fish Species/Strains Fish Species/Strains Used for Stocking Initial Stocking Den

(fry/acre) Alternative Alternative Alternative Lake Name NPS Lake Code A B C A B C A B 

Pond SE of Kettling Lakes MR-09-01 — — — OM(MW) OM(MW) OM(MW) 50 50 Quill, Lowerc M-24-02 OM — — OM(MW) OM(MW) — 25 25 Quill, Upperc M-24-01 OM — — OM(MW) Need data OM(MW) — 25 25 Rainbow MR-14-01 OM(PL) — — — OM(MW) OM(MW) — 60 Rainbow, Upper (South) MR-13-02 — — — OM(MW) — — 70 — Rainbow, Upper (West) MM-11-01 — — — OM(MW) — — 50 — Ridley HM-03-01 — — — OM(MW), OM(RL) OM(MW), OM(RL) OM(MW), OM(RL) 50 50 Skymo PM-03-01 OC — — OM(MW) OM(MW) — 50 50 Sourdough PM-12-01 SF — — OM(MW) Need data OM(MW) — 100 100 Stiletto MR-01-01 — — — OM(MW) Need data OM(MW) — 50 50 Stout EP-09-02 OCL OCL — OCC OCC — 100 100 Stout, Lower EP-09-01 OCL OCL — — OM(MW) — — 60 Sweet Pea ML-02-01 — — — OM(MW) OM(MW) — 40 40 Thornton, Lower M-20-01 OCL(TL) OCL — OM(MW) OM(MW) — 50 50 Thornton, Middle M-19-01 — — — OMA OMA, OM(MW) — 50 — Torment ML-03-01 — — — OM(MW) — — 40 — Trapper GM-01-01 OC OC — — OM(MW) — — 60 Triplet, Lower SM-02-01 OCL (TL) — — — OM(MW) OM(MW) — 50 Triplet, Upper SM-02-02 OCL (TL) — — — — — — — Triumph M-17-01 — — — OM(MW), OMA OM(MW) — 20, 70 20, 70 
Table 6: Status of Fish Reproduction and Cycle, Stocking Density, and Species of Fish Stocked Comparison of Alternatives A, B, a

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 71 Reproducing Fish Species/Strains Fish Species/Strains Used for Stocking Initial Stocking Den

(fry/acre) Alternative Alternative Alternative Lake Name NPS Lake Code A B C A B C A B 

Unnamed MR-11-01 — — — OM(MW) — — 50 — Unnamed MR-16-01 OC OC OC — OM(MW) OM(MW) — 60 Wilcox/Lillie, Upper EP-06-01 OC, OM, OM x OC — — — — — — — Wilcox/Sandie, Lower EP-05-01 OC — — OM(MW) OM(MW) — 70 70 Willow HM-04-01 — — — OCC — — 25 — 

Fish Species Legend OC – Oncorhynchus clarki. This is a generic designation used for cutthroat trout where the subspecies or strain is not known. Usually these fish are Twin cutthroat. OCB – Yellowstone cutthroat. OCC – Oncorhynchus clarki clarki. A Lake Whatcom strain of coastal cutthroat trout that originated from broodstock collected in Whatcom Lake, Washin

OCL – Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi. Westslope cutthroat trout, strain unknown. A common local name for these fish is “intermontane” cutthroat trout. This s

native to the east side of the Cascade Mountains; the west sides of the Rocky Mountains from the Snake River (below Shoshone Falls), north; and the eMountains north of the Yellowstone River. OCL(TL) – Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi. Cutthroat, Twin Lakes strain. OC(TL) – Oncorhynchus clarki. This is a Twin Lakes strain of westslope (intermountain) cutthroat. OM – Oncorhynchus mykiss. This is a genetic designation used for rainbow trout where the subspecies is not known. OMA – Oncorhynchus mykiss aquabonita. This is a subspecies of rainbow trout. OM(MW) – Oncorhynchus mykiss. This is a Mount Whitney strain of rainbow trout originally developed at the Mt. Whitney Hatchery, California, from seve

OM(PL) – Oncorhynchus mykiss. This wild strain of rainbow from Packwood Lake in Lewis County, Washington, was the primary sources of rainbow trou

from 1917 to 1934. OM(RL) – Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus. Ross Lake rainbow trout native to the upper Skagit River watershed; hatched and reared at the Marblemount HSF – Savelinus fontinalis. Brook trout are a char native to eastern North America. This fish is often called “Eastern” brook trout in the west, where the nadistinguish from the rainbow trout (originally called “brook trout”). Notes: — means category does not apply. a. “Need Data” indicates lakes where data would have to be obtained prior to deciding whether to stock. b. 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. c. Lower Quill and Upper Quill lakes were stocked with nonreproducing fish. Limited reproduction has been observed in the past and needs to be verified
72 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

Reproducing

populations of fish 

are able to sustain 

themselves over time 

without further

stocking.

ALTERNATIVE A 

NO ACTION—EXISTING 

MANAGEMENT 

FRAMEWORK OF 91 LAKES 

(62 LAKES HAVE FISH)

GENERAL CONCEPT 

The guiding regulations (40 CFR 1502.14) of NEPA define the no-action 

alternative as “no change from current management direction or level of 

management intensity.” Therefore, under this no-action alternative, there would 

be 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. Because alternative A represents current 

management, it is also the baseline condition against which the action 

alternatives are compared. 

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—these 62 lakes are a subset of the study area’s 91 lakes that were 

once naturally fishless but have a history of stocking or fish presence. 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 (see 

appendix A). 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. These 3 lakes contain fish: two with reproducing fish populations, and 

one with nonreproducing populations that were stocked recently enough that 

some fish still remain. 

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 in 1979 by the director of the 

NPS and a further policy statement issued by the NPS director in 1986 (see 

appendix B for the history of fishery management in the North Cascades 

Complex). 

Under alternative A, 62 lakes in the study area would continue to have fish and 

29 lakes would be left in their current fishless state, as shown in figure 4. 
Alternative A (No Action) 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 73

FIGURE 4: STATUS OF 91 LAKES UNDER ALTERNATIVE A 

IMPLEMENTING THE FISHERY MANAGEMENT 

PLAN THROUGH C ONGRESSI ONAL ACTION 

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. Therefore, 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 for allowing stocking. (For 

more detail on legislation and history, please refer to the “History of Fish 

Management in North Cascades Mountain Lakes” section in the “Purpose of and 

Need for Action” chapter and Louter 2003). 

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 
A LTERNATIVES

74 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

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 (see appendix A). Should a management alternative that 

allows for continued stocking be selected through this plan/EIS decision-making 

process, a new policy 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 

requirements 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 national park: 

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a fisheries 

management program that includes the stocking of fish in 

selected 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. Such an action would allow the NPS to proceed with full confidence 

that it is taking an action that is consistent with the way Congress intended the 

North Cascades Complex and the Stephen T. Mather Wilderness to be managed. 
Alternative A (No Action) 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 75

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. 

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 

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 section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act, 

agencies may engage in management actions that may otherwise be prohibited in 

wilderness provided they are necessary “to meet the minimum requirements for 

the administration of the area.” This provision is commonly referred to as the 

minimum requirements (or minimum tool) provision. In accordance with NPS 

policy, a minimum requirements analysis must be completed before a 

management action can be taken in designated wilderness areas. NPS 

management policy 6.3.5 states that the purpose of a minimum requirements 

analysis is (1) to determine whether a proposed action is necessary or appropriate 

for administration of an area as wilderness and does not pose a significant impact 

to wilderness resources and character; and (2) if an action is determined to be 

appropriate or necessary, to determine the techniques and types of equipment 

needed to ensure that impacts to wilderness resources and character is minimized. 

The NPS has conducted a minimum requirements analysis using a decision guide 

template developed by the Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center 

(see appendix K). Congress established the Arthur Carhart National Wilderness 

Training Center in 1993 to “foster interagency excellence in wilderness 

stewardship by cultivating knowledgeable, skilled and capable wilderness 

managers and by improving public understanding of wilderness philosophy, 

values and processes.” The minimum requirements decision guide template is 

used by each of the agencies to assist wilderness managers in making appropriate 

decisions for wilderness management. The minimum requirements analysis 

provides a method to determine the necessity of an action in wilderness areas, 

and how to minimize impacts, but does not bind an agency to take a particular 

action. Under alternative A, the NPS considers allowing stocking to continue in 

certain mountain lakes. The results of the minimum requirements analysis show 

that stocking of nonnative fish to create and enhance an artificial recreational 

fishery is not necessary to meet the minimum requirements for the administration 

of the Stephen T. Mather Wilderness (see appendix K). Continuing to stock 

naturally fishless lakes, as proposed under alternative A, would not leave the 

wilderness “ideally free from human control or manipulation.” Stocking of fish 

would continue to manipulate the native ecology of a lake and introduce a 

nonnative species. 
A LTERNATIVES

76 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

Some, including the WDFW, disagree with the conclusions reached in the 

minimum requirements analysis. They maintain that recreational fishing is 

allowed under the Wilderness Act, and therefore, creating and enhancing fishing 

opportunities are appropriate actions in wilderness areas. Those who disagree 

with the conclusions reached in the minimum requirements analysis also believe 

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

adverse impacts on wilderness values because biological integrity would be 

conserved. The WDFW’s comments on fishery management in the Stephen T. 

Mather Wilderness accompany the minimum requirements analysis in 

appendix K. 

CURRENT FISHERY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 

C URRENT M ANAGEMENT F RAMEWORK

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 described above under “General Concept” would 

continue to be managed as they are today. The species currently stocked are the 

species historically stocked in each lake. The stocking density is guided by two 

factors: historical stocking densities and adaptive management to achieve 

maximum sustainable recreational use. Adaptive management can be used to 

vary the stocking density or frequency in response to reports of extra fishing 

pressure, low fish numbers, or condition factors. For example, if a lake has 

historically been stocked at a high density, it might be determined, using an 

adaptive management approach, that a lower density should be used with the goal 

of producing fish that are larger or in better condition. Lower densities also help 

the park meet its goal of minimizing the effect of fish on native biota. Both 

stocking density and frequency could be lower than planned if the fish required 

for stocking are not available. Appendix E shows the current status and 

management of the 91 lakes. 

C URRENT S TOCKING P ROGRAM

Of the 91 lakes under consideration in this plan/EIS, 26 are currently stocked 

with fish. Of these 26 stocked lakes, 15 are located in the national park and 

managed in accordance with the 1988 Supplemental Agreement between the NPS 

and WDFW (see appendix A). Ten of the stocked lakes are located in the 

national recreation areas, and one is located in the national park but not managed 

as part of the 1988 Supplemental Agreement; it presently contains fish as a result 

of unsanctioned stocking. 

A lake’s physical characteristics help determine the stocking cycle and density. 

For instance, Ridley Lake is stocked every 3 years with 50 fish/acre (WDFW 

2003). The low elevation and relatively high productivity of this lake allow the 

fish to grow quickly to quality fish size and sustain a more consistent fishery. 

Ridley also experiences more angler use and is more resistant to impacts from 

fish due to its lower elevation and high productivity. 
Alternative A (No Action) 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 77

Factors such as lake productivity and elevation can also alter the density of fish 

in a lake. Although these factors were not expressly used to estimate fish 

densities, other factors and available data were used to derive a relative estimate 

of density. Appendix H describes the methodology used to estimate current fish 

density where the density was not known (for both stocked and reproducing fish). 

Additional fish surveys are planned to determine the reproductive status and 

abundance of fish in these lakes (WDFW 2003). 

Lakes with High 

Densities of Reproducing Fish 

There are 27 lakes with high densities of reproducing fish, 7 are categorized as 

“mixed” because the reproducing (self-sustaining) populations are augmented 

through stocking. To diversify fish availability (thus, fishing opportunity) 

Berdeen, Skymo, Diobsud No. 2, Monogram, and Sourdough lakes would 

continue to be stocked with rainbow trout, in addition to the established 

reproducing (self-sustaining) populations of cutthroat trout (Berdeen, 

Diobsud No. 2, Monogram, and Skymo) and brook trout (Sourdough) because 

rainbow trout forage more effectively in the productive deep-water zones 

compared to cutthroat and brook trout (WDFW 2003). The stocking cycle for 

these lakes is 4 to 5 years, and stocking density ranges from 50 to 100 fish/acre. 

There are two exceptions to the 4- to 5-year stocking frequency. Battalion Lake 

contains reproducing populations of rainbow trout and is supplementally stocked 

annually with nonreproducing rainbow trout. Lower Wilcox/Sandie Lake 

contains reproducing cutthroat and rainbow trout and is stocked with 

nonreproducing rainbow trout on a 4-year cycle at 70 fish/acre. 

Of the 27 lakes containing high densities of reproducing fish, 8 lakes would 

continue to contain high densities of reproducing cutthroat trout; 2 of the 8 lakes 

(Hozomeen and Lower Blum [West, No. 4]) would contain reproducing brook 

trout; 2 others (Rainbow and Hanging) would continue to have reproducing 

rainbow trout; and 4 lakes (Green, Doubtful, Kettling, and Upper Wilcox/Lillie) 

would contain both cutthroat and rainbow trout. 

Lakes with Low 

Densities of Reproducing Fish 

Of the 62 lakes that currently contain fish, 9 are believed to have low densities of 

reproducing fish; 7 of the 9 lakes are categorized as “mixed” because they 

contain self-sustaining populations of trout that are augmented through stocking. 

To diversify fishing opportunity, Middle Blum, Firn, Upper Dee Dee, Lower 

Thornton, and Hidden Lakes would continue to be stocked with rainbow trout, in 

addition to the established reproducing populations of rainbow trout (Middle 

Blum and Hidden) and cutthroat trout (Firn and Lower Thornton) present in these 

lakes. Marginal reproduction occurs in Hidden Lake, and the level is believed to 

be too low to sustain a population or fishery; therefore, Hidden Lake would 

continue to be managed as a stocked lake despite its mixed-management status 

(WDFW 2003). The stocking frequency for these lakes is 4 to 6 years, and 

stocking density ranges from 20 to 50 fish/acre. Stout Lake would continue to be 

stocked with coastal cutthroat trout (which are native to the watershed) in an 

effort to replace, over time, an existing population of westslope (intermountain) 
A LTERNATIVES

78 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

Coastal cutthroat is a 

native fish found in the 

west-side drainages of

the national park.

cutthroat. The intent is to reduce or eliminate the potential for 

downstream hybridization of westslope cutthroat with coastal cutthroat 

trout. Three of the 9 low-density lakes (Jeanita, Hidden Lake Tarn, and 

Lower Thornton) are on longer stocking frequencies than other stocked 

lakes (WDFW 2003). The longer time between stocking (6 to 7 years) 

helps promote optimum growth rates (resulting in larger fish) and 

reduces fishing pressure because fish populations are smaller near the end of 

stocking cycles as nonreproducing fish have been removed by fishing or natural 

causes. 

Fishless Lakes 

The remaining 29 lakes in the study area are currently fishless and would remain 

fishless under alternative A. 

Current Stocking Practices 

Stocked-only Lakes. Mountain lakes are generally stocked by the WDFW at 

densities of 50 to 100 fish/acre. Backpack stocking is used to minimize impacts 

on wilderness values and is used in almost all of the stocked lakes in the national 

park. Stocking frequencies (cycles) can vary from 1 to 10 years between stocking 

times. Most lakes in the North Cascades Complex are managed for 4- to 5-year 

cycles. Some lakes are on longer cycles to allow a period of several years when 

few or no fish are present, and other lakes are on short stocking cycles. Lakes on 

long cycles experience a “resting period,” which gives prey species an 

opportunity to reach their maximum densities. Resting periods also help reduce 

fishing pressure because anglers may not fish in a lake if they are unsure of fish 

availability and might only fish in that lake when the combination of density and 

fish size is appealing. Some lakes with low levels of reproducing fish are stocked 

to bring densities up to fishable levels or increase fish availability without 

exceeding densities that would impact these lakes. Lakes with high growth rate 

for stocked fish are often managed on short stocking cycles with a small number 

(less that 50 fish/acre) to produce a more consistent fishery. Lakes that 

experience high levels of fishing pressure (and high angling mortality of stocked 

fish) are also frequently managed on a short stocking cycle because fish densities 

drop quickly once stocked fish become large enough to interest anglers (fish 

generally become large enough for the sports fishery at two to three years 

of age). 

Lakes that are Both Stocked and have Reproducing Fish. A lake may have a 

mixed population of fish for one of several reasons. 

To Supplement Low Rates of Reproduction (low recruitment)  Lakes 

with low levels of reproducing fish that cannot, under current fishing 

pressure, support densities of more than a few dozen fish per acre are 

often supplemented by stocking nonreproducing hatchery fish at high 

enough levels to maintain fishable, but relatively low (less that 

100 fish/acre) densities of fish. 

To Use Pelagic (Deep Water) Habitat and Increase Diversity of Fishing 

Opportunity  Lakes with established reproducing populations of fish 
Alternative A (No Action) 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 79

(generally westslope cutthroat or brook trout), which primarily feed on 

macroinvertebrates found on lake bottoms in the near-shore zone, 

sometimes are stocked with Mt. Whitney rainbows, which feed 

extensively on zooplankton in the open water zone of mountain lakes. 

This management practice more fully utilizes the available resources of a 

lake for fish production and adds an additional species to the lake, 

diversifying the angling experience. 

To Replace an Undesirable Stock (Genetic Swapping)  Coastal 

cutthroat (Lake Whatcom strain) are currently being stocked in Stout 

Lake, which contains a reproducing population of westslope cutthroat 

trout. The object of stocking coastal cutthroat is that the westslope 

cutthroat trout are not native to the watershed below Stout Lake, as are 

the coastal cutthroat. Large numbers of native coastal cutthroat are 

stocked with the hope they would interbreed with the nonnative 

westslope cutthroat trout and replace the existing population of fish with 

a crossbred population that either primarily represents the genotype of 

coastal cutthroat or is close enough to the phenotype of coastal cutthroat 

that they are not a threat to populations of native rainbow, coastal 

cutthroat, and native char in the basin below the lake. 

Species and Strains of Fish Currently Stocked and Current Stocking Cycles 

and Density. Table 6 and appendix E show the species of fish currently present 

in North Cascades Complex lakes managed by the WDFW and the species and 

strains of fish used for stocking. A description of the fish used in stocking can be 

found under the “Aquatic Organisms” section in the “Affected Environment” 

chapter. 

Specific Times of Year When Stocking Currently Takes Place. Highelevation lakes are always stocked during the ice-free period, which varies from 

year to year, but is generally between mid-July to mid-September. Stocking can 

start as early as May in lower-elevation lakes or as late as the end of October in 

higher-elevation lakes that ice-out later. Stocking later than October is avoided 

because survival is sharply reduced if fry do not have time to acclimate to a lake 

and its food supply before winter (WDFW 2001). Mt. Whitney rainbow and 

Twin Lakes cutthroat trout are preferred for stocking mountain lakes because it is 

possible to rear them to an appropriate size for stocking during the summer 

months after ice-out. Ross Lake rainbow trout fry also reach suitable sizes for 

summer stocking at the appropriate time. Lake Whatcom strain cutthroat fry, 

however, normally are too large during the summer months for stocking by 

backpack or fixed-wing aircraft; therefore, hatching is delayed by chilling the 

water used to incubate their eggs. 

C URRENT L AKE 

T REATMENTS TO M ANAGE THE F ISHERY

Under alternative A, no lakes are treated to remove fish. 

Phenotype: The visible 

characteristic of an 

organism resulting 

from the interaction 

between its genetic 

makeup and the 

environment. 

Genotype: The genetic 

makeup of an 

organism as opposed 

to its physical 

characteristics. 
A LTERNATIVES

80 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

Mechanical Methods 

Under alternative A, no mechanical methods of fish removal are used. 

Chemical Methods 

Under alternative A, no lakes are chemically treated to remove fish. 

Natural Methods 

None of the lakes in the national park that are managed by the WDFW under the 

1988 Supplemental Agreement or in the national recreation areas are allowed to 

become fishless by the cessation of stocking. 

C URRENT M ITIGATION

See appendix I for a description of current mitigation practices used to minimize 

potential impacts of fish stocking. 

C URRENT M ONITORING P ROGRAM

Fishery managers currently rely on high-lake angler report cards and periodic 

surveys with gillnets to understand fish stock conditions. Most angler reporting 

originates with members of the Hi-Lakers and Trail Blazers. Anglers volunteer to 

collect information that yields estimates of fish abundance, growth, and species 

composition, as well as angler effort, success, and usage. From 1968 to 2001, 133 

anglers filed 90 reports for 31 lakes in the North Cascades Complex. Because it 

is sporadic, this information cannot be used to confidently report whether a 

particular fishery is thriving or failing. However, this information, combined with 

data gathered by NPS staff from net sets, does provide an important source of 

data on the 91 lakes in the study area (WDFW 2003). 

Resource management activities in the North Cascades Complex in recent years 

have focused on improving the baseline knowledge of both natural and cultural 

resources in the park, as part of the NPS Natural Resource Challenge Initiative. 

The Initiative is an effort to improve management decisions by enhancing 

knowledge and understanding of NPS resources. In support of this effort, 

Congress is providing funding for inventorying, monitoring, restoration, research, 

and education. The aquatics program has focused on monitoring salmon in the 

Skagit River and its tributaries, stream resident fish populations throughout the 

North Cascades Complex, and on benthic (bottom dwelling) macroinvertebrate 

monitoring in streams and lakes throughout the North Cascades Complex. To 

improve knowledge of amphibian distributions, park biologists have also been 

systematically inventorying the distribution and abundance of amphibians in 

terrestrial and aquatic habitats. 

The data provided by these monitoring efforts have been used in developing this 

plan/EIS. 

Benthic: 

Occurring at

 the bottom of a 

body of water.
Alternative A (No Action) 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 81

C OST OF I MPLEMENTATION

Not accounting for inflation, the estimated total costs for continuation of the 

current management program under alternative A over the next 15 years would 

be $270,000. For more details on cost of continuing management under 

alternative A, see the “Management and Operations” section in the 

“Environmental Consequences” chapter. 
82 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

ELEMENTS COMMON 

TO ALL ACTION 

ALTERNATIVES 

MANAGING NORTH CASCADES AS A 

COMPLEX, AS OPPOSED TO DISCRETE UNITS 

The enabling legislation for the North Cascades Complex provides separate 

guidance for administration of the national park and the two national recreation 

areas. In 1970, however, Congress declared that the NPS was to treat equally all 

of the areas under its charge, especially in the protection of their natural values 

(General Authorities Act, 16 USC section 1a-1). Therefore, the objectives of this 

plan/EIS apply equally to the recreation areas, as well as the national park. 

MONITORING, DATA COLLECTION, 

AND FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF LAKES 

Monitoring and evaluation are crucial in determining if management actions are 

achieving objectives. For instance, if a stocked lake begins to show unacceptable 

effects on native biota, that lake would be managed differently (such as reducing 

the density of stocked fish, changing stocking cycles, changing fish species 

stocked, or stopping fish stocking completely). This process of using information 

as it becomes available to alter management actions is called adaptive 

management, which is explained in the next section. This process recognizes the 

importance of continually learning how to manage better. Instead of adhering 

rigidly to a standard set of management actions, the goal is to build flexibility 

and adaptation into management actions. As a result of this process, the 

management action initially applied could be altered. These alterations may 

include reducing fish densities, changing stocking cycles, changing species 

stocked, or completely removing fish. Each action alternative in this plan/EIS 

employs an adaptive management element involving monitoring and evaluation. 

This means that, although each alternative predicts the number of lakes that 

would be managed by specific actions, ultimately, some of those actions may 

change as knowledge is gained. 

The NPS would rely primarily upon soft funding (short-term sources of special 

funding) to implement the plan because there is no base funding available or 

anticipated for the foreseeable future to manage the mountain lakes fishery. 

Reliance on soft funding means the plan would be implemented in a piecemeal 

fashion as funding becomes available. The impact of this funding strategy on 

park operations is described in the “Operations and Management” section in the 

“Environmental Consequences” chapter.
 Elements Common to All Action Alternatives 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 83

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 

Adaptive management is based on the premise that managed ecosystems are 

complex and unpredictable. Adaptive management is an analytical process for 

adjusting management and research decisions to better achieve management 

objectives. This process recognizes that our knowledge about natural resource 

systems is uncertain; therefore, some management actions are best conducted as 

experiments in a continuing attempt to reduce the risk arising from that 

uncertainty. The goal of such experimentation is to find a way to achieve the 

objectives while avoiding inadvertent mistakes that could lead to unsatisfactory 

results (Goodman and Sojda 2004). 

The NPS must use adaptive management to fully comply with Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500) requiring the adoption of a 

monitoring and enforcement program. Adaptive management (516 Department 

Manual [DM] 4.16) is a system of management practices based on clearly 

identified outcomes; monitoring to determine if management practices are 

meeting outcomes; and if they are not, facilitating management changes that 

would best ensure that outcomes are met. The NPS must keep the public and 

affected regulatory and permitting agencies informed throughout the application 

of adaptive management. The NPS is also to provide post-activity opportunity for 

the public and affected agencies to review adaptive management practices (NPS 

2001b, 1.1). 

Implementing adaptive management is neither simple nor intuitive. It is complex 

because of the large number of interconnected potential scenarios, the related 

uncertainties, and the intricacy of necessary computations. Adaptive management 

is a central theme of the three action alternatives analyzed in this plan/EIS, and 

monitoring of the lakes is a key component of adaptive management. Adaptive 

management is an iterative process of applying management actions, monitoring 

consequences, evaluating monitoring results against objectives, adjusting 

management actions, and using feedback to make future management decisions. 

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

evaluate the effects of management actions (for example, allowing management 

of low densities of nonreproducing fish) on biological resources at an individual 

lake and identify whether the management action should be modified to meet the 

objectives for the lake. Monitoring is intended to test the success and efficacy of 

management actions at each lake; therefore, the proposed monitoring plan for the 

mountain lakes fishery (see appendix F) would provide the basis for the 

monitoring activities. 

The specific objectives of monitoring are to 

reduce uncertainty of current conditions by gathering additional 

information where data are lacking. 

develop and refine protocols for collecting data that are cost effective, 

efficient, and explicitly linked to management actions. 

develop thresholds/criteria for data evaluation that will facilitate the 

adaptive management process. 
A LTERNATIVES

84 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

perform adaptive management by evaluating the success or failure of 

management actions to conserve/improve biological integrity and provide 

quality fishing opportunities. 

Under this plan/EIS, the six steps listed below would be followed when applying 

an adaptive management approach: 

1. Existing conditions would be monitored to establish a set of baseline 

conditions, such as fish density, for a given lake. 

2. The lake would be treated using one of the methods described in this 

document; for example, removing fish with antimycin or stocking the 

lake with low densities of nonreproducing fish. 

3. The lake would be monitored for effects resulting from the management 

action. For example, the effects of antimycin on fish and the surrounding 

environment, including other organisms, would be observed and 

recorded. In another example, the effects of fish on the surrounding 

environment would be observed and recorded. 

4. Based on the results of monitoring, the management action or lake 

treatment method would be reconsidered. A monitoring plan (see 

appendix F) that addresses these thresholds would be developed. If 

monitoring results indicated that a threshold had been exceeded, the NPS 

would consider applying a different type of treatment. For example, after 

applying a management action that allows fish in a lake, the NPS may 

alter the management action to reduce the density of stocked fish, change 

species stocked, or remove fish. 

5. If the management action or lake treatment worked effectively, and no 

thresholds were exceeded, no change would be made to the process. 

6. If results of the treatment or management action were acceptable, and no 

thresholds were exceeded, then the NPS would continue to apply the 

management action or treatment. For example, if antimycin effectively 

killed fish and did not harm other species or the surrounding 

environment, antimycin would continue to be applied in other lakes. 

Adaptive management combines the advantages of scientific method with the 

flexibility to address the human and technical complexities inherent in managing 

complex environmental issues. The goal is to give policy makers a better 

framework for applying scientific principles to complex environmental decisions 

(Wall 2004). This process is illustrated in figure 5. 

OUTREACH AND EDUCATION 

Education and public outreach would be a large component of all action 

alternatives. The NPS would establish a long-term public outreach campaign to 

help educate and inform the public about the selected alternative. A focused 
 Elements Common to All Action Alternatives 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 85

FIGURE 5: ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROCESS

exhibit would be developed for the North Cascades Complex’s two visitor 

centers. The NPS would also maintain a web page that presents a clear, concise, 

and illustrated explanation of the issue and its resolution, including multiple links 

from parts of the North Cascades Complex website used by backcountry travelers 

and mountain lake anglers. A paper version in the form of a brochure would be 

distributed at the visitor centers and at fairs and festivals where the North 

Cascades Complex is represented. The NPS would encourage media coverage of 

the fish removal work in the field by contacting reporters who have in the past 

covered science and resource management stories at the North Cascades 

Complex. 

PARTNERSHIPS 

The NPS would actively seek partnerships with the WDFW, fishing groups, and 

the public to implement fishery management actions. Personnel from the WDFW 

would also assist with fish removal. They would provide important field and 

logistical support and serve as an interface with various fishing groups. Local 

fishing groups have long been concerned about lakes with reproducing fish 

populations because they yield stunted fish and a poor fishing experience. These 

groups have expressed a strong desire to help with fishery management actions in 

the North Cascades Complex, and they would also be asked to assist with fish 

removal (NPS 2004). 
A LTERNATIVES

86 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

Alternative D would eventually eliminate the mountain lakes fishery from the 

North Cascades Complex, and it may be unlikely that a partnership would be 

formed with WDFW or local fishing groups because they would have no 

incentive to participate. The NPS would still seek to form partnerships under 

alternative D, but with other partners, such as conservation organizations that 

may support the objective of complete elimination of the mountain lakes fishery. 

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 of fish removal for a particular 

lake would not differ across the alternatives. There are three general methods of 

removing fish: mechanical, chemical, and natural. Each category includes one or 

more types of treatment, which are described in the following sections. Table 7 

shows what lakes would be candidates for the mechanical and chemical treatment 

methods. In order to minimize any potential impact from lake treatment methods, 

mitigation measures have been identified for each type of treatment (see 

appendix I for a full description of current and proposed mitigation practices). 

M ECHANICAL M ETHODS

Intensive Gillnetting/ 

Electrofishing/Trapping 

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. To minimize 

use of the piscicide, antimycin, these methods might also be tried on larger 

shallow lakes, provided they do not have complex substrate or other conditions 

that might make removal infeasible. 

Ecological and social concerns about using piscicides have prompted researchers 

to experiment with mechanical methods of removing and controlling fish. For 

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

in combination with electrofishing. 

Each gillnet contains different mesh sizes in order to catch fish of different sizes. 

NPS personnel would place a large number of nets (from 15 to 30) in a lake like 

spokes of a wheel around the lake perimeter, with the smallest mesh near the 

shore where smaller fish tend to congregate. Larger mesh would be placed in 

deeper water to trap larger fish. Weighted nets would sink to the bottom and 

would include a floating line for retrieval. Nets and other equipment would be 

transported to the lakes by helicopter and placed from the shore and by a crew 

member using a boat or float tube (NPS, R. Zipp, pers. comm., 2003). 

At Mount Rainier National Park, the NPS has successfully used gillnetting as a 

mechanical method for removing reproducing populations of fish in relatively 

Mitigation: 

Activities that can 

prevent, reduce, or

compensate for

adverse 

environmental

impacts.

Fyke Net: A fish 

trap shaped like a 

bag, cylinder, or

cone mounted on 

rings, with funnels 

that direct fish

 into successive 

compartments; 

also called a 

wing net.
 Elements Common to All Action Alternatives 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 87

small, shallow lakes (OSU, B. Hoffman, pers. comm., 2003). In the Sierra 

Nevada mountain range, researchers have successfully removed reproducing 

populations of fish using gillnets in lakes as large as 4 acres and 20 feet deep 

(Knapp and Matthews 1998). Based on this research, an intensive fish removal 

program using gillnets to remove fish from small lakes (less than 5 acres) is now 

underway at Sequoia Kings Canyon National Park (NPS, D. Boiano, pers. 

comm., 2003). 

Researchers in the Canadian Rockies have also successfully removed 

reproducing fish using gillnets in small lakes (less than 5 acres and less than 

30 feet deep) that do not have inlet or outlet streams (Parker et al. 2001). These 

successful case studies have prompted various estimates of gillnetting 

effectiveness. Lake size and depth seem to be the primary criteria that determine 

success or failure of gillnetting. For example, Knapp and Matthews (1998) 

suggest that gillnetting is a viable method for fish removal in lakes less than 

7 acres and less than 33 feet. In contrast, Parker et al. (2001) suggest that 

gillnetting can be an effective management tool in lakes less than 25 acres and 

less than 33 feet deep. 

There is no consensus among researchers or fishery managers as to the maximum 

size or depth that should be considered the “upper limit” for the usefulness of 

gillnets as a fish removal method. Many factors must be considered, such as lake 

size, depth, cost, accessibility, the presence of inlet and outlet streams, water 

quality, and the target fish species (Knapp and Matthews 1998; Parker et al. 

2001). 

The complexity of a lake’s habitat can create difficulties when removing fish 

with gillnets. For example, large amounts of submerged woody debris, possibly 

deposited in the lake from natural events (such as avalanches), could cause nets 

to snag and could also be used by fish for hiding, thus avoiding the nets. 

Shoreline complexity, such as steep slopes, rocky terrain, or dense vegetation, 

could also make placing nets difficult (OSU, B. Hoffman, pers. comm., 2003). 

Nets would be left in a lake overnight. Small crews of NPS personnel would 

camp near the lake for several days, checking the nets daily and removing 

trapped fish. Dead fish would be disposed of in the deepest parts of the lake and 

would sink to the bottom (fish air bladders would be punctured to ensure they do 

not float). Nets would periodically be moved to different locations in the lake 

because fish learn to avoid nets placed in one location for long periods. One crew 

member would remove fish from nets using a float tube, flippers and waders, or a 

raft, depending on conditions. Another crew member would remain on shore to 

record data and monitor the safety of personnel. Crews would store nets in a 

bear-proof box located near the lake upon leaving the site to ensure that bears 

would not be attracted to the smell of the nets. 

Gillnetting would be costly and very time consuming and could result in injury or 

death to nontarget organisms such as waterfowl, mammals, and amphibians. 

These impacts are discussed in the “Environmental Consequences” chapter along 

with various mitigation measures that would be used to minimize harm to 

nontarget organisms. 
A LTERNATIVES

88 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

TABLE 7: MECHANICAL AND CHEMICAL TREATMENT METHODS FOR LAKES WITH REPRODUCING NONNATIVE FISH

Proposed Fish Removal Treatment Methodsa

Lake Name 

NPS 

Lake Code 

Depth 

(feet) 

Area 

(acres) 

Trout/Char 

Species Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Battalion MLY-02-01 16 6.3 Rainbow Chemicalb Chemical Chemical 

Bearc MC-12-01 152 25.7 Cutthroat Chemical Chemical Chemical 

Berdeenc M-08-01 215 126.7 Cutthroat Chemical Chemical Chemical 

Berdeen, Lower M-07-01 36 7.5 Cutthroat Chemical Chemical Chemical 

Berdeen, Upper M-09-01 Unknown 9.5 Cutthroat Chemical Chemical Chemical 

Blum (Largest/ 

Middle, No. 3)d M-11-01 42 12.9 Brook Chemical Chemical Chemical 

Blum 

(Lower/West, 

No. 4) 

LS-07-01 26 6.4 Brook Chemical Chemical Chemical 

Bouck, Lower DD-04-01 63 10.8 Cutthroat Chemical Chemical Chemical 

Dagger MR-04-01 16 8.2 Cutthroat Chemical Chemical Chemical 

Dee Dee, Upper MR-15-01 89 12.2 Rainbow Mechanicalb Mechanical Mechanical 

Diobsud No. 1, 

separate, not 

connected

LS-01-01 11 1 Cutthroat Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical 

Diobsud No. 2, 

Lower

LS-02-01 17 3.1 Cutthroat Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical 

Doubtful CP-01-01 68 30.2 Cutthroat, 

Rainbow 

Chemical Chemical Chemical 

Doug's Tarn M-21-01 10 5.0 Cutthroat Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical 

Firn MP-02-01 38 5.7 Cutthroat Data Needede Chemical Chemical 

Greenc M-04-01 153 80.0 Cutthroat, 

Rainbow 

Chemical Chemical Chemical 

Hangingc,f MC-08-01 Unknown 88.8 Rainbow Chemical Chemical Chemical 

Hiddenc SB-01-01 258 61.7 Rainbow NAg Chemical Chemical 

Hozomeenc HM-02-01 67 97.4 Brook Chemical Chemical Chemical 

Ipsoot LS-06-01 51 8.9 Cutthroat Data needed Chemical Chemical 

Jeanita DD-01-01 8 1.4 Rainbow Data needed Mechanical Mechanical 

Kettling MR-05-01 23 9.9 Cutthroat, 

Rainbow 

Chemical Chemical Chemical 

McAlester MR-10-01 23 13.2 Cutthroat Chemical Chemical Chemical 

Monogramc M-23-01 122 29.1 Cutthroat Chemical Chemical Chemical 

Rainbow MR-14-01 108 15.5 Rainbow Chemical Chemical Chemical 

Skymo PM-03-01 20 10.8 Cutthroat Chemical Chemical Chemical 

Sourdough PM-12-01 107 27.6 Brook Chemical Chemical Chemical 

Stoutc EP-09-02 176 25.2 Cutthroat Data needed Chemical Chemical 

Stout, Lower EP-09-01 8 1.0 Cutthroat Data needed Mechanical Mechanical 

Thornton, Lower M-20-01 108 55.1 Cutthroat NA Chemical Chemical 

Trapperc GM-01-01 161 147.2 Cutthroat Data needed Chemical Chemical 
 Elements Common to All Action Alternatives 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 89

TABLE 7: MECHANICAL AND CHEMICAL TREATMENT METHODS FOR LAKES WITH REPRODUCING FISH (CONTINUED) 

Proposed Fish Removal Treatment Methodsa

Lake Name 

NPS 

Lake Code 

Depth 

(feet) 

Area 

(acres) 

Trout/Char 

Species Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Triplet, Lower SM-02-01 7 2.2 Cutthroat Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical 

Triplet, Upper SM-02-02 13 2.3 Cutthroat Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical 

Unnamed MR-16-01 7 1.9 Cutthroat Data needed Data needed Mechanical 

Wilcox/Lillie, 

Upper

EP-06-01 65 10.5 Cutthroat, 

Rainbow 

Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical 

Wilcox/Sandie, 

Lower 

EP-05-01 20 5.4 Cutthroat, 

Rainbow 

Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical 

Notes:

a. Experience and knowledge gained in removing fish from these lakes would be used in an adaptive management fashion to refine 

treatment methods for removing fish in the remaining lakes; therefore, proposed treatment methods could change as new 

information emerges. For this plan/EIS, however, the impact analysis of fish removal (see the “Environmental Consequences” 

chapter) assumed that treatment methods would be performed as indicated in this table. Complete removal of fish may not be 

feasible for these lakes. 

b. “Chemical” means that chemical methods would be limited to application of antimycin (trade name Fintrol®), a potent, yet shortlived, piscicide (fish toxicant). 

 “Mechanical” means that mechanical treatment methods would include gillnetting in combination with electrofishing, hook and 

line, fyke nets, and cobbling over of spawning habitat. Fish removal using either mechanical or chemical methods may not be 

feasible for some lakes; a feasibility analysis is provided later in this chapter. 

c. Lakes where complete removal of fish may not be feasible. See further discussion and explanation of assumptions in this section 

and in table 8. 

d. Lakes highlighted in gray would be among the first lakes to undergo fish removal. 

e. “Data needed” means that additional data are needed to determine whether fish should be removed under alternative B. 

f. Remove all reproducing fish pending agreement with British Columbia. 

g. “NA” means that fish removal is not part of the overall management action for the respective alternative. 

Netting would likely occur over a 2- or 3-year period and would be repeated until 

the amount of fish caught decreased to zero. When fish were no longer caught, 

the nets would be placed a few more times to reaffirm that all fish had been 

removed. 

Nets would be placed during the ice-free seasons (summer and fall), and the 

duration would depend upon lake location. Lakes at lower elevations thaw in 

April and May, and lakes at higher elevations thaw in July and August (some 

lakes are ice-free for only one or two months out of a year) (Liss et al. 1995). 

Monitoring protocols would be used to document the recovery of native biota in 

the lakes, with an emphasis on measuring the abundance and diversity of various 

indicator taxa (amphibians, large crustacean zooplankton, and 

macroinvertebrates) known to be sensitive to fish predation. 

Electrofishing would be used in conjunction with gillnets to catch and remove 

fish from habitable inlet or outlet streams. With this method, fish would be 

electrically stunned by crews using either a gasoline- or battery-powered 

backpack-mounted generator. Due to minimum tool concerns in wilderness, 

preference would be given to solar-rechargeable batteries rather than gas 

generators. Fish caught in the electrical current created by this method would be 

stunned or killed by an electrical field. Dead fish would be netted, and shocked 
A LTERNATIVES

90 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

fish would be killed by NPS crews. As described earlier, the fish would then be 

disposed of in the deepest part of the lake to sink to the bottom (NPS, R. Zipp, 

pers. comm., 2003). 

Electrofishing is not effective in lakes with low ionic (containing matter in the 

form of charged atoms or groups of atoms) content, such as those in the study 

area, because the current does not carry very far through the water. However, 

because the electrical current travels only short distances, it is effective for 

removing fish in small, shallow inlet and outlet streams and in areas that are hard 

to access with nets (NPS 2004). Candidates for the electrofishing method are 

inlet and outlet streams of lakes that are gillnetted. 

Traps (entrapment gear) would be used in conjunction with gillnets to catch and 

remove fish near inlet or outlet streams. Fyke nets would be set in lakes near the 

mouths of tributaries and lake outlets where trout congregate to feed or spawn. 

One or more wings of netting attached to the fyke net mouths would be set 

perpendicular to the movement of the fish to guide them into the enclosure or 

“pot” of the net, where they would be collected daily. Fyke nets use a finer mesh 

than gillnets and are more efficient in capturing juvenile trout. Small traps, such 

as minnow traps, could be used effectively to remove juvenile trout from lakes 

and shallow inlet/outlet streams. Fish removed from traps would be killed by 

NPS crews and, as described earlier, placed in the deepest part of the lake to sink 

to the bottom. 

Spawning Habitat Exclusion 

Most fish species spawn in the gravelly, highly oxygenated areas of moving 

water found in outlet and inlet streams. Certain large lakes in the North Cascades 

Complex, such as Upper Wilcox/Lillie Lake, appear to have limited spawning 

habitat in their inlet and outlet streams. Fishery management experts have 

suggested that a simple and effective method for reducing or eliminating fish 

reproduction (and eventually eliminating fish or reducing fish densities), would 

involve blocking access to spawning grounds by “cobbling over” gravel beds 

(WDFW 2001). This approach has been successfully used on an experimental 

basis in the Sierra Nevada mountain range (NPS, D. Boiano, pers. comm., 2003; 

NPS 2004; NPS, R. Zipp, pers. comm., 2003). 

Without spawning habitat, fish would not successfully reproduce, thereby 

breaking the reproductive cycle. Some species (such as brook trout) can spawn 

along the shoreline or where upwellings of ground water occur (Behnke 2002), 

so lakes would have to be carefully selected for this type of fish removal (NPS, 

R. Zipp, pers. comm., 2003). 

In lakes with limited spawning habitat, such as Wilcox/Lillie, Upper, NPS crews 

and volunteers could hand-carry small rocks from adjacent areas (such as talus 

slopes) and place them over spawning gravels. Field surveys indicate that 

spawning habitat at Wilcox/Lillie, Upper is limited to a 30-foot section of the 

inlet streambed. A large supply of cobble is readily available from an adjacent 

talus slope, so crews would transport small rocks a short distance to block access 

to spawning gravels in the inlet or outlet stream. Although labor intensive, this 
 Elements Common to All Action Alternatives 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 91

approach could provide a useful, minimally invasive tool for removing fish from 

other large lakes with limited spawning habitat (NPS 2004). 

Lakes that would be candidates for this method are those that contain very 

limited spawning habitat and do not contain brook trout. 

C HEMICAL M ETHODS

The following provides an overview of the use of antimycin and its effects. For 

more information, see the “Environmental Consequences” chapter. 

Antimycin 

Piscicides, including rotenone and antimycin, have been used to remove fish 

from mountain lakes. Rotenone has traditionally been used to remove fish from 

lakes and streams; however, rotenone is toxic to a variety of aquatic organisms 

and can be harmful to people who apply it, so special handling is required. 

Rotenone often eliminates crustacean zooplankton immediately, and amphibian 

larvae and metamorphosing amphibians are vulnerable to normal treatment 

concentrations of rotenone (Bettoli and Maceina 1996). Rotenone is also less 

effective on fish in the cooler water temperatures found in mountain lakes. For 

these reasons, the park would not select rotenone as its first choice for a chemical 

treatment, but if antimycin (the first choice for chemical treatment) proved 

ineffective, rotenone could be considered for use. Use of rotenone would require 

additional analysis of environmental impacts in compliance with NEPA. This 

analysis would include public comment and input. 

The discovery of the piscicidal (fish killing) properties of the antibiotic antimycin 

in the early 1960s provided biologists with another chemical that can be used for 

fish removal (Derse and Strong 1963; Bettoli and Maceina 1996). Antimycin has 

shown several advantages over rotenone: it is more effective in killing fish 

(Bettoli and Maceina 1996; Berger et al. 1969; Rosenlund and Stevens 2002); is 

more effective in colder water; works well in water up to a pH of about 8; and, 

most importantly, has relatively small and short-term effects on other aquatic life 

when applied at piscicidal concentrations. Small amounts of the chemical are 

required to kill fish because antimycin is toxic to fish in extremely low 

concentrations. Antimycin has other advantages over rotenone; for example, trout 

do not avoid waters treated by antimycin. Also, when the elevation of a lake 

outlet stream drops 260 to 500 feet, it appears that antimycin naturally degrades. 

This apparent degradation has been attributed to rapid oxidation in turbulent 

waters (Rosenlund and Stevens 2002). In aquatic environments, antimycin enters 

the fish gills and irreversibly blocks cellular respiration (Rosenlund and Stevens 

2002). 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 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). 

Piscicides: 

Chemicals such as 

rotenone and 

antimycin that are 

used to remove 

fish from lakes. 

Taxon or taxa (pl.): 

Category of 

organisms. Any of 

the groups to which 

organisms are 

assigned according 

to the principles of 

taxonomy, including 

species, genus, 

family, order, class, 

and phylum. 
A LTERNATIVES

92 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

Prior to the 

application 

of antimycin, 

biologists would

obtain lake 

information such 

as volume, water

flow from any inlet

or outlet streams, 

fish species 

present, water

temperature,

 and pH.

Antimycin has been used to remove nonnative trout from many lakes, reservoirs, 

and streams in the western United States. The NPS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, for example, have successfully used antimycin since 1973 to remove 

nonnative trout and restore native greenback cutthroat trout in Rocky Mountain 

National Park and the headwaters of the Leadville National Fish Hatchery. In 

addition, antimycin has been used in a lake in Great Basin National Park and a 

stream at Crater Lake National Park. Use of antimycin at Rocky Mountain 

National Park has demonstrated that dose concentrations as low as 2 parts per 

billion can be very effective in removing trout from cold, neutral pH lakes. Given 

the successful use of antimycin in Rocky Mountain National Park, its limited 

toxicity to nontarget species, and its rapid degradation, antimycin would be the 

preferred piscicide for fish removal under the alternatives in this plan/EIS. 

The only commercially available form of antimycin is Fintrol®, a restricted-use 

pesticide with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency registration number 

39096-2. Fintrol® is sold in 20% liquid concentrate form as a fish toxicant kit that 

includes 240 cubic centimeters (cc) of Fintrol® concentrate and 240 cc of a 

diluting agent (that is, a substance that allows antimycin to mix with water). The 

diluting agent and concentrate are mixed together to form one unit of antimycin 

that is designed to treat still and running waters. One unit of antimycin (480 cc) 

can treat 38 acre-feet of water at a concentration of 1 part per billion. For 

more information, a copy of the Fintrol® label and published application 

instructions are provided in appendix L. (Note: 1 cc equals about 

.034 ounce.) 

The amount of antimycin required to kill fish would be determined by 

gathering the following information: an accurate estimate of lake volume 

and water flow into and out of the lake, the species of fish present, water 

temperature, and pH (Rosenlund and Stevens 2002). Antimycin requires a 

certain amount of contact time with fish in order to be effective, and the 

amount of time varies; for example, lakes with shorter residence times 

(time required for water to flow through the lake) would require a higher 

concentration (Rosenlund and Stevens 2002). Crustacean zooplankton 

exposed to temporarily higher concentrations near inlet streams may be 

affected, and some mortalities could occur even at normal treatment 

concentrations. No mortalities are known to occur in vertebrates through 

direct or indirect contact or consumption of antimycin-killed fish 

(Gilderhus 1969). Mammals can be sensitive to antimycin, although not at 

concentration levels proposed for treatment. Furthermore, the degradation 

products of antimycin are not believed to be toxic (Bettoli and Maceina 1996). 

Due to the weight and volume of the chemical and the equipment needed for 

application, a helicopter would deliver the chemicals, application equipment, and 

a lightweight portable boat with an outboard motor to all lakes requiring 

chemical treatment (NPS, R. Zipp, pers. comm., 2003). A grid pattern across the 

lake would be used for applying the treatment by boat, and application rates 

would be based on calculations of lake volume and residence time. 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 

(Rosenlund and Stevens 2002). A bucket containing dilute antimycin would drip 

the piscicide into streams flowing into the lake to carry a plume of piscicide into 
 Elements Common to All Action Alternatives 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 93

deeper lake water. Because water entering the lake from streams is usually colder 

than lake water, the drip station set at these locations would help mix the 

chemical with this colder water that would sink to the lake’s bottom (NPS, 

R. Zipp, pers. comm., 2003). Crews on the shoreline would use a diluted mixture 

of antimycin to hand-treat areas that could not be reached by boat. 

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. Because antimycin is not effective on salmonid eggs in stream habitats, 

it would also be beneficial to treat the lake before fish spawn, which occurs at 

different times of the year depending on the species. Hatchery fish usually spawn 

in the fall; some other fish spawn earlier (NPS, R. Zipp, pers. comm., 2003). 

Trout exposed to lethal concentrations of antimycin gradually lose their fright 

response and dark coloration. Small trout (less than 12 inches in length) exposed 

to concentrations between 2 to 8 micrograms per liter (μg/L) for eight hours 

typically die within 24 hours. Larger trout can live longer but are usually 

approaching death within 48 hours. Larger fish with antimycin markings (that is, 

loss of dark coloration) often feed on smaller fish that have succumbed earlier in 

the treatment process (Rosenlund and Stevens 2002). Dead fish float either to the 

lake’s surface or sink to the bottom. Crews would net the floating dead fish, 

puncture the fishes’ air bladders, and sink the carcasses in deep areas of the lake 

(NPS, R. Zipp, pers. comm., 2003). 

Careful monitoring using bioassay techniques would be used to ensure 

appropriate concentrations were being applied. Livecars (permeable cages) of 

fingerling rainbow trout would be placed in the lake and the outlet stream. The 

livecars in the lake would be monitored for fish mortality. The livecars in the 

outlet stream would be monitored to determine if detoxification of the outlet 

stream were needed. If mortality were documented, a 1 part per million 

concentration of potassium permanganate (an oxidizing agent that breaks down 

antimycin) would be dripped into the outlet stream. Livecars would be placed 

downstream of the potassium permanganate drip stations and monitored for at 

least 48 hours after treatment. The outlet stream would be considered detoxified 

if the fingerlings survived for more than 48 hours. 

The preferred method of detoxification would be to allow natural oxidation as 

elevation drops in the outlet stream. For lakes where passive detoxification would 

not be possible due to low-gradient outlet streams or other factors (for example, 

rare or sensitive taxa in the outlet stream), one of two active methods would be 

used to detoxify antimycin. The preferred method would be to temporarily dam 

the lake’s outlet stream with plastic sheeting. This mitigation measure would 

temporarily prevent antimycin-tainted water from leaving the lake and allow 

detoxification in the lake. For lakes with outlet streams that could not be 

temporarily dammed, potassium permanganate drip stations would be placed in 

the outlet stream. However, natural oxidation of antimycin in the outlet stream 

would be preferred because potassium permanganate would cause long-term 

staining of the outlet stream (WDFW, B. Pfeifer, pers. comm., 2004). According 

to Morrison (1987), potassium permanganate has no adverse impacts on water 

quality or nontarget organisms. Lakes that would be candidates for fish removal 

Bioassay: 

A technique for 

determining the 

concentration or 

potency of a 

substance, such as 

a drug, by 

measuring its 

effect on a living 

organism. 
A LTERNATIVES

94 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

with antimycin would be larger than 5 acres in surface area and greater than 30 

feet deep or would have an inlet or outlet stream that is habitable by fish. 

Ideally, only one application of antimycin would be needed; however, repeat 

treatments could be required under certain unpredictable circumstances, such as 

incomplete mixing, water quality factors that reduce antimycin toxicity, short 

contact times due to high flows, or errors in calculating the volume of lake water 

due to an incomplete understanding of the actual depth of a lake (B. Rosenlund, 

pers. comm., 2003). 

As an example of the treatment process, the steps for treating Lower Blum (West, 

No. 4) Lake are discussed. At 6.4 acres and 26 feet deep, the lake contains 

approximately 55 acre-feet of water. To achieve an effective dose concentration 

of at least 4 parts per billion, a minimum of 5.5 units of antimycin (2,640 cc or 

88 oz.) would be required. The piscicide would be applied with a motorized 

lightweight boat that would be transported to the site via helicopter. The 

chemical would be dripped into the prop wash of the outboard motor to 

maximize mixing. Crews would also work along the lakeshore, treating shallow 

areas not effectively reached by boat. The outlet stream would be treated with a 

potassium permanganate solution to neutralize the antimycin and prevent impacts 

on nontarget species downstream. The application would take place in early 

August during low flows. 

Brook trout would be removed from Lower Blum and Middle Blum lakes using a 

three-phased approach, including assessment (year 1), treatment (year 2), and 

follow-up (year 3). During the assessment phase, detailed physical, chemical, and 

biological data would be collected to improve the understanding of the 

abundance, diversity, and potential sensitivity of native aquatic species in the 

lake. Additional data about lake size and depth would be gathered to ensure 

antimycin calculations were correct. Data would also be gathered on the 

abundance and diversity of native aquatic species, and the data would then be 

used to evaluate the impacts of antimycin on those species. The lakes would be 

treated during the second year, with a possible follow-up treatment should the 

first treatment fail. Bioassays would monitor the progress and effectiveness of the 

treatment. The assays would involve placing cages of live fish (livecars) into the 

lake prior to the start of treatment, then monitoring mortality. Sampling with 

gillnets would also be used to determine the efficiency of the application. 

During the third year, recovery of native organisms would be monitored. Longerterm monitoring would be incorporated into the North Cascades Complex’s dayto-day resource management activities (NPS 2004). Refer to the “Management 

and Operations” section in the “Environmental Consequences” chapter. 

FEASIBILITY OF FISH REMOVAL 

The use of antimycin to remove reproducing fish populations is proposed as a 

management action common to the three action alternatives. The impact analysis 

for fish removal actions assumes that removal is possible and would be 

performed according to provisions of each management alternative (the impact 

analysis is provided in the “Environmental Consequences” chapter). Complete 
 Elements Common to All Action Alternatives 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 95

removal, however, may not be feasible for some lakes (refer to table 7). If it is 

determined that complete fish removal using antimycin is not possible, other 

methods of removal may need to be considered. A lake-specific NEPA analysis 

would be completed in the future if implementation of alternative fish removal 

methods were required. 

Many factors govern the feasibility of successfully removing reproducing 

populations of fish. Table 8 provides some of the most important factors that 

must be considered before treating a lake with the piscicide antimycin (trade 

name Fintrol®) (Rosenlund and Stevens 2002). Lake-specific data are lacking for 

many of the factors presented in table 8, and since complete data are not 

available, lake size (surface area in acres) and an estimate of lake volume were 

used for a preliminary assessment of the feasibility of fish removal. Feasibility of 

fish removal was assumed to be low if lake surface area exceeds 50 acres or lake 

volume exceeds 1,000 acre-feet. Table 7 (presented earlier) identifies the nine 

lakes having characteristics that could make complete fish removal infeasible. 

N ATURAL T REATMENT M ETHODS

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 natural die-off of all remaining fish could take 7 to 10 years, or in 

exceptional cases, as long as 15 years (Nelson 1987). Water temperature is the 

biggest factor in determining the life span of a trout or char (Behnke 2002). Fish 

in lakes at higher elevations with shorter ice-free periods live longer; conversely, 

fish in lakes at lower elevations with longer ice-free periods do not live as long. 

Angling and predation also affect fish longevity, as does fish density, but to a 

lesser degree. Greater numbers of fish result in fewer food sources and a reduced 

life span (NPS, R. Zipp, pers. comm., 2003). 

The initial decline in fish densities could be accelerated by providing incentives 

for anglers to catch and remove the fish, 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. Table 9 identifies the lakes that are candidates 

for the natural treatment method under each action alternative. It is important to 

note that for this plan/EIS, the impact analysis of fish removal in the 

“Environmental Consequences” chapter assumes that natural treatment methods 

would be performed as indicated in this table. 
A LTERNATIVES

96 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

TABLE 8: FACTORS THAT MAY AFFECT THE FEASIBILITY OF 

SUCCESSFULLY REMOVING REPRODUCING POPULATIONS OF FISH FROM LAKES

Factor Description 

Lake surface area It takes more time to apply piscicide to larger lakes than smaller lakes. Rosenlund and Stevens (2002) 

recommend treatment rates not to exceed 2 hectares per hour (or 4.94 acres per hour). Large lakes 

might require multiple sets of treatment equipment and several crews to hasten application rates and 

maximize fish exposure to toxic concentrations of antimycin prior to its degradation. As lake size 

increases, it might be more difficult to thoroughly treat the lake surface, and this could result in uneven 

treatment and fish survival (treatment failure). 

Lake volume Accurate measurements of lake volume are needed in order to calculate quantities of antimycin 

required for treatment. Estimates of lake volumes are made using maximum depth and surface area 

data, and the assumption of a simple conical shape to the lake basin. As lake volume increases, the 

ability to evenly distribute antimycin in the water column decreases, especially in deeper areas. 

Incomplete mixing could prevent a complete fish kill and lead to treatment failure. 

Residence time Residence time is needed in order to estimate the contact time and dose concentration of antimycin 

required for effective treatment. It would be more feasible to treat lakes with long residence times 

because fish would have greater exposure to toxic concentrations of antimycin (that is, longer contact 

time). 

Shoreline complexity Lakes with highly irregular shorelines have a greater littoral zone (shoreline) surface area; therefore, 

more time is required to apply piscicide to shallow areas where fish can potentially escape lethal doses. 

Bathymetric 

complexity 

In lakes with irregularly shaped basin forms, it might be more difficult to apply piscicide thoroughly and 

evenly throughout the water column. Calculations assuming a simple conical shape would be less 

accurate, increasing the potential for incomplete treatment. All lakes greater than 5 acres in size should 

be surveyed and mapped for volume and bathymetry (the measurement of water depth at various 

places in a water body). Until these surveys are performed, a conical shape is assumed. 

Woody/rocky debris Large amounts of debris can create hiding areas for fish and can also increase application difficulties by 

hampering boat access. 

Downstream/ 

upstream dispersal 

Lakes connected by streams passable to fish should be treated concurrently, or not at all, if there is a 

potential for fish to recolonize the lakes. 

Habitable inlet/outlet 

streams 

Habitable inlet/outlet streams should be treated concurrently with the lake to prevent recolonization. 

Extensive inlet/outlet streams with no fish barriers would greatly limit feasibility of fish removal if these 

systems could not be treated adequately. 

pH Alkaline waters (pH exceeding 8.5) rapidly degrade antimycin and greatly limit toxicity by reducing lethal 

concentration contact time. Most lakes in the North Cascades Complex have a pH that is near the 

neutral level of 7.0. 

Water temperature Low temperatures reduce the toxicity of antimycin. Colder waters (less than 60°F) require longer 

treatment times or greater treatment concentrations. 
 Elements Common to All Action Alternatives 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 97

TABLE 9: NATURAL TREATMENT METHODS FOR LAKES WITH NONREPRODUCING FISH

Proposed Fish Removal Methods 

Lake Name 

NPS 

Lake Code 

Nonnative 

Trout Species Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Bouck, Upper DD-05-01 Rainbow Natural Natural Natural 

Bowan MR-12-01 Rainbow Natural Natural Natural 

Coon MM-10-01 Cutthroat NAa NA Natural 

Copperb MC-06091 Rainbow, Cutthroat Data neededc Natural Natural 

Dee Dee/Tamarack, Lower MR-15-02 Rainbow Natural Natural Natural 

Diobsud No. 3, Upper LS-03-01 Rainbow Natural Natural Natural 

Hidden Lake Tarn EP-14-01 Rainbow Natural Natural Natural 

Hi-Yu M-0-01 Rainbow Data needed Natural Natural 

Kwahnesum MC-07-01 Rainbow Natural Natural Natural 

Monogram Tarn M-23-11 Cutthroat Natural Natural Natural 

Nert M-05-01 Rainbow Natural Natural Natural 

No Name PM-01-01 Rainbow NA Natural Natural 

Panther Potholes, Lower RD-05-01 Cutthroat Natural Natural Natural 

Pond SE of Kettling Lakes MR-09-01 Rainbow NA NA Natural 

Quill, Lower M-24-02 Rainbow Data needed Natural Natural 

Quill, Upper M-24-01 Rainbow Data needed Natural Natural 

Rainbow, Upper (South) MR-13-02 Rainbow Natural Natural Natural 

Rainbow, Upper (West) MM-11-01 Rainbow Natural Natural Natural 

Ridley HM-03-01 Rainbow NA NA Natural 

Stiletto MR-01-01 Rainbow Data needed Natural Natural 

Sweet Pea ML-02-01 Rainbow NA Natural Natural 

Thornton, Middle M-19-01 Rainbow NA Natural Natural 

Torment ML-03-01 Rainbow Natural Natural Natural 

Triumph M-17-01 Rainbow NA Natural Natural 

Unnamed MR-11-01 Rainbow NA NA Natural 

Willow HM-04-01 Cutthroat NA NA Natural 

Notes: 

a. “NA” means that fish removal is not part of the overall management action for the respective alternative. 

b. 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.

c. “Data needed” means that the densities of reproducing fish are currently unknown, and more data are needed to determine 

whether fish densities are high enough to justify removal. If fish removal were deemed necessary where data are missing, treatment 

methods identified for the action alternatives would be implemented. At this time, it is envisioned that natural fish removal would be 

implemented.
98 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

ALTERNATIVE B 

PROPOSED ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 

OF 91 LAKES 

UNDER A NEW FRAMEWORK 

(42 LAKES MAY HAVE FISH) 

(PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)

GENERAL CONCEPT 

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 through application of management principles 

described earlier in the section titled “Development of Management Actions for 

Alternatives B and C.” A number of mountain lakes in the North Cascades 

Complex would be returned to their naturally fishless conditions using 

mechanical, chemical, and natural treatment methods of fish removal. It may not 

be feasible to remove reproducing populations of fish in the nine larger, deeper 

lakes identified in table 7, so these lakes would continue to provide residual 

sport-fishing opportunities for the foreseeable future, and the goal of complete 

removal might never be achieved. 

Select lakes would be stocked with low densities of fish incapable of 

reproduction in order to prevent reestablishment of self-sustaining populations. 

Stocked fish would be native to the basin or sterile to minimize the potential 

impacts of downstream dispersal (table 18 in the “Affected Environment” chapter 

provides more information on the fish that are considered native to the basin). 

The management actions described in table 4 would be applied to the 91 lakes as 

shown in table 5. For the current status and condition of the 91 lakes, refer to 

table 5 and appendix E. 

As noted in the description of alternative A (existing management), 62 of the 

91 lakes in the study area have fish, and the remaining 29 lakes are fishless. 

Under alternative B, 10 management actions would be available for a given lake 

depending on its current status and characteristics. These adaptive management 

actions, discussed earlier under “Adaptive Management” in the “Elements 

Common to All Action Alternatives” section, have been summarized into the 

management actions for alternative B as shown in table 10 and figure 6. For 

some lakes, monitoring may indicate the need for a change in management 

action. Ultimately, any lake that would contain fish from the initial 

implementation of this alternative could be considered for complete fish removal 

in the future based on the results of monitoring (see appendix F for details 

regarding monitoring). 
Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 99

TABLE 10: PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE B 

Management Action (number)a Number of Lakes 

Lakes that would continue to have fish under alternative Bb,c 

Inside a national 

recreation area 

Inside the 

national park 

Continue to stock with nonreproducing fish (4C) 5 4 

Remove reproducing fish, allow lake to rest, and restock with nonreproducing fish (2C) 3 8 

Evaluate reproductive status of fish, allow low densities of fish (reproducing or 

nonreproducing) (3B) 

1 6 

Supplement the low densities of reproducing fish presently in the lake with stocked 

nonreproducing fish (3C) 

0 2 

Subtotal 9 20 

Lakes that would become or be maintained fishless under alternative B 

Inside a national 

recreation area 

Inside the 

national park 

Discontinue stocking of lake (nonreproducing) (4A) 5 7 

Treat lakes to remove low-density reproducing fish (3A) 0 0 

Treat lakes to remove high-density reproducing fish (2A) 2 6 

Maintain as fishless (1) 3 26 

Subtotal 10 39 

Lakes to be evaluated prior to determining management action under alternative B 

Inside a national 

recreation area 

Inside the 

national park 

Discontinue stocking lake, gather information, determine if lake should be restocked (4B) 0 5 

Remove reproducing fish, gather information, determine if lake should be restocked (2B) 3 5 

Subtotal 3 10 

Inside a national 

recreation area 

Inside the 

national park 

Grand Total 22 69 

Notes: 

a. For a full description, see the “Management Actions” section and tables 4 and 5 in this chapter. 

b. These lakes would continue to have fish based on the management action as first applied. For some, if monitoring indicates a

problem, the availability may be reduced in the future. 

c. The possible future outcome of alternative B would be that 42 lakes may have fish, which is the total of 29 lakes that would

continue to have fish, combined with the 13 lakes that would be evaluated to determine if they should be restocked. 
A LTERNATIVES

100 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

FIGURE 6: STATUS OF 91 LAKES UNDER ALTERNATIVE B

IMPLEMENTING THE FISHERY MANAGEMENT 

PLAN THROUGH C ONGRESSI ONAL ACTION 

Under alternative B (as in alternative A), in order to continue stocking lakes in 

the North Cascades Complex, the NPS would seek congressional action to 

provide clarification of the enabling legislation for the North Cascades Complex. 

Refer to “Implementing the Fishery Management Plan through Congressional 

Action” in the description of alternative A that was presented earlier in this 

chapter. Congressional action to clarify its intent 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. 

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 

Under alternative B, the NPS considers allowing stocking to continue in certain 

mountain lakes and also considers removing fish from certain mountain lakes 

through various treatment methods. 
Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 101

The results of the minimum requirements analysis show that removal of selfsustaining (reproducing) nonnative fish populations is necessary to help 

reestablish the historically fishless conditions of lakes in the Steven T. Mather 

Wilderness, and that stocking of nonnative fish to create and enhance an artificial 

recreational fishery is not necessary to meet the minimum requirements for the 

administration of the Stephen T. Mather Wilderness (see appendix K). This 

conclusion is based upon the well-documented impacts on ecosystem functions 

and values that result from introducing nonnative fish into mountain lake 

ecosystems that were historically fishless. Stocking naturally fishless lakes, even 

with nonreproducing trout, would not leave the wilderness “ideally free from 

human control or manipulation.” Stocking of fish would manipulate the native 

ecology of a lake and introduce a nonnative species for the purpose of enhancing 

recreation. 

Some, including the WDFW, disagree with the conclusions reached in the 

minimum requirements analysis. They maintain that recreational fishing is 

allowed under the Wilderness Act, and therefore, creating and enhancing fishing 

opportunities are appropriate actions in wilderness areas. Those who disagree 

with the conclusions reached in the minimum requirements analysis also believe 

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

adverse impacts on wilderness values because biological integrity would be 

conserved. For a detailed discussion of the minimum requirements process, refer 

to the alternative A section titled, “Minimum Requirements.” 

PROPOSED FISHERY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 

P ROPOSED M ANAGEMENT F RAMEWORK 

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. 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 (see appendix F) would be 

implemented to adjust future management and to avoid unacceptable effects on 

native biota from fish presence. 

P ROPOSED S TOCKING P ROGRAM

Fish stocking would only continue in lakes where biological integrity could be 

conserved according to the principles described in table 2. This would be 

accomplished by stocking with low densities of nonreproducing fish. The lakes 

that would be stocked under alternative B are shown in table 5. In determining 

which lakes to stock, the Technical Advisory Committee applied the information 

contained in tables 1–3, among other data, to develop the management actions 

described in table 4. From this information, the committee then applied a 
A LTERNATIVES

102 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

management action to each of the 91 lakes under alternative B, as shown in 

table 5. Fish density (high/low) and fish status (reproducing/nonreproducing) 

were important factors in determining which lakes would be stocked (see 

appendix E). For example, some lakes with a high density of reproducing fish 

would have reproducing fish removed, and further information on the lake would 

be collected prior to considering the lakes for restocking with nonreproducing 

fish. Or, other lakes with a high density of reproducing fish would become 

fishless, if feasible, in order to allow native species to recover in a lake that is 

part of a series of lakes that currently contain fish. 

Lakes that would continue to be stocked with no other constraints are identified 

by management action 4C. Some lakes would be restocked after fish removal 

(provided reproducing fish populations could be removed), and subsequent 

monitoring data indicated that the abundance and diversity of native organisms 

could be conserved. These lakes are identified by management action 2B. The 

lakes identified by management action 2C would be restocked following removal 

of reproducing fish populations and a resting period for recovery of native 

organisms. Stocking would be discontinued for some lakes that are currently 

stocked because there is not enough information to support continued stocking 

with the assurance that biological integrity would be conserved. These lakes 

would be evaluated in accordance with management action 4B (table 4 provides a 

description of the management actions). 

Proposed Stocking Practices 

Stocking practices would be the same as alternative A. 

Proposed Species and Strains of Fish to be Stocked, Stocking Cycles, and 

Stocking Densities. The species and strains of fish to be stocked, stocking 

cycles, and proposed stocking densities are displayed in table 6. Based on 

monitoring and adaptive management, the following may change: species and 

strains of fish to be stocked, stocking cycles, and densities stocked. Any species 

of fish stocked in the future would be nonreproducing. 

Specific Times of Year Proposed for Stocking. As in alternative A, the highelevation lakes proposed for stocking under alternative B would be stocked 

during the ice-free period, which varies from year to year, but is generally 

between mid-July to mid-September. Stocking can start as early as May in lowerelevation lakes or as late as the end of October in higher-elevation lakes that iceout later. 

Proposed Stocking Methods. Lakes would be stocked either from the ground 

via backpack or from the air via fixed-wing aircraft. Whenever feasible, 

backpack stocking would be the preferred stocking method to minimize impacts 

on wilderness values. Under the backpack stocking method, WDFW personnel or 

approved volunteers would carry fry in plastic containers into the lake and 

release the fish by hand. Fixed-wing aircraft would be used for larger, remote 

lakes because it is difficult to keep fry alive in backpacks for extended periods, 

and lengthy travel times can increase fry mortality. The aircraft would be 

equipped with specialized chambers to carry fish. To ensure the correct lakes 

would be stocked, Global Positioning System (GPS) instrumentation and skilled, 
Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 103

experienced personnel would be used to navigate to target lakes. Lakes would 

only be stocked under favorable weather conditions, and only lakes greater than 

5 acres would be stocked by aircraft (WDFW 2001). 

Under alternative B, at least 29 lakes would be backpack stocked, and as many as 

12 lakes would be stocked with fixed-wing aircraft following a minimum tool 

evaluation. Table 11 shows the methods that would be used for stocking each 

lake under alternatives B and C and the methods currently used under 

alternative A. 

P ROPOSED L AKE 

T REATMENTS TO M ANAGE THE F ISHERY

The methods of removing fish are discussed above in the “Elements Common to 

All Action Alternatives” section. The proposed treatment methods to remove fish 

in specific lakes are given in tables 7 and 9. 

P ROPOSED M ITIGATION

See appendix I for a description of proposed mitigation practices that would be 

used under this alternative to minimize potential impacts of fish stocking and 

lake treatment methods. 

P ROPOSED M ONITORING P ROGRAM

While priorities for monitoring and evaluation may change across alternatives, 

the basic monitoring program is common to all action alternatives. A description 

of the proposed monitoring program can be found in appendix F. 

C OST OF I MPLEMENTATION

The total costs of implementing alternative B are estimated to be $2.14 million 

over the next 15 years. The bulk of these costs would be associated with fish 

removal actions. For a detailed explanation of program costs under alternative B, 

see the “Management and Operations” section in the “Environmental 

Consequences” chapter. 

Fixed-wing aircraft 

would be used to stock 

the larger, remote lakes. 
A LTERNATIVES

104 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

TABLE 11: METHODS USED FOR TRANSPORTING FISH TO LAKES STOCKED UNDER ALTERNATIVES A, B, AND C 

 Method Used to Transport Fry 

Method that Would 

be Used to Transport Frya

Lake Name Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Battalion Backpack, fixed-wing aircraft Backpack Backpack 

Berdeen Fixed-wing aircraft Fixed-wing aircraft NAb

Blum (Lower/West No. 4) Reproducing fish presentc Backpack NA 

Bear Reproducing fish presentc Fixed-wing aircraft NA 

Blum (Largest/Middle, No. 3) Backpack, fixed-wing aircraft; unknown NA NA 

Bouck, Lower Reproducing fish presentc Fixed-wing aircraft Fixed-wing aircraft 

Bouck, Upper Backpack NA NA 

Bowan Backpack NA NA 

Coon Fixed-wing aircraft; unknown Backpack or stock 

(e.g., horse) 

Backpack or stock 

(e.g., horse) 

Copperd, e Fixed-wing aircraft; unknown Backpack NA 

Dagger Backpack Backpack or stock 

(e.g., horse) 

NA 

Dee Dee, Upper Backpack Backpack NA 

Doubtful Reproducing fish presentc Fixed-wing aircraft NA 

Diobsud No. 2 Backpack, fixed-wing aircraft Backpack NA 

Diobsud No. 3, Upper Backpack, fixed-wing aircraft; unknown NA NA 

Doug’s Tarn Reproducing fish presentc Backpack NA 

Green Reproducing fish presentc Fixed-wing aircraft NA 

Firn Backpack, fixed-wing aircraft NA NA 

Hidden Backpack, fixed-wing aircraft; Unknown Backpack or fixedwing aircraft NA 

Hidden Lake Tarn Backpack NA NA 

Hozomeen Fixed-wing aircraft NA NA 

Hi-Yud Backpack, unknown Backpack NA 

Jeanita Backpack, unknown NA NA 

Kwahnesum Backpack, fixed-wing aircraft NA NA 

McAlester Fixed-wing aircraft Backpack or stock 

(e.g., horse) 

Backpack or stock 

(e.g., horse) 

Monogram Backpack, fixed-wing aircraft; unknown Backpack or fixedwing aircraft NA 

Nert Backpack, unknown NA NA 

No Name Backpack, unknown Backpack NA 

Panther Potholes (Lower) Backpack, fixed-wing aircraft NA NA 

Pond SE of Kettling Lakes Backpack Backpack Backpack 

Quill, Lowerd Backpack Backpack NA 

Quill, Upperd Backpack Backpack NA 

Rainbow Unknown Backpack or stock 

(e.g., horse) 

Backpack 

Rainbow, Upper (West) Backpack, fixed-wing aircraft NA NA 
Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 105

TABLE 11: METHODS USED FOR TRANSPORTING FISH TO LAKES STOCKED UNDER ALTERNATIVES A, B, AND C (CONTINUED)

 Method Used to Transport Fry 

Method that Would 

be Used to Transport Frya

Lake Name Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Rainbow, Upper, (South) Backpack, fixed-wing aircraft; unknown NA NA 

Ridley Backpack Backpack Backpack 

Skymo Backpack, fixed-wing aircraft; unknown Backpack or fixedwing aircraft NA 

Sourdough Fixed-wing aircraft; unknown Fixed-wing aircraft NA 

Stilettod Backpack, fixed-wing aircraft Backpack NA 

Stout Backpack, unknown NA NA 

Stout, Lower Reproducing fish presentc NA NA 

Sweet Pea Backpack, unknown Backpack NA 

Thornton, Lower Backpack, fixed-wing aircraft, unknown Backpack or fixedwing aircraft NA 

Thornton, Middle Backpack, unknown Backpack or fixedwing aircraft NA 

Torment Backpack NA NA 

Trapper Reproducing fish presentc Backpack or fixedwing aircraft 

NA 

Triplet, Lower Reproducing fish presentc Backpack Backpack 

Triplet, Upper Reproducing fish presentc NA NA 

Triumph Backpack Backpack NA 

Unnamed (MR -11-01) Backpack Backpack Backpack 

Unnamed (MR-16-01) Reproducing fish presentc NA NA 

Wilcox/Sandie, Lower Reproducing fish presentc Backpack NA 

Willow Backpack, fixed-wing aircraft, unknown Backpack Backpack 

Notes: 

The surface area and other details about the 91 lakes can be found in appendix E. 

Stocking densities and cycles can be found in table 6 and appendix E. 

a. The final determination of whether to transport fish to lakes using backpacks, stock (e.g., horses), or fixed-wing aircraft is a 

minimum tool-related issue that would be determined when the NPS completes the minimum tool analysis as part of the record of 

decision on this plan/EIS. Backpack or stock (e.g., horses) would be preferred over fixed-wing aircraft unless a lake were too large, 

remote, or otherwise inaccessible. 

b. “NA” means the lake would not be available for stocking. 

c. Reproducing fish present, but stocking has not occurred in the recent past. 

d. The decision about continued stocking of these lakes is pending further data collection and evaluation. 

e. 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. 
106 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN 

ALTERNATIVE C 

PROPOSED ADAPTIVE 

MANAGEMENT OF 91 LAKES 

UNDER A NEW FRAMEWORK 

(11 LAKES MAY HAVE FISH)

GENERAL CONCEPT 

Alternative C applies a new management framework to the 22 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. 

While NPS policy states that in general, “exotic species will not be introduced 

into parks” (NPS 2001a, 4.4.3), policies also state: 

In some situations, the Park Service may stock native or exotic 

animals for recreational harvesting purposes, but only when such 

stocking will not impair park natural resources or processes, and: 

• The stocking is of fish into constructed large reservoirs 

or other significantly altered large water bodies and the 

purpose is to provide for recreational fishing; or 

• Such stocking is in a national recreation area or preserve 

that has historically been stocked (in these situations, 

stocking only of the same species may be continued); or 

• Congressional intent for stocking is expressed in statute 

or a House or Senate report accompanying a statute. 

The Service will not stock waters that are naturally barren of 

harvested aquatic species. 

Within the national recreation areas, fish would remain in lakes where a low 

density of reproducing or nonreproducing fish populations would not have 

unacceptable effects on native biological resources. It may not be feasible to 

remove reproducing populations of fish in the 9 larger, deeper lakes identified in 

table 7 (1 of these is in a national recreation area), so these lakes would continue 

to provide residual sport-fishing opportunities for the foreseeable future, and the 

goal of complete removal might never be achieved. 

The adaptive management actions, discussed previously under “Adaptive 

Management” in the “Elements Common to All Action Alternatives” section, 

have been summarized for alternative C in table 12 and figure 7. For a listing of 

management actions by lake under alternative C, refer to table 5; for the current 

status and condition of the 91 lakes, refer to appendix E. 
Alternative C

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 107

TABLE 12: PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE C 

Management Action (number)a Number of Lakes 

Lakes that would continue to have fish under alternative Cb,c 

Inside a national 

recreation area 

Inside the 

national park 

Continue to stock with nonreproducing fish (4C) 5 0 

Remove reproducing fish, allow lake to rest, and restock with nonreproducing fish (2C) 3 0 

Evaluate reproductive status of fish, allow low densities of fish (reproducing or 

nonreproducing) (3B) 

1 0 

Supplement the low densities of reproducing fish presently in the lake with stocked 

nonreproducing fish (3C) 

0 0 

Subtotal 9 0 

Lakes that would become or be maintained fishless under alternative C 

Inside a national 

recreation area 

Inside the 

national park 

Discontinue stocking of lake (nonreproducing) (4A) 5 16 

Treat lakes to remove low- density reproducing fish (3A) 0 8 

Treat lakes to remove high-density reproducing fish (2A) 3 19 

Maintain as fishless (1) 3 26 

Subtotal 11 69 

Lakes to be evaluated prior to determining management action under alternative C 

Inside a national 

recreation area 

Inside the 

national park 

Discontinue stocking lake, gather information, determine if lake should be restocked (4B) 0 0 

Remove reproducing fish, gather information, determine if lake should be restocked (2B) 2 0 

Subtotal 2 0 

Inside a national 

recreation area

Inside the 

national park

Grand Total 22 69 

Notes: 

a. For a full description, see the “Management Actions” section and tables 4 and 5 in this chapter. 

b. These lakes would have fish based on the management action as first applied. For some, if monitoring indicates a problem, the 

availability may be reduced in the future. 

c. The possible future outcome of alternative C would be that 11 lakes may have fish, which is the total of 9 lakes that would 

continue to have fish, combined with the 2 lakes that would be evaluated to determine if they should be restocked. 
A LTERNATIVES

108 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

FIGURE 7: STATUS OF 91 LAKES UNDER ALTERNATIVE C 

IMPLEMENTING THE FISHERY MANAGEMENT 

PLAN THROUGH C ONGRESSI ONAL ACTION 

Under alternative C (as in alternatives A and B), in order to continue stocking 

lakes in the North Cascades Complex (only select national recreation area lakes 

would be stocked under alternative C), the NPS would seek congressional action 

to provide clarification of the enabling legislation for the North Cascades 

Complex. Refer to “Implementing the Fishery Management Plan through 

Congressional Action” in the description of alternative A that was presented 

earlier in this chapter. Congressional action to clarify the intent 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. 

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 

Under alternative C, the NPS considers allowing stocking to continue in certain 

mountain lakes and also considers removing fish from certain mountain lakes 

through various treatment methods. 

The results of the minimum requirements analysis show that removal of selfsustaining (reproducing) nonnative populations of fish is necessary to help 
Alternative C 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 109

reestablish the historically fishless conditions of lakes in the Steven T. Mather 

Wilderness, and that stocking of nonnative fish to create and enhance an artificial 

recreational fishery is not necessary to meet the minimum requirements for the 

administration of the Stephen T. Mather Wilderness (see appendix K). This 

conclusion is based upon the well-documented impacts on ecosystem functions 

and values that result from introducing nonnative fish into mountain lake 

ecosystems that were historically fishless. Stocking naturally fishless lakes, even 

with nonreproducing trout, would not leave the wilderness “ideally free from 

human control or manipulation.” Stocking of fish would manipulate the native 

ecology of a lake and introduce a nonnative species for the purpose of enhancing 

recreation. 

Some, including the WDFW, disagree with the conclusions reached in the 

minimum requirements analysis. They maintain that recreational fishing is 

allowed under the Wilderness Act, and therefore, creating and enhancing fishing 

opportunities is an appropriate action in wilderness areas. Those who disagree 

with the conclusions reached in the minimum requirements analysis also believe 

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

adverse impacts on wilderness values because biological integrity would be 

conserved. For a detailed discussion of the minimum requirements process, refer 

to the alternative A section titled, “Minimum Requirements.” 

PROPOSED FISHERY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 

P ROPOSED M ANAGEMENT F RAMEWORK 

The proposed management framework under alternative C would be to 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. A monitoring program (see 

appendix F) would be incorporated to adjust future management actions in order 

to avoid unacceptable effects on native biota from fish presence. The remaining 

69 lakes in the national park portion of the North Cascades Complex either 

would remain fishless or become fishless. 

P ROPOSED S TOCKING P ROGRAM

The proposed stocking program under alternative C would differ from 

alternative B in that only lakes in the national recreation areas would be eligible 

for stocking. No lakes in the national park would be stocked. The lakes that 

would be stocked under alternative C are shown in table 5. As with alternative B, 

the Technical Advisory Committee determined which lakes to stock by applying 

the information contained in tables 1–3, among other data, to develop the 

management actions described in table 4. From this information, the committee 
A LTERNATIVES

110 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

then applied a management action to each of the 91 lakes under alternative C, as 

shown in table 5. 

Fish density (high/low) and fish status (reproducing/nonreproducing) were 

important factors in determining which lakes would be stocked (refer to table 5 

and appendix E). For example, Hozomeen and Upper Triplet lakes contain high 

densities of reproducing fish. Under alternative C, the 2 lakes would become 

fishless in order to allow native species to recover in a lake that is part of a series 

of lakes where some would contain fish. In 2 other lakes, the high-density 

reproducing fish would be removed, and further information on the lake would 

be collected prior to considering the lake for restocking of nonreproducing fish. 

The 3 lakes in the national recreation areas that are currently fishless would 

remain fishless in order to allow these lakes to revert to pre-stocking conditions 

and/or maintain natural communities without influence from fish. The 26 lakes in 

the national park that are currently fishless would also remain fishless. 

Management of Lakes in the National Park 

There are 69 lakes in the national park; of these 69 lakes, 26 that are currently 

fishless would remain fishless, 16 lakes that are currently stocked would cease to 

be stocked, and 27 lakes would be treated to remove reproducing fish. 

Proposed Stocking Practices 

Stocking practices would be the same as alternative A. 

Proposed Species and Strains of Fish to be Stocked, Stocking Cycles, and 

Densities. The species and strains of fish to be stocked, stocking cycles, and 

proposed stocking densities are displayed in table 6. Based on monitoring and 

adaptive management, the following may change: species and strains of fish to be 

stocked and stocking cycles and densities. Any species of fish stocked in the 

future would be nonreproducing. 

Specific Times of Year Proposed for Stocking. As in alternative A, the 

mountain lakes proposed for stocking under alternative C would be stocked 

during the ice-free period, which varies from year to year, but is generally 

between mid-July to mid-September. Stocking can start as early as May in lowerelevation lakes or as late as the end of October in higher-elevation lakes that iceout later. 

Stocking Methods. Under alternative C, 9 lakes would be stocked via 

backpacks, and 1 lake would be stocked via fixed-wing aircraft following a 

minimum-tool evaluation. Table 11 shows the methods that would be used for 

stocking each lake under alternatives B and C and the methods currently used 

under alternative A. 
Alternative C 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 111

P ROPOSED L AKE 

T REATMENTS TO M ANAGE THE F ISHERY

Under alternative C, of the 22 lakes located in the national recreation areas, fish 

would be removed from 15 lakes. Some of these 15 lakes would be candidates 

for restocking, and some would remain fishless. Of the remaining 69 lakes 

located in the national park, 43 lakes would be actively managed to return to a 

fishless condition, and 26 lakes would be maintained in their fishless state. The 

methods of removing fish are discussed above in the “Elements Common to All 

Action Alternatives” section. The treatment methods proposed for specific lakes 

are given in tables 7 and 9. 

P ROPOSED M ITIGATION

See appendix I for a description of proposed mitigation practices that would be 

used under this alternative to minimize potential impacts of fish stocking and 

lake treatment methods. 

P ROPOSED M ONITORING P ROGRAM 

While priorities for monitoring and evaluation may change across alternatives, 

the basic monitoring program is common to all action alternatives. A description 

of the proposed monitoring program can be found in appendix F. 

C OST OF I MPLEMENTATION

The total costs of implementing alternative C are estimated at $2.84 million over 

the next 15 years. The bulk of these costs would be associated with fish removal 

actions. For a detailed explanation of program costs under alternative C, see the 

“Management and Operations” section in the “Environmental Consequences” 

chapter. 
112 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

ALTERNATIVE D 

91 LAKES WOULD BE FISHLESS 

(ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE)

GENERAL CONCEPT 

Alternative D represents 91 lakes in the North Cascades Complex that currently 

have fish as a result of either a documented or an undocumented history of fish 

stocking, in addition to those lakes that are currently fishless. The emphasis of 

this alternative would be to eliminate all fish from mountain lakes in the study 

area. For the current status and condition of the 91 lakes, see table 5 and 

appendix E. 

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. 

These management actions, discussed previously in the “Management Actions” 

section of this chapter, have been summarized in table 13. 

TABLE 13: PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE D 

Management Action 

(number)* Number of Lakes 

Lakes become fishless or be maintained fishless under alternative D

Discontinue stocking (nonreproducing) (4A) 26 

Treat lakes to remove low-density reproducing fish (3A) 9 

Treat lakes to remove high-density reproducing fish (2A) 27 

Maintain as fishless (1) 29 

Grand Total 91 

Note: 

* For a full description, see the “Management Actions” section in this chapter. 

IMPLEMENTING THE FISHERY MANAGEMENT 

PLAN THROUGH C ONGRESSI ONAL ACTION 

This alternative would not require congressional action to clarify the North 

Cascades Complex’s enabling legislation. 

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 

Under alternative D, the NPS considers discontinuing stocking and removing fish 

from certain mountain lakes through various methods. The results of the 

minimum requirements analysis show that removal of self-sustaining 

(reproducing) nonnative populations of fish is necessary to help reestablish the 

historically fishless conditions of lakes in the Steven T. Mather Wilderness (see 

appendix K). For a detailed discussion of the minimum requirements process, 

refer to the alternative A section titled, “Minimum Requirements.” 
Alternative D (Environmentally Preferred Alternative) 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 113

PROPOSED FISHERY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 

P ROPOSED M ANAGEMENT F RAMEWORK

The goal for alternative D is that all 91 study area lakes would be fishless: 29 

currently fishless lakes would remain fishless and 62 would be returned to a 

fishless condition. Stocking would be discontinued in all lakes currently stocked 

and the stocked fish would die off within several years. After five years, the 

quality of sport-fishing opportunities in most of these lakes may decline due to 

fish mortality and removal from angling pressure (WDFW, M. Downen, pers. 

comm., 2004). Reproducing populations of fish would be gradually removed 

over time. The rate of removal would depend upon the availability of resources 

(funding and personnel) and differences among methods of removal. It may not 

be feasible to remove reproducing populations of fish in the nine larger, deeper 

lakes identified in table 7, so these lakes would continue to provide residual 

sport-fishing opportunities for the foreseeable future, and the goal of complete 

removal might never be achieved. 

Alternative D is most closely aligned with the current NPS Management Policies 

(NPS 2001a, 4.4.4.1), which state that, in general, “exotic species will not be 

introduced into parks.” The NPS is instructed to not intervene in natural 

biological or physical processes, except in emergency situations to restore natural 

ecosystem functioning that has been disrupted by past human activities, when 

specifically directed by Congress, or when a park plan has identified the 

intervention as necessary to protect other park resources (NPS 2001a, 4.1). 

Section 4.1.5 of NPS Management Policies states: “[t]he Service will re-establish 

natural functions and processes in human-disturbed components of natural 

systems in parks unless otherwise directed by Congress,” and “Impacts to natural 

systems resulting from human disturbances include the introduction of exotic 

species.” The NPS Management Policies, section 6.3.7, Natural Resources 

Management in Wilderness, states: 

The principle of non-degradation will be applied to wilderness 

management, and each wilderness area’s condition will be 

measured and assessed against its own unimpaired standard. 

Natural processes will be allowed, insofar as possible, to shape 

and control wilderness ecosystems. Management should seek to 

sustain the natural distribution, numbers, population 

composition, and interaction of indigenous species. Management 

intervention should only be undertaken to the extent necessary to 

correct past mistakes, the impacts of human use, and influences 

originating outside of wilderness boundaries. 

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. Alternative D also provides 

a basis for comparing the effects of the no-action alternative (alternative A) and 

the other action alternatives. 
A LTERNATIVES

114 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

P ROPOSED S TOCKING P ROGRAM

The intent of this alternative is that all mountain lakes in the national park and 

national recreation areas would eventually be fishless. To accomplish this, 

stocking would no longer occur in any of the lakes in the North Cascades 

Complex, and reproducing populations of fish would be systematically removed 

wherever feasible (see tables 7 and 9). 

Proposed Stocking Practices 

No fish would be stocked in lakes in the study area. 

Proposed Species and Strains of Fish to be Stocked, Stocking Cycles, and 

Densities. No fish would be stocked in lakes in the study area. 

Specific Times of Year Proposed for Stocking. No fish would be stocked in 

lakes in the study area. 

Proposed Stocking Methods. No fish would be stocked in lakes in the study 

area. 

P ROPOSED L AKE 

T REATMENTS TO M ANAGE THE F ISHERY

Under alternative D, fish would be removed from 62 of the 91 lakes in the study 

area, and the 29 lakes that are currently fishless would remain fishless. The 

methods of removing fish are discussed above in “Elements Common to All 

Action Alternatives.” The treatment methods proposed for specific lakes are 

given in tables 7 and 9. 

The long-term result would be that no mountain lakes would contain fish once all 

lakes were treated to remove reproducing fish populations; however, until lakes 

were treated, reproducing fish populations would persist. In spite of the goal of 

making all lakes fishless, complete removal might not prove feasible, especially 

from some of the larger, deeper lakes in the study area. 

P ROPOSED M ITIGATION 

See appendix I for a description of proposed mitigation practices that would be 

used under this alternative to minimize potential impacts of lake treatment 

methods. 

P ROPOSED M ONITORING P ROGRAM

While priorities for monitoring and evaluation may change across alternatives, 

the basic monitoring program is common to all action alternatives. A description 

of the proposed monitoring program can be found in appendix F. 
Alternative D (Environmentally Preferred Alternative) 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 115

C OST OF I MPLEMENTATION

The costs of implementing alternative D are estimated to be $3 million over the 

next 15 years and potentially longer depending on feasibility of complete 

removal and funding availability. For a detailed explanation of program costs 

under alternative D, see the “Management and Operations” section in the 

“Environmental Consequences” chapter. 

HOW ALTERNATIVES MEET OBJECTIVES 

As stated in the “Purpose of and Need for Action” chapter, all action alternatives 

selected for analysis must meet all objectives to a large degree. The action 

alternatives must also address the stated purpose of taking action and resolve the 

need for action; therefore, the alternatives, and the effects they would have on the 

lakes in the study area, were individually assessed in light of how well they 

would meet the objectives for this plan/EIS. Alternatives that did not meet the 

plan/EIS objectives were not analyzed further (see the “Alternatives Eliminated 

from Further Consideration” section in this chapter). 

The plan’s objectives are to 

Obtain support from interested parties and groups to implement a 

new management plan for mountain lakes in 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. 

While each action alternative seeks to protect the biological resources of the 

lakes in the study area, each action alternative would also provide varying 

degrees of recreational opportunities, including sport fishing. Even alternative D 

(91 Lakes Would Be Fishless) would provide sport-fishing opportunities in 

mountain lakes for a lengthy period because it would take many years to remove 

all reproducing fish populations from the mountain lakes. If it is not feasible to 

completely remove fish from larger, deeper lakes, fish densities would be 

reduced, and these lakes could provide sport-fishing opportunities indefinitely 

(refer to tables 7 and 8). 
A LTERNATIVES

116 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

Table 14 summarizes the elements of the alternatives being considered. The 

“Environmental Consequences” chapter describes the effects on each impact 

topic under each of the alternatives, including the impact on recreational values 

and visitor experience. These impacts are summarized in “Table 15: Summary of 

Environmental Consequences.” “Table 16: Analysis of How the Alternatives 

Meet Objectives,” compares how each of the alternatives described in this 

chapter would meet the objectives for this plan/EIS. (Tables 14, 15, and 16 are 

located at the end of this chapter.) 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 117
118 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

ALTERNATIVES 

ELIMINATED FROM 

FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

The four alternatives described below were eliminated from further 

consideration. 

Cease stocking in all lakes or in a portion of the lakes in the study area, but 

do not actively return lakes with reproducing fish to fishless conditions. 

Based on clear conclusions in reports from the U.S. Geological Survey (refer to 

the “Purpose of and Need for Action” chapter), high densities of fish often 

caused by uncontrolled reproducing fish populations were recognized as having 

the greatest adverse impacts on the native biota and ecosystems of mountain 

lakes in the North Cascades Complex. Consequently, this alternative was not 

deemed reasonable or selectable as an alternative and was not carried through full 

impact analysis. 

Cease stocking in all or a portion of the lakes in the study area and return 

lakes to fishless conditions using solely passive methods (that is, natural lake 

treatment as defined in this plan/EIS). With the understanding that passive 

methods of removing fish from lakes could take many years, it was recognized 

that more expedient methods of fish removal would be desired in many cases due 

to the potential of ongoing, long-term adverse impacts on the native biota and 

ecosystems of mountain lakes in the North Cascades Complex. 

Use biological treatment methods to remove fish from lakes. The use of 

biological controls using a sterile “apex” predator to remove fish from lakes as an 

element of an alternative was considered but rejected. Biological controls, such 

as the tiger muskellunge, were rejected because of a lack of case studies 

demonstrating success and because of the concern for unintended consequences 

to native species, including predation on nontarget organisms such as 

macroinvertebrates. 

Provide sport fishing opportunities by stocking some of the 154 mountain 

lakes that have never had any fish presence. The 1985 Memorandum of 

Understanding between the NPS and WDFW was entered into in order to resolve 

differences in policy regarding fish stocking between the two agencies. The 1988 

Supplemental Agreement to the Memorandum of Understanding identified as 

appropriate for fish stocking, 40 lakes in the national park that either have a 

history of fish stocking or have reproducing fish populations. This plan/EIS 

focuses on those 40 lakes, and the other 51 mountain lakes in the North Cascades 

Complex that have a history of fish presence; 29 of the 91 lakes are currently 

fishless. This plan/EIS did not contemplate stocking any of the 29 currently 

fishless lakes because both the NPS and WDFW assumed that if the lakes have 

gone fishless, they are undergoing a natural recovery process that should not be 

interfered with. The 154 mountain lakes in the North Cascades Complex have 

never had a presence of fish, and neither the NPS nor the WDFW advocate 

stocking any of those lakes. Consequently, an alternative that considered stocking 

currently fishless lakes outside of the 91 was not deemed a reasonable 

alternative. 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 119

CONSISTENCY WITH 

SECTIONS 101(B) AND 

102(1) OF THE NATIONAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

POLICY ACT 

The NPS requirements for implementing NEPA include an analysis of how each 

alternative meets or achieves the purposes of NEPA, as stated in sections 101(b) 

and 102(1). Each alternative analyzed in a NEPA document must be assessed as 

to how it meets the following purposes: 

1. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the 

environment for succeeding generations. 

2. Ensure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically 

and culturally pleasing surroundings. 

3. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without 

degradation, risk of health or safety, or other undesirable and 

unintended consequences. 

4. Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national 

heritage and maintain, wherever possible, an environment that supports 

diversity and variety of individual choice. 

5. Achieve a balance between population and resource use that will 

permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities. 

6. Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the 

maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources. 

Council on Environmental Quality Regulation 1500.2 establishes policy for 

federal agencies’ implementation of NEPA. Federal agencies shall, to the fullest 

extent possible, interpret and administer the policies, regulations, and public laws 

of the United States in accordance with the policies set forth in NEPA (sections 

101(b) and 102(1)); therefore, other acts and NPS policies are referenced as 

applicable in the following discussion. In addition, NPS Management Policies

address the application of NEPA to wilderness planning (NPS 2001a, 6.3.4.3). 

Alternative A—No Action, Existing Management Framework of 91 Lakes 

(62 Lakes Have Fish). This alternative partially meets the purposes because it 

currently provides for angling, a recreational use in the North Cascades Complex 

for approximately 1,000 mountain lake anglers per year (see “Methodology and 

Assumptions” in the “Visitor Use and Experience” section in the “Environmental 

Consequences” chapter). The stocking of fish in the mountain lakes is 

considered, by some, to be a renewable resource that provides a beneficial use for 

a portion of visitors to the North Cascades Complex. This use is highly treasured 

by the angling community, especially in light of the history of the fishery and its 
A LTERNATIVES

120 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

potential value to future generations. Alternative A does, however, involve 

continued risk and some unintended and undesirable consequences to the 

environment. As discussed in the “Environmental Consequences” chapter, 

alternative A would continue to cause impacts on native aquatic organisms, 

threatened and endangered species, sensitive vegetation, and wilderness values. 

These impacts are primarily associated with the current fishery management 

program that allows for continued existence of reproducing fish in naturally 

fishless lakes. 

Alternative B, Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New 

Framework (42 Lakes May Have Fish), Preferred Alternative. This 

alternative meets the purposes overall, to some degree, and only partially meets 

purpose four with respect to preserving a cultural aspect of our heritage (highlakes fishing) and with respect to individual choice. Some lakes would be 

available for fishing opportunities and some lakes would not, hence precluding 

opportunities and individual choice for some anglers. Alternative B would 

achieve a balance between population and resource use because it includes an 

adaptive management component (see the description of adaptive management in 

the “Elements Common to All Action Alternatives” section in this chapter). As 

discussed in the “Environmental Consequences” chapter, alternative B proposes 

to conserve biological integrity in lakes by eliminating or reducing reproducing 

fish populations. Elimination of reproducing fish populations would entail using 

various mechanical and chemical lake treatment methods, which may have 

unintended consequences; therefore, a small number of lakes would be treated 

and monitored in order to adjust the applied fish removal methods, if necessary. 

Select lakes would be stocked with low densities of fish that would not be 

capable of reproduction in order to prevent reestablishment of reproducing 

populations. Stocked fish would be native to the basin or incapable of 

reproduction to minimize potential downstream impacts. With these measures, 

alternative B meets the first purpose to a large degree; that is, it fulfills the 

responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding 

generations given that fish stocking would only occur when long-term impacts on 

the environment could be avoided or minimized. However, because alternative B 

proposes to continue a fish stocking program in naturally fishless lakes in the 

North Cascades Complex, it is not totally consistent with NPS Management 

Policies (NPS 2001a), which seek to preserve native biota and conserve 

biological integrity. Alternative B may also be viewed by some as inconsistent 

with the Wilderness Act because it continues a practice of fish stocking and 

human influence in a designated wilderness area. 

Alternative C, Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New 

Framework (11 National Recreation Area Lakes May Have Fish). This 

alternative meets all six purposes to some degree and only partially meets 

purpose four with respect to preserving a cultural aspect of our heritage (highlakes fishing) and with respect to individual choice. Some lakes in the national 

recreation areas would be available for fishing and some lakes would not, hence 

precluding opportunities and individual choice for some anglers. Nine 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 
Consistency with Sections 101(B) and 102(1) of NEPA 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 121

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. 

Similar to alternative B, some angling opportunities would be available but only 

in the mountain lakes located in the two national recreation areas. Alternative C 

would meet purpose four to a large degree because it would preserve important 

resources in the North Cascades Complex by returning a select number of 

mountain lakes to a fishless condition while maintaining a diversity of visitor 

experiences and variety of individual choices. With adaptive management 

practices applied to the lakes in the two national recreation areas, stocking would 

be allowed only if long-term impacts on the environment could be avoided or 

minimized. Some still may view fish stocking in the national recreation areas to 

be inconsistent with NPS Management Policies and the Wilderness Act because 

some of those lakes were naturally fishless, and human influences would 

continue in the Stephen T. Mather Wilderness. 

Alternative D (91 Lakes Would be Fishless). This alternative meets the stated 

purposes of NEPA sections 101(b) and 102(1) to a large degree. This alternative 

only partially meets purpose four with respect to preserving a cultural aspect of 

our heritage (high-lakes fishing) and with respect to individual choice. Some 

lakes would be available for fishing in the short term and some lakes would not, 

hence precluding opportunities and individual choice for some anglers. The 

intent of this alternative is that all mountain lakes in the national park and 

national recreation areas would eventually be fishless, although nine lakes have 

been identified where complete fish removal may not be feasible (see table 7). 

Alternative D also applies adaptive management practices to return lakes to a 

fishless condition, thus restoring natural processes and conserving biological 

integrity over the long term. Alternative D would eliminate angling in those lakes 

with reproducing fish populations, currently stocked lakes, or lakes proposed to 

be stocked under alternatives B and C; therefore, it does eliminate individual 

choice for those who value this experience in the national park and two national 

recreation areas. There would, however, still be fishing opportunities in the 

reservoirs and streams. After five years, the quality of sport-fishing opportunities 

in most of the 91 study area lakes may decline due to fish mortality and removal 

from angling pressure (WDFW, M. Downen, pers. comm., 2004). The rate of 

removal would depend on resource (funding and personnel) availability and 

differences among fish removal methods. Complete removal of reproducing fish 

populations might not be feasible in the nine larger, deeper lakes identified in 

table 7, and as a result, biological integrity may still be compromised to some 

degree. These lakes would continue to provide sport-fishing opportunities for the 

foreseeable future, and the goal of complete removal might never be achieved. 

There would be short-term consequences of this alternative because it proposes 

the use of mechanical and chemical methods to remove reproducing fish in a 

large number of lakes, which could involve impacts and unintended 

consequences. Treating a small number of lakes and adapting fish removal 

methods could avoid or minimize these consequences over the long term. 

Alternative D best meets the intent of NPS Management Policies in that it returns 

lakes to their naturally fishless condition, thereby conserving native biota and 

ecological processes. Some may also view this alternative as best meeting the 

requirements of the Wilderness Act in that, after returning lakes to a naturally 

fishless condition, human influences of fish stocking would be eliminated. 

However, illegal stocking may occur under this alternative. 
122 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

ENVIRONMENTALLY 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

The NPS is required to identify the environmentally preferred alternative in its 

NEPA documents for public review and comment. The NPS, in accordance with 

the Department of the Interior policies contained in the Department Manual 

(516 DM 4.10) and the Council on Environmental Quality’s Forty Questions, 

defines the environmentally preferred alternative (or alternatives) as the 

alternative that best promotes the national environmental policy expressed in 

NEPA (Section 101(b)) (516 DM 4.10). The Council on Environmental Quality’s 

Forty Questions (Q6a) further clarifies the identification of the environmentally 

preferred alternative stating, “simply put, this means the alternative that causes 

the least damage to the biological and physical environment; it also means the 

alternative which best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and 

native processes.” Alternative D (91 Lakes Would Be Fishless) best protects the 

biological and physical environment by eliminating the consequences of stocked 

and reproducing fish populations over the long term. It is acknowledged, 

however, that angling in the mountain lakes has been a long-standing historic and 

cultural practice that would be eliminated through implementation of 

alternative D. The WDFW does not agree that alternative D is the 

environmentally preferred alternative because it does not strike any balance 

between protecting biological integrity and preserving historic processes. 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 123 TABLE 14: 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) Alternative C Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (11 National Recreation Area Lakes May Have Fish) 

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 14: ALTERNATIVES ELEMENTS 

SUMMARY (CONTINUED) 

124 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) Alternative C Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (11 National Recreation Area Lakes May Have Fish) 

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 shown above 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 14: ALTERNATIVES ELEMENTS SUMMARY (CONTINUED)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 125 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) Alternative C Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (11 National Recreation Area Lakes May Have Fish) 

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

(

• W

(
TABLE 14: ALTERNATIVES ELEMENTS 

SUMMARY (CONTINUED) 

126 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) Alternative C Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (11 National Recreation Area Lakes May Have Fish) 

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 14: ALTERNATIVES ELEMENTS SUMMARY (CONTINUED)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 127 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) Alternative C Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (11 National Recreation Area Lakes May Have Fish) 

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 14: ALTERNATIVES ELEMENTS 

SUMMARY (CONTINUED) 

128 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) Alternative C Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (11 National Recreation Area Lakes May Have Fish) 

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. Fish 

stricton otand vI). Cost 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. Apprnext 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 129

TABLE 15: 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 15: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES (CONTINUED) 

130 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 15: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES (CONTINUED)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 131 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 15: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES (CONTINUED) 

132 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 15: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES (CONTINUED)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 133 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 15: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES (CONTINUED) 

134 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 15: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES (CONTINUED)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 135 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 15: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES (CONTINUED) 

136 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 15: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES (CONTINUED)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 137 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 15: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES (CONTINUED) 

138 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 15: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES (CONTINUED)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 139 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 15: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES (CONTINUED) 

140 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 15: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES (CONTINUED)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 141 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 15: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES (CONTINUED) 

142 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 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 143

TABLE 16: ANALYSES OF 

HOW 

ALTERNATIVES 

MEET 

OBJECTIVES 

Objectives 

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) 

91 

(E

Obtain support from interested parties and groups to implement a new management plan for mountain lakes in the North Cascades Complex should the governing agencies decide a new plan is needed. 

Meets objective to some degree. Some groups/parties would support a new management framework, but others may not depending on their individual views on protection of North Cascades Complex resources and values and availability of angling opportunities. 

Meets objective to some degree. Some groups/parties would support a new management framework, but others may not depending on their individual views on protection of North Cascades Complex resources and values and availability of angling opportunities. 

Meets objective to some degree. Some groups/ parties would support a new management framework, but others may not depending on their individual views on protection of North Cascades Complex resources and values and availability of angling opportunities. 

MeetSomsuppframdepeviewCascand vangli

Advance the protection and rehabilitation of native biological integrity by maintaining native species abundance, viability, and sustainability. 

Does not fully meet objective. Reproducing populations of fish would continue to exist in naturally fishless lakes, adaptive management practices would not be fully implemented, and stocking would continue to impact native biota. 

Fully meets objective. Adaptive management strategies would remove populations of reproducing fish that are adversely impacting native biota in the park and recreation areas. 

Fully meets objective. Adaptive management strategies would remove populations of reproducing fish that are adversely impacting native biota in the park. Adaptive management would be applied in the recreation areas to remove reproducing populations of fish and restocking lakes, as appropriate, with nonreproducing fish or fish native to the watersheds. 

Fully woulnatupark therespecsustamou

Provide a spectrum of recreational opportunities, including sport fishing, while minimizing impacts on the biological integrity of natural mountain lakes. 

Meets objective to some degree. A spectrum of recreational opportunities would continue, including sport fishing; however, the impacts of the current program would continue to adversely affect native biota and biological integrity of natural mountain lakes. 

Meets objective to a large degree. Application of adaptive management strategies would remove reproducing fish that harm native biota, while restocking lakes with low densities of nonreproducing fish or fish native to the watersheds. Some lakes in both the park and recreation areas would remain available for angling while minimizing the impacts of stocking through adaptive management practices over the long term. Some illegal stocking in lakes returned to a fishless condition may occur. 

Meets objective to some degree. Mountain lakes in the park would be returned to their naturally fishless condition over time. Some illegal stocking of fish in park lakes may occur. Lakes in the recreation areas would be treated to remove populations of reproducing fish, and some would be restocked to allow for angling opportunities. 

Does mourecretreatnatuAnglavailthe pspan resestill bstockoccu
TABLE 16: ANALYSES OF 

HOW 

ALTERNATIVES 

MEET (CONTINUED) 

144 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN Objectives 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 in the National Park and National Recreation Areas May Have Fish) Alternative C: Proposed Adaptive Management of 91 Lakes under a New Framework (11 Lakes in the National Recreation Areas May Have Fish) A

Apply science and research in decision-making at multiple spatial scales that include landscape, watershed, lake cluster, and individual lakes. Does not fully meet objective. While the current program does apply available science and good practices to some degree, it does not systematically apply adaptive management at a landscape, watershed, lake cluster, or individual lake scale. Meets objective to a large degree. Adaptive management strategies would be applied with evolving science and knowledge as lakes are returned to their naturally fishless conditions. Lakes would be treated using mechanical, chemical, or natural methods to remove reproducing populations of fish while minimizing impacts on native biota. Lakes identified for restocking would be monitored and prescriptions adjusted depending upon how well native biota respond to treatment and stocking over the long term. Meets objective to a large degree. Similar to alternative B, adaptive management strategies would be applied throughout the lakes; however, only those lakes in the recreation areas would be identified for restocking. Lakes would be treated by mechanical, chemical, or natural methods to remove reproducing populations of fish while minimizing impacts on native biota. Lakes in the recreation areas identified for restocking would be monitored and prescriptions adjusted depending upon how well native biota respond to treatment and stocking over the long term. Meet

degrstratfish anatuthrourecretreator nareprowhile nativ

Provide to the public and interested parties full and open access to available information. Does not meet objective. While information is available, it is not systematically and consistently provided to the public and interested parties. Fully meets objective. As adaptive management strategies are applied and knowledge gained, outcomes would be made available to the public through various media. If monitoring revealed that a change in strategies would be necessary, the public and interested parties would be notified, and additional opportunity for public input would be provided. Fully meets objective. As adaptive management strategies are applied and knowledge gained, outcomes would be made available to the public through various media. If monitoring revealed that a change in strategies would be necessary, the public and interested parties would be notified, and additional opportunity for public input would be provided. Fully 

adapare againemadthroumonchanneceinternotifioppobe p