Consultation

and

Coordination
You are now in the "Consultation and Coordination" chapter.

Here are the topics you can read about.

HISTORY O F P UBLIC I NVOLVEMENT 457

TH E S COPING P ROCESS 457

A GENCY C ONSULTATION 459

LIST O F P REPARERS AND C ONSULTANTS 463

LIST OF RECIPIENTS 465

TECHNICAL A DVISORY C OMMITTEE CHARTER

MOUNTAIN L AKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

AND E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT S TATEMENT 468

Welcome
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 457

HISTORY OF 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

The public involvement activities for this Mountain Lakes Fishery Management 

Plan / Environmental Impact Statement (plan/EIS) fulfill the requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and National Park Service (NPS) 

Director’s Order 12 (NPS 2001b). 

THE SCOPING PROCESS 

The National Park Service divides the scoping process into two parts: internal 

scoping and external (public) scoping. Internal scoping for this plan/EIS involved 

discussions among NPS personnel regarding issues, management alternatives, 

mitigation measures, the analysis boundary, appropriate level of documentation, 

lead and cooperating agency roles, available references and guidance, defining 

the purpose and need for management actions, and other related dialogue. 

Public scoping is the early involvement of the interested and affected public in 

the environmental analysis process. The public scoping process helps ensure that 

people have been given an opportunity to comment and contribute early in the 

decision-making process. For this plan/EIS, project information was distributed 

to individuals, agencies, and organizations early in the scoping process, and 

people were given opportunities to express concerns or views and identify 

important issues or even other alternatives. 

Taken together, internal and public scoping are essential elements of the NEPA 

planning process. The following sections describe the various ways the NPS 

conducted internal and public scoping for this plan/EIS. 

I NTERNAL S COPING

This process began on July 16, 2002, at North Cascades Complex Headquarters 

in Sedro-Woolley, Washington. During the two-day meeting, the NPS identified 

the purpose of and need for action, management objectives, issues, and impact 

topics. It was determined that a Technical Advisory Committee should be 

established to ensure an interdisciplinary, science-based approach to 

management. Various roles and responsibilities for developing the fishery 

management plan were also clarified, including the need for the Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to be a cooperating agency. The 

results of the meetings were captured in an internal scoping report, now on file as 

part of the administrative record. 

On October 1, 2002, the NPS and WDFW met to discuss the proposed plan/EIS. 

The discussions included an overview of the NEPA process, a clarification of the 

purpose of the environmental impact statement and its relationship to a mountain 

lakes fishery management plan, and the composition and function of the 

Technical Advisory Committee. During the meeting, information gaps and data 
C ONSULTATION AND C OORDINATION

458 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

management needs were identified, and it was agreed that public scoping and the 

environmental impact analysis process should be initiated. 

Following the first NPS/WDFW coordination meeting, a Technical Advisory 

Committee of subject matter experts was chartered to advise and provide 

technical recommendations to the NPS on matters regarding scientific data and 

analysis. The committee met periodically to review and supplement necessary 

background information and data needed for this plan/EIS. The committee also 

recommended impact analysis techniques and various management options and 

provided technical review of draft documents related to this plan/EIS process. 

The first of eight Technical Advisory Committee meetings for this plan/EIS was 

held on November 14, 2002. 

Members of the 

Technical Advisory Committee 

National Park Service, Environmental Quality Division 

National Park Service, North Cascades Complex 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

P UBLIC S COPING

Public scoping formally began on January 16, 2003, with the Federal Register

publication of the notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact 

statement (Federal Register Vol. 68 (11), pp. 2355–2356). The notice of intent 

summarized the history of fishery management in the North Cascades Complex, 

discussed preliminary issues and management actions, listed the project website 

(www.nps.gov/NOCA/highlakes.htm), and announced the public scoping 

meetings. A number of federal, state, local, and tribal entities were directly 

contacted, as well as organizations expressing an interest in the plan/EIS. 

In March 2003, the NPS and WDFW held four public scoping meetings to 

discuss issues and management alternatives for this plan/EIS. 

The Washington State locations for the four public scoping meetings were 

Sedro-Woolley, March 18, 2003 (21 people attended) 

Wenatchee, March 20, 2003 (5 people attended) 

Bellevue, March 25, 2003 (21 people attended) 

Seattle, March 27, 2003 (25 people attended) 

The two- to three-hour scoping meetings were held in an open house format. The 

meetings began with a 30-minute presentation in which NPS and WDFW 

biologists discussed preliminary issues, the EIS process, and expectations for the 

meeting. Following the presentation, the participants broke into smaller work 
History of Public Involvement 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 459

groups where facilitators assisted in discussions about issues, objectives, and 

preliminary alternatives. Public comments and concerns were recorded. The 

public comment period ended on April 18, 2003. 

Issues and concerns were captured at public meetings and in subsequent written 

comments and emails. A Public Scoping Report was prepared based on these 

comments and is part of the administrative record for this plan/EIS. Formally, the 

NPS received more than 160 comments during the scoping meetings and from 

letters sent to the NPS. 

The NPS used these comments in developing this plan/EIS. Based in part on 

public comment, the Technical Advisory Committee determined the need to 

perform the lake-by-lake analysis because each lake is so unique. Criteria used in 

the lake-by-lake analysis included fishing potential ratings assigned by user 

groups. The public also expressed a concern that the analysis occur on a 

landscape scale, so the Technical Advisory Committee took a broad look at lakes 

in the North Cascades Complex and selected a representative number of lakes to 

remain fishless under each alternative (see the “Alternatives” chapter for details 

about the alternatives). 

Public Notification 

The notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement was published 

in the Federal Register on January 16, 2003. 

A brochure was mailed in early March 2003 to the project’s preliminary mailing 

list of government agencies, organizations, businesses, and individuals. The 

brochure summarized the purpose of and need for a fishery management plan for 

the North Cascades Complex, the objectives for this plan/EIS, and history of 

mountain lakes fishery management. The brochure also contained important 

information (dates/times/locations) about the public scoping meetings. 

A project website (www.nps.gov/noca/highlakes.htm) was created in January 

2003 and is periodically updated with new information. 

A news release for the public scoping meetings was sent on February 14, 2003, to 

the following news media: Seattle Times, Seattle Post Intelligencer, Chelan 

Mirror, Wenatchee World, Associated Press, Everett Herald, River Post, Argus, 

Spokane Chronicle, Bellingham Herald, Skagit Valley Herald, and Lynden 

Tribune. 

AGENCY CONSULTATION 

USDA—F OREST S ERVICE

Mount Baker-Snoqualmie, Wenatchee, and Okanogan National Forests adjoin the 

North Cascades Complex. The Forest supervisors for these units have been 

regularly briefed on research results and the planning process. The forests have 

chosen not to be directly involved in the planning process for this plan/EIS, 
C ONSULTATION AND C OORDINATION

460 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

having stated that the WDFW manages the mountain lakes fishery on Forest 

Service lands. 

W ASHINGTON 

D EPARTMENT OF F ISH AND W ILDLIFE

Consultation with the WDFW began with a meeting in Sedro-Woolley, 

Washington, on October 1, 2002. During the meeting, it was determined that 

Mark Downen, inland fisheries biologist, would be the principal representative 

for the department. Mr. Downen requested that Bob Pfeifer, currently with the 

WDFW (formerly an inland fisheries management biologist and high lakes 

fishery manager with WDFW), also be involved because of his extensive 

experience in mountain lakes fishery management. The WDFW agreed to serve 

as a cooperating agency in the NEPA process. The regional director for the 

WDFW, Bob Everitt, is the principal contact for policy issues, and the inland 

fisheries biologist, Mark Downen, is the contact for technical issues. The 

correspondence documenting the role of the department as a cooperating agency 

is contained in the project’s administrative record. 

On July 17, 2003, Roy Zipp, Natural Resources Specialist of the North Cascades 

Complex, consulted with Cynthia Pratt, the WDFW coordinator for Washington 

State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) and NEPA issues, to determine 

whether the NEPA process would suffice for the Washington SEPA. Ms. Pratt 

followed up the phone conversation in writing with SEPA-related materials and 

guidance for producing an environmental impact statement that meets the SEPA 

requirements. 

U.S. E NVIRONMENTAL 

P ROTECTION A GENCY

Discussions with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began 

following their review of the notice of intent. Tom Connor, EPA environmental 

specialist, requested (via a telephone conversation with Roy Zipp on March 6, 

2003) that he be included in all email correspondence. Mr. Connor also requested 

that the NPS include in their impact analysis (1) water quality, nonnative fish as 

pollutants; and (2) impacts to bull trout from downstream dispersal. Mr. Connor 

also recommended consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service. Since that initial phone call, Mr. Connor was 

included on all email correspondence, including Technical Advisory Committee 

discussions. In a subsequent phone conversation between Roy Zipp and Tom 

Connor on July 17, 2003, Mr. Connor and Mr. Zipp discussed the need to 

document, in writing, that EPA had been consulted. Mr. Connor said that such 

written documentation was not necessary; continued dialogue via email would 

suffice, and he was looking forward to reviewing the draft plan/EIS. 

U.S. F ISH AND W ILDLIFE S ERVICE

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was first notified of the proposed plan/EIS 

for the North Cascades Complex at the start of the scoping process. Letters were 
History of Public Involvement 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 461

sent to several regional offices and various personnel. No comments or feedback 

were received. Informal consultations with the service began in the summer of 

2003, with a written request for an up-to-date species list and any information on 

the current status on the westslope cutthroat trout. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service requires a biological assessment that evaluates the impacts of proposed 

actions on listed species. They also recommended evaluating impacts to 

candidate species, since those species could be listed in the future. The service 

suggested that federal agencies, particularly the NPS, should be proactive in its 

efforts to prevent listing of species. Both the letter of request from the NPS and 

the reply from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are included in appendix C. 

Also included in appendix C are tables listing special status species in the North 

Cascades Complex. Discussions with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

continue, with Linda Saunders as the principal contact. 

N ATIONAL M ARINE F ISHERIES S ERVICE

Informal consultations with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA 

Fisheries) began in the summer of 2003 with a telephone conversation with Tom 

Sibley of the Habitat Conservation Division. Mr. Sibley recommended that the 

NPS evaluate impacts to Chinook salmon (threatened) and Coho salmon 

(candidate). When asked if the National Marine Fisheries Service would like to 

receive a written request for their input, Mr. Sibley stated that the phone dialogue 

would suffice and pledged further technical assistance with the biological 

assessment, as needed. 

N ATIVE A MERICAN T RIBES

A public scoping letter requesting input was sent to the following tribes on 

March 31, 2003: Yakama Nation, Skagit System Cooperative, Nlakapamux 

National Tribal Council, Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Nooksack Tribal Office, and 

Colville Confederated Tribes. Mr. Larry Campbell, of the Swinomish Tribe, was 

the single tribal representative who responded during public scoping. Mr. 

Campbell expressed the concern that if any ground disturbance could occur from 

high lakes fishing activities, there should be compliance with section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act. 

Further consultations with the Skagit and Swinomish tribes were conducted by 

park archeologist, Bob Mierendorf, to determine whether or not the widespread 

belief that stocking is a modern practice that was not performed by native people. 

All responded that they had never heard of stocking prior to European settlement, 

though several individuals suggested it might have been possible. Based on this 

response, the decision was made to dismiss ethnographic resources, including the 

cultural practice of stocking, as an issue in this plan/EIS. 

W ASHINGTON S TATE

H ISTORIC P RESERVATION O FFICE

The Washington State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was consulted in the 

summer of 2003 regarding their cultural resource and ethnographic concerns 
C ONSULTATION AND C OORDINATION

462 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

related to mountain lakes fishery management. The SHPO did not envision any 

concerns for the various actions under consideration but expressed interest in 

receiving appropriate correspondence. 

U.S. G EOLOGICAL S URVEY

Early in the planning process, the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) Forest Range 

and Experiment Station expressed its decision to not be involved in this plan/EIS 

in order to maintain scientific objectivity. This is because scientists from the 

USGS and Oregon State University completed a long-term research study to 

determine how continued stocking practices would affect native biota in 

mountain lakes in the North Cascades Complex (see the “Purpose of and Need 

for Action” chapter for a summary of how that research was used in this 

plan/EIS). Informal discussions with various staff members from the U.S. 

Geological Service have occurred throughout the planning process. These 

discussions have served to clarify elements of their research findings and on 

gathering additional data and information to support this plan/EIS. 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 463

LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 

Name Title Education/ Responsibility Experience 

National Park Service 

Roy Zipp Natural Resource 

Specialist 

B.A. Biology / Chemistry, M.S. 

Environmental Management (emphasis in 

water and air resources). Responsible for: 

park lead for project oversight; member, 

Technical Advisory Committee. 

10 years 

Ronald C. Holmes Ecologist/Data Manager M.S. Terrestrial Ecology. Responsible 

for: member, Technical Advisory 

Committee; compiling and maintaining 

mountain lakes database. 

30 years 

Reed Glesne Supervisory Aquatic 

Ecologist 

B.S. Natural Resources, 

M.S. Biology. Responsible for: member, 

Technical Advisory Committee; technical 

review. 

30 years 

David Jacob Environmental Protection 

Specialist 

J.D., Law; B.A., History. Responsible for: 

background / history and policy 

2 years 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Mark Downen Inland Fisheries Biologist B.S., M.S. Environmental Science. 

Responsible for: member, Technical 

Advisory Committee; technical review. 

6 years 

Bob Pfeifer (formerly 

with Parametrix) 

Inland Fisheries 

Management Biologist, 

Habitat Biologist 

B.S., Biology, M.S., Fisheries. 

Responsible for: member, Technical 

Advisory Committee; technical review. 

32 years 

URS Corporation

Nancy Van Dyke Senior Consultant B.A. Biology and Geography, M.S. 

Environmental Sciences. Responsible for: 

aquatic organisms, wildlife, special status 

species, general technical review

25 years 

Patti Steinholtz Writer / Editor, 

Communication 

Technician, and NEPA 

Planner. 

B.A. Communications and English. 

Responsible for: general technical review.

9 years 

Kim Cornelisse Staff Wildlife Biologist B.A. Biology. Responsible for: wildlife, 

special status species.

7 years 

Wesley Toland Staff Scientist B.S. Environmental Studies. Responsible 

for: chapter 2 and appendix table reviews.

4 years 

Rob Nielsen Project Fisheries / Wildlife 

Biologist

Ph.D. Fisheries, M.S. Fisheries, B.S. 

Fisheries and Wildlife Science. 

Responsible for: fisheries/wildlife biology 

and habitat analysis.

30 years 

Eric Doyle Fisheries Biologist, 

Aquatic Ecologist

B.S. Marine Biology, Chemistry, M.M.A. 

Marine Affairs. Responsible for: 

developing the impacts assessment for 

plankton and macroinvertebrates.

7 years 
C ONSULTATION A ND C OORDINATION

464 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

Name Title Education/ Responsibility Experience 

Thomas G. Campbell Senior Project Ecologist B.S. Zoology, M.S. Marine Biology. 

Responsible for: coauthor of the 

monitoring plan and data consistency 

review. 

28 years 

TQ NEPA 

Heidi West Principal B.S. Biology, M.A. Science 

Communication, M.S. Biology, 

Ph.D. Environmental Science 

and Engineering. Responsible 

for: technical review. 

22 years 

Kathryn Joyner Senior Analyst B.S. Education, M.A. 

Archeology/Anthropology. 

Responsible for: cultural 

resources. 

22 years 

Erin Bissell Natural Resources Analyst B.S. Biology, Ph.D. Biology in 

progress. Responsible for: 

vegetation sections. 

7 years 

RED, Inc. Communications

Susan Hale Lead Technical Editor Elementary Education, undergraduate courses. Responsible 

for: technical editing and 

publication management and 

coordination. 

36 years 

Juanita Barboa Technical Editor B.S. Technical Communication. 

Responsible for: technical 

editing and publication 

management and coordination. 

14 years 

Cheryl Priest Desktop Publisher / Text 

Processor 

Denver Medical and Business 

College. Responsible for: 

formatting and layout. 

14 years 

Matt Look Graphic Artist A.S. Graphic Design. 

Responsible for: map design, 

photo manipulation and design, 

and figure development. 

10 years 

Roy Reynolds Illustrator Art Center School. Responsible 

for: illustrations. 

41 years 

Kim Jacobson Graphic Artist B.F.A Graphic Design. 

Responsible for: cover and 

divider design. 

24 years 
List of Recipients

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 465

LIST OF RECIPIENTS 

This plan/EIS was sent to the agencies, organizations, and businesses listed 

below. This document was also mailed to other entities and individuals who 

requested a copy. 

F EDERAL D EPARTMENTS AND A GENCIES 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Forest Service, Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest 

U.S. Forest Service, Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests 

U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division 

T RIBAL G OVERNMENTS

AND O RGANIZATIONS

Nooksack Tribal Council 

Sauk-Suiattle Tribe 

Swinomish Indian Tribal Community 

Upper Skagit Tribal Council 

S TATE OF W ASHINGTON G OVERNMENT

United States Senate 

Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Honorable Patty Murray 

United States House of Representatives 

Honorable Doc Hastings, District 4 

Honorable Rick Larsen, District 2 

Honorable Norm Dicks, District 6 
C ONSULTATION AND C OORDINATION

466 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

Washington State Senate 

Honorable Linda Evans Parlette, 12th District 

Honorable Mary Margaret Haugen, 10th District 

Honorable Val Stevens, 39th District 

Harriet Spanel, 40th District 

Dale Brandland, 42nd District 

House of Representatives 

Honorable Barry Sehlin, 10th District 

Honorable Barbara Bailey, 10th District 

Honorable Cary Condotta, 12th District 

Honorable Mike Armstrong, 12th District 

Honorable Dan Kristiansen, 39th District 

Honorable Kirk Pearson, 39th District 

Honorable Dave Quall, 40th District 

Honorable Jeff Morris, 40th District 

Honorable Doug Ericksen, 42nd District 

Honorable Kelli Linville, 42nd District 

S TATE OF W ASHINGTON A GENCIES

Washington Department of Ecology 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

State Historic Preservation Office 

W ASHINGTON C OUNTIES

Mayor, City of Chelan 

Mayor, City of Sedro-Woolley 

Mayor, City of Mount Vernon 

Mayor, City of Wenatchee 

Chelan County Commissioners 

Skagit County Commissioners 

Whatcom County Commissioners 

S TATE OF O REGON

Oregon State University, Forest Sciences Laboratory 
List of Recipients 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 467

O RGANIZATIONS 

AND B USINESSES 

Darrington Pharmacy 

Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund 

Kettle Range Conservation Group 

King County Outdoor Sports Council 

National Parks and Conservation Association 

North Cascades Conservation Council 

Seattle City Light 

Sierra Club, Cascades Chapter 

Student Conservation Assn. Inc. 

The Henry M. Jackson Foundation 

The Mountaineers 

The Nature Conservancy 

The Wilderness Society, Washington Chapter 

Trail Blazers, Inc. 

Trout Unlimited 

University of Washington School of Aquatic Fishery Science 

Washington Outfitters & Guide Association 

Washington State Hi-Lakers 

Washington State Sportsmen’s Council 

Washington Trout 

Washington Wilderness Coalition 

Western Land Exchange Project 

Wilderness Watch, Montana 

M EDIA AND P UBLICATIONS

Bellingham Herald 

Skagit Valley Herald 

The Herald 

The Wenatchee World 

SIGNPOST Magazine 

Seattle Times-Science/Environmental Reporter 

C ANADA

British Columbia Ministry of Air, Land, and Water Protection
468 DRAFT MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

TECHNICAL ADVISORY 

COMMITTEE CHARTER FOR 

THE MOUNTAIN LAKES 

FISHERY MANAGEMENT 

PLAN AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT STATEMENT 

Mission: To advise and provide recommendations to the managers of the North 

Cascades National Park Service Complex on matters regarding fisheries data and 

analysis for a mountain lake fishery management plan and environmental impact 

statement. 

Nature of Involvement: The committee will meet periodically for the duration 

of this environmental impact statement project to review and supplement 

necessary background information and data needed for the completion of an 

environmental impact statement. In addition, the committee will suggest analysis 

techniques and a range of management options that should be addressed as part 

of completing a defensible, resource-based planning process. Also, the committee 

will be asked to review draft documents related to the environmental impact 

statement process. 

Members: Mark Downen (WDFW); Reed Glesne, Ron Holmes, Roy Zipp, 

Regina Rochefort (North Cascades Complex); Gary Larson (USGS-BRD); Bob 

Hoffman, Bill Liss (Oregon State University); Rob Nielsen (URS Corporation); 

Bob Pfeifer (WDFW); John Wullschleger (NPS/WRD); Facilitator; Recorder. 

F UNCTIONS

1. To refine and further define the nature and scope (spatial/temporal) of 

ecological issues.

1

 

2. To identify and recommend reasonable fishery management actions for park 

management to consider in developing alternatives for analyses. 

3. To provide data to assist the park in describing the affected environment1

 for 

the environmental impact statement. 

 

1. The italicized words are part of the standard lexicon of the NEPA process; they are defined in the 

“Definitions” section below. 
Technical Advisory Committee Charter 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 469

4. To assist in developing impact analysis1 methodologies based upon best 

available science. 

5. To review and comment on the analyses of environmental consequences1

 of 

management actions. 

6. To provide technical guidance on presentations for public meetings. 

7. To review and comment on the draft environmental impact statement and 

related documents. 

D EFINITIONS

Issue – An environmental problem or relationship between a resource and an 

action. In an environmental impact statement, an issue is defined in the form of 

an Issue Statement that describes the resource(s) that would be affected by an 

action. Example: Anglers trample lakeshore vegetation. 

Affected Environment – Resources expected to experience environmental 

impacts. The boundary or area for each resource must be delineated; it will vary 

substantially among resources. Example: riparian vegetation. For this 

environmental impact statement, the “boundary” for riparian vegetation might 

include all riparian vegetation around mountain lakes within the park. 

Impact Analysis – The formal, objective process of predicting the degree to 

which a resource will be affected by each alternative. The prediction must 

include considerations of context, intensity, duration, and timing. Direct, indirect, 

and cumulative impacts must be analyzed. 

Environmental Consequences – The direct, indirect, and cumulative 

consequences (impacts) of alternatives.