US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

RECORD OF DECISION

MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

North Cascades National Park Service Complex

INTRODUCTION

The Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS), has prepared this Record of 

Decision (ROD) for the Final Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Plan and Environmental 

Impact Statement (Plan/Final EIS) for North Cascades National Park, Ross Lake National 

Recreation Area, and Lake Chelan National Recreation Area (collectively administered as the 

“North Cascades Complex”). This ROD includes a statement of the decision made (the Selected 

Action), synopses of other alternatives considered, the basis for the decision, a description of the 

environmentally preferred alternative, a discussion of why the Selected Action will not cause 

impairment of resources or values, a listing of measures to minimize environmental harm, and an 

overview of public and agency involvement in the decision-making process.

The entire North Cascades Complex makes up the geographical study area for this Plan/Final 

EIS; however, the focus of this ROD is the 91 naturally fishless mountain lakes that have 

documented stocking records, including those where no stocking records exist but where 

observations or harvest of fish have been documented. 

The purpose of the Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Plan is to guide cooperative fishery 

management actions by the NPS and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in order to: 

Conserve native biological integrity; 
2

Provide a spectrum of recreational opportunities and visitor experiences, including sport 

fishing; and

Resolve the long-standing debate and conflicts over fish stocking in the naturally fishless 

mountain lakes in the North Cascades Complex.

The Plan/FEIS applies the results of long-term research into the ecological effects of fish 

stocking as directed in 1986 by the Director of the National Park Service, and in 1987 by the 

Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. It also satisfies the terms of a 

1991 Consent Decree between the North Cascades Conservation Council and the National Park 

Service. The Consent Decree required the NPS to conduct an environmental impact analysis of 

fish stocking upon completion of ecological research.

BACKGROUND

All of the 245 natural mountain lakes in the present day boundaries of the North Cascades 

Complex were historically barren of fish. In the late 1800s settlers began stocking the lakes with 

various species of nonnative trout for food and recreation. By the 20th century, fish stocking had 

become a routine practice. In 1933, the Washington Department of Game (now Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife; “WDFW’) assumed responsibility for stocking mountain lakes 

throughout the state to create and maintain a recreational fishery. WDFW worked cooperatively 

with the U.S. Forest Service on fish and wildlife management, including fish stocking, on U.S. 

Forest Service lands within the present day boundaries of the North Cascades Complex.

After North Cascades National Park Service Complex was established in 1968 (Public Law 90-

544), a conflict over fish stocking in North Cascades National Park emerged between the NPS 

and WDFW. The conflict was driven in part by a state versus federal jurisdictional dispute over 

fish and wildlife management authority, and by fundamental policy differences: NPS policies 

prohibited stocking in order to protect native ecosystems; WDFW policies encouraged stocking 

to enhance fishing opportunities. Early attempts by the NPS to phase out stocking in the national 

park portion of the North Cascades Complex were abandoned in the face of strong objections by 

the State of Washington. 
3

The NPS in the mid-1980’s renewed its attempts to eliminate stocking of mountain lakes, and 

this action rekindled the dispute between the NPS and the State of Washington. The dispute was 

temporarily settled by former National Park Service Director William Mott, who in 1986 issued 

a policy variance that authorized stocking to continue, but only in lakes that had been previously 

stocked. The policy variance also directed the park superintendent to conduct ecological research 

to provide an informed basis for management of fish stocking in the future. The policy variance, 

however, did not settle the disagreement between the NPS and WDFW, and the dispute over fish 

stocking intensified. 

In 1987, William Horn, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife and Parks 

intervened to settle the dispute. The Assistant Secretary negotiated an agreement between the 

NPS and WDFW that authorized fish stocking to continue in certain lakes. The agreement also 

stipulated that the results of research into the ecological impacts of stocking would be used to 

“support development of a publicly reviewed recreational fishery management plan.” That 

following year the NPS and WDFW formalized the agreement negotiated by the Assistant 

Secretary. The agreement, referred to as a “Supplemental Agreement” to a 1985 Memorandum 

of Understanding (MOU) between the NPS and WDFW, established an interim list of 40 lakes in 

North Cascades National Park that the WDFW would manage for recreational fishing as part of 

its high lakes fishery management program. The Supplemental Agreement also helped to initiate 

formally a long-term research study through Oregon State University and the USGS Biological 

Resources Division to understand the ecological effects of fish stocking. 

In 1988, the Washington Park’s Wilderness Act (Public Law 100-668) was signed into law. 

Title II of the Act designated approximately 634,000 acres of the North Cascades Complex 

(94%) as the Stephen Mather Wilderness Area. Ninety out of the 91 naturally fishless mountain 

lakes that are the focus of this record of decision are within the Stephen Mather Wilderness. 

The North Cascades Conservation Council (N3C) in 1989 sued the NPS in regard to various 

management plans for Lake Chelan National Recreation Area. The lawsuit claimed the NPS had 

failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act by not adequately assessing the 

long-term effects of various management actions. The NPS and N3C settled the lawsuit in a 
4

1991 Consent Decree. One element of the Consent Decree stipulated that upon completion of the 

ecological research into the impacts of fish stocking, the NPS would “conduct a [National 

Environmental Policy Act] review of the fish stocking of naturally fish-free lakes.” 

In 2002, Oregon State University and the USGS Biological Resources Division completed their 

long-term research into the ecological effects of fish stocking, and in January 2003 the NPS 

began preparation of a Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Plan/Environmental Impact 

Statement. 

The Final Plan/EIS fulfills the research-informed policy mandates issued in 1986 by the Director 

of the National Park Service, and the adaptive management intent of the Supplemental 

Agreement between the NPS and WDFW negotiated in 1987 by the Assistant Secretary of the 

Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. The Final Plan/EIS also fulfills the directive of the 

1991 Consent Decree between the NPS and the North Cascades Conservation Council. 

Moreover, the Final Plan/EIS meets the minimum requirement for administration of the Stephen 

Mather Wilderness Area in accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the Washington 

Parks Wilderness Act of 1988.

DECISION (SELECTED ACTION)

The NPS will implement Management Alternative B, the Preferred Alternative as identified and 

analyzed in the Final Plan/EIS, and described fully in Chapter II of the Final Mountain Lakes 

Fishery Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement released in July 2008. There 

are no changes or modifications incorporated herein. The specific management action for each 

of the 91 lakes governed by the Selected Action is provided in Appendix A, Tables I and II. 

The mountain lakes will be managed according to the following general criteria: 

A lake that is fishless today will remain fishless in the future.

Reproducing populations of fish that have achieved high densities will be removed from 

all lakes where feasible. Following removal, the biological conditions of the lakes will be 

monitored for recovery of native species that may have been affected by fish. Monitoring 
5

results will be used to decide whether or not some lakes will be stocked with low 

densities of nonreproducing fish. 

Lakes that provide high-quality breeding and rearing habitat for amphibians and are 

located within the range of long-toed salamanders, will be returned to a fishless 

condition, or low densities of nonreproducing fish will be allowed to remain if no other 

management criteria apply. 

Research indicates that certain lakes have complex habitat conditions, such as extensive 

shallow areas and woody debris, which 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 (i.e. together in the same area; for example, 

Coon Lake), nonreproducing fish may continue to be stocked at low densities. 

Certain lakes will be managed to remain fishless due to unique biological or geophysical 

features including (a) the presence of a species of conservation concern; (b) large, deep 

lakes in fishless conditions (such lakes are underrepresented in the North Cascades 

Complex); (c) geologically unique lakes; and (d) geographically isolated lakes. 

Geographically isolated lakes will remain fishless to protect metapopulations

(geographically separate populations connected by infrequent but essential interbreeding 

with nearby populations) of salamanders. A lake is considered isolated if (1) it is more 

than 2,000 feet from other permanent water bodies; (2) it is within the range of long-toed 

salamanders; and (3) there is no evidence that salamanders and fish can survive 

sympatrically (i.e. together in the same habitat).

Benthic (bottom-dwelling) macroinvertebrate monitoring data indicate that certain lakes 

have suppressed populations of macroinvertebrates, presumably caused by fish predation. 

A lake with suppressed populations of macroinvertebrates will become fishless (by 

discontinuing stocking or removing reproducing populations of fish if feasible), or will be 

evaluated further (if data are presently lacking) before taking further management action.

In closely grouped lakes, fishless conditions in at least one lake will be maintained to 

provide fishless habitat for aquatic organisms in the localized area.

Where key information and data are currently insufficient for a given lake, the lake will 

be monitored and evaluated before implementing management actions (e.g. stocking).
6

The Selected Action will eliminate high densities of reproducing fish populations from up to 27 

lakes using several methods of fish removal including: (a) spawning habitat exclusion (to break 

the cycle of reproduction in lakes with limited spawning habitat); (b) gill netting combined with 

electrofishing and trapping; and (c) application of the piscicide antimycin, an EPA-registered 

piscicide (fish toxicant) that has been used to remove successfully nonnative fish from lakes and 

streams in other NPS units such as Rocky Mountain National Park, Great Basin National Park, 

Crater Lake National Park, and Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Fish removal using 

antimycin will begin in summer, 2009 in Middle and Lower Blum Lakes. The effectiveness of 

fish removal in these lakes will be carefully evaluated before proceeding to treat other lakes; 

treatment methods may be modified as necessary to minimize impacts to non-target species.

Use of mechanical methods to remove fish (e.g. gillnetting, trapping, electrofishing) will be the 

minimum tool for specified lakes that are generally less than 5 acres and less than 20-feet deep. 

Use of the piscicide antimycin will be the minimum tool for larger, deeper lakes where research 

and professional experience indicate mechanical methods of fish removal will not be feasible. A 

helicopter will be the minimum tool to shuttle fish removal supplies and equipment that would 

be too heavy and unsafe to transport on foot. For fish removal using antimycin, an inflatable 

boat equipped with a 5-hp, 4-stroke engine will be used as the minimum tool necessary for 

antimycin application. Helicopter support may also be needed during antimycin application 

given the time sensitive nature of the work; however, that minimum tool determination will be 

deferred until removal is imminent. 

The Selected Action will also allow continued stocking of specified lakes. Only fish species 

incapable of reproducing and establishing self-sustaining populations will be stocked. In the 

short term, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) will continue to stock 

Mount Whitney rainbow trout, whose habitat constraints and timing of spawning make them 

functionally incapable of reproducing in mountain lakes. Golden trout, coastal cutthroat trout (for 

lakes west of the Cascade Crest, i.e. “west-side” lakes), and intermountain cutthroat trout (for 

“east-side” lakes) will be stocked in lakes with low reproductive potential (e.g. very limited 

spawning habitat) to diversify fishing opportunities. The WDFW is also currently developing a 

native Upper Skagit rainbow trout broodstock for west-side lakes, as well as developing 
7

genetically sterile (triploid) trout. The long-term goal is to stock only genetically sterile fish to 

further minimize the risk of unwanted reproduction. 

Fish stocking will generally occur on a 3 to 10-year cycle. The frequency, number and type of 

fish to be stocked will be tailored according to specific lake conditions. Stocking will be done by 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, with assistance from volunteer groups such as the 

Trailblazers and Washington State Hi-Lakers who will backpack young fish in plastic containers 

(historically they used 5-gallon milk jugs) to the lakes. The backpack method of stocking will be 

the minimum tool for the majority of lakes. However, lakes that are too remote for backpack 

stocking (due to excessive fish mortality during transport) will be stocked using fixed wing 

aircraft chartered by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Fish stocking, however, 

will not be undertaken unless Congress acts by July 1, 2009 to authorize stocking as appropriate 

in North Cascades National Park Complex.

In summary, a maximum of 42 lakes may be fishable in the future. This figure may be revised 

downward if monitoring results indicate objectives are not being met. Up to 20 lakes will be 

permanently returned to a fishless condition by discontinuing stocking and/or actively removing 

reproducing populations of fish. Lakes where critical information is missing will not be stocked 

until that information becomes available. An extensive mountain lakes monitoring program will 

be implemented to inform management actions and minimize unacceptable effects to the 

biological integrity of the North Cascades’ ecosystem. 

Implementation of this Selected Action requires authorization from Congress that fish stocking is 

appropriate within the North Cascades Complex. Legislation is needed because the NPS lacks 

the authority to implement the Selected Action. The following reasons summarize why the NPS 

lacks the authority to enable fish stocking in accordance with the Selected Action:

The Selected Action would enable fish stocking to occur in as many as 42 lakes within 

the North Cascades NPS Complex and the Stephen Mather Wilderness Area. All of these 

lakes are naturally fishless. NPS Management Policies 2006 prohibit fish stocking in 

waters that are naturally fishless (Section 4.4.3, Harvest of Plants and Animals by the 
8

Public). NPS Servicewide Management Policies 2006 require all management decisions 

affecting wilderness resources to be consistent with the “Minimum Requirement” 

concept. This concept, derived from Section 4(c) if the Wilderness Act of 1964 and 

clarified by NPS Policies 2006 (6.3.5 Minimum Requirement), is a documented process 

used to determine if management actions may affect wilderness character. When 

determining Minimum Requirement for wilderness administration, the potential 

disruption of wilderness character and resources must be considered. Only those actions 

that preserve wilderness character and/or have localized, short-term adverse impacts will 

be acceptable.

The Stephen Mather Wilderness, a federally designated wilderness area within the North 

Cascades Complex, encompasses all of the naturally fishless lakes that would potentially 

be stocked in accordance with the Selected Action. The NPS has determined, in 

accordance with Minimum Requirement provision under Section 4(c) of the Wilderness 

Act of 1964, that fish stocking does not meet the minimum requirement and is 

unacceptable because the practice would result in long-term, adverse impacts on various 

natural resources, including aquatic organisms associated with naturally fishless lakes 

(FEIS, Chapter IV). 

The wilderness resources and character of North Cascades are fundamental to the 

purposes and values for which North Cascades was established. The NPS cannot 

authorize an activity, in this instance fish stocking, that would derogate the values and 

purposes for which North Cascades was established, except as may have been or shall be 

directly and specifically provided by Congress. (16 USC 1a-1).

If Congress should choose to authorize fish stocking, then the NPS would allow the State of 

Washington to stock fish as described in the Selected Action (Management Alternative B), The 

NPS would authorize fish stocking, knowing that it is taking an action that is consistent with the 

way Congress intends the North Cascades Complex to be administered. 

Congressional action to authorize fish stocking would also ratify various verbal commitments in 

support of stocking that were made by federal officials, including the Director of the National 

Park Service, during hearings regarding the establishment of the North Cascades Complex. The 
9

commitment that continued fish stocking would be authorized was captured in the legislative 

record, and affirmed in the October 1965 North Cascades Study Report, but never codified in the 

North Cascades’ enabling legislation. 

In the event Congressional action to authorize fish stocking is not initiated by July 1, 2009, then 

the NPS will implement Management Alternative D: cease stocking and remove reproducing 

populations of fish from the lakes wherever it is feasible to do so. A revised Record of Decision 

would be prepared as appropriate.

OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Alternative A: No Action – Continue Current Management

Alternative A authorized fish stocking in North Cascades National Park to continue in up to 40

lakes in accordance with the terms of the 1988 Supplemental Agreement between the NPS and 

WDFW. In addition, the WDFW would have continued to manage 22 lakes for recreational 

fishing opportunities in Ross Lake and Lake Chelan National Recreation Areas according to 

historical practices. This alternative would have collectively maintained fishing opportunities in 

up to 62 lakes within the North Cascades Complex. Implementation of this alternative would 

result in major, long-term adverse impacts, primarily associated with taking no management 

actions to remove reproducing, self-sustaining populations of fish that have exceeded the 

carrying capacity of several lakes.

Alternative C: 11 Lakes May Have Fish

Alternative C applied the exact same management objectives and strategies for fish stocking and 

fish removal as those considered for Management Alternative B; however, it limited stocking to 

select lakes in Ross Lake and Lake Chelan National Recreation Areas. Stocking within North 

Cascades National Park was not considered. This alternative was crafted to comport with NPS 

Management Policies 2001. Those policies, now nullified by NPS Management Policies 2006, 

authorized stocking within National Recreation Areas where the practice was established. 
10

Alternative D: 91 Lakes Would Be Fishless (Environmentally Preferred Alternative)

Alternative D discontinued fish stocking throughout North Cascades NPS Complex. Similar to 

Alternative B and C, it also emphasized elimination of reproducing populations of fish wherever 

feasible, using fish removal methods as described for the Selected Action. Alternative D was 

crafted to meet the spirit and intent of NPS Servicewide Management Policies 2006, by 

discontinuing stocking and removing reproducing fish populations from mountain lakes 

wherever feasible.

 

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

In reference to the Council on Environmental Quality regulations guiding the determination of 

the “Environmentally Preferred” alternative, such an alternative is that which will promote the 

national environmental policy as expressed in §101 of the National Environmental Policy Act. 

This section states that “...it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to:

1. fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding 

generations; 

2. assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally 

pleasing surroundings; 

3. attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to 

heath 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 which supports diversity, and variety of 

individual choice; 

5. achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards 

of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities; and 

6. enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable 

recycling of depletable resources.” 

Expressed more succinctly, the “Environmentally Preferred” alternative is the course of action 

that results in the least damage to the physical and biological environment, or conversely, is the 

alternative which best protects historic, cultural and natural resources.
11

The Environmentally Preferred Alternative was Alternative D, where all 91 lakes would become 

fishless by discontinuing stocking and removing reproducing populations of fish wherever 

feasible to do so. Alternative D was identified as the Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

because it would result in the least adverse impacts to the biological integrity of the North 

Cascades ecosystem. In contrast, the No Action alternative would result in the greatest impacts to 

the mountain lake ecosystems because reproducing populations of fish would remain in the 

lakes, and continue to cause major adverse impacts to native species. In contrast, Management 

Alternatives B and C, which authorized stocking to varying degrees, would include removal of 

reproducing populations of fish wherever feasible to do so. However, those alternatives would 

enable through stocking the continued introduction of non-native fish into lakes that would 

naturally be fishless. While various measures would be employed to minimize adverse impacts, 

the adverse impacts to the biophysical environment from continued stocking would exceed the 

beneficial impacts associated with eliminating stocking altogether. 

BASIS FOR DECISION

In deciding to select Management Alternative B, the NPS considered the Organic Act of 1916, 

the enabling legislation for the North Cascades Complex, the General Authority Act of 1970 and 

the 1978 amendment to the General Authority Act of 1970 (commonly referred to as the 

“Redwood Amendment”), the 1988 Washington Parks Wilderness Act, Executive Order 13352 

(Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation), the congressional record, NPS Management Policies 

2006, the wide body of scientific knowledge regarding the ecological effects of fish stocking, 

and the public comments received during the planning process. 

The NPS placed particular emphasis on the longstanding administrative history of the fish 

stocking controversy, especially the research-informed policy directives issued in the late 1980’s 

by the Director of the National Park Service and the Assistant Secretary of the Interior. Those 

unit-specific policy directives authorized stocking to continue, in variance to NPS servicewide 

policies which would normally prohibit stocking, in order to ensure continued collaboration 

between the NPS and WDFW in regard to management fish and wildlife. In recognition of the 

need for more scientifically based information on the potential adverse effects of stocking, the 

policy variance also mandated the Superintendent of North Cascades National Park Service 
12

Complex to conduct research into the ecological effects of fish stocking and to use the results of 

the research to develop a new fisheries management plan. 

The decade-long research effort determined that reproducing populations of non-native trout—

established in lakes with favorable spawning habitat—can have significant adverse effects on 

native aquatic organisms such as salamanders, invertebrates, and zooplankton. However, in 

lakes where fish are stocked in low numbers and cannot reproduce, there appear to be no 

statistically significant ecological effects to native aquatic life. The inability to detect significant 

adverse impacts to native species from low densities of stocked fish, coupled with the 

longstanding research-informed management directives issued by the NPS Director and the 

Assistant Secretary, would seem to provide a reasonable justification to select an alternative that 

would enable the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to continue stocking. However, 

the research-informed findings that contributed to the Proposed Action must be considered in 

concert with the legal, regulatory and policy guidance that governs NPS administration of the 

North Cascades Complex and the Stephen Mather Wilderness. 

In choosing to select Management Alternative B as described in the Plan/FEIS, the 2006 Servicewide Management Policies of the National Park Service (NPS) were also carefully considered. 

Those servicewide management policies continue to maintain the longstanding servicewide 

policy that “...the [NPS] will not stock waters that are naturally barren of harvested aquatic 

species.” Continued stocking of lakes would clearly be contrary to current NPS servicewide 

policies, because all the lakes under consideration are naturally fishless. 

To reconcile the conflict between (a) NPS Servicewide Management policies which prohibit 

stocking in accordance with the NPS doctrine of preservation, and (b) the research-informed 

policy guidance previously provided by the Director of the NPS and the Assistant Secretary of 

the Interior, the NPS has determined that implementation of the Selected Action will require 

authorization from Congress that continued fish stocking is appropriate. Heretofore stocking of 

fish has been allowed on a short term basis; the Selected Action could make this permanent. The 

rationale supporting the need for authorization from Congress to permanently enable fish 

stocking is derived from NPS Management Policies 2006, the Wilderness Act of 1964, and the 
13

1978 amendment to the General Authority Act of 1970 (commonly referred to as the “Redwood 

Amendment”). 

NPS Management Policies 2006 provide:

“In some special situations, the Secretary may stock native or exotic animals for 

recreational harvesting purposes, but only when such stocking will not unacceptably 

impact park natural resources or processes and when...the intent for stocking is a treaty 

right or expressed in statute, applicable law, or a House or Senate report accompanying a 

statute.”(Section 4.4.3 Harvest of Plants and Animals by the Public)

Exhaustive reviews of the legislative history of the North Cascades NPS Complex provide 

various references in support of fish stocking. For example, the enabling legislation for the 

North Cascades Complex mandates the NPS to cooperate with the Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife in regard to management of fish and wildlife resources. The enabling 

legislation also authorizes the State of Washington to issue hunting and fishing licenses in the 

North Cascades Complex. In addition, during the congressional field hearings leading to the 

establishment of North Cascades, NPS Director Hartzog stated for the record that the 

establishment of North Cascades would not lead to an NPS prohibition on fish stocking. 

Proponents of fish stocking contend this affirmation precluded Congress from explicitly 

authorizing continued fish stocking in the enabling legislation. This legislative background does 

not comport with NPS policy regarding “special situations” in which stocking may be authorized

because the action is not specifically authorized in law, or in a House or Senate report related to 

law. Therefore, the administrative history of this issue cannot justify authorizing stocking to 

continue. 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 and NPS policies regarding wilderness stewardship also underscore 

the NPS’ lack of authority to implement fish stocking. 

NPS Management Policies 2006 mandate that the “Minimum Requirement” concept be applied 

to all management decisions affecting the Stephen Mather wilderness (Section 6.3.5, Minimum 

Requirement). The NPS has conducted a Minimum Requirements analysis of the proposed action 

(FEIS Volume II, Appendix K) and determined that fish stocking would adversely affect the 
14

untrammeled character of the Stephen Mather Wilderness and not leave the wilderness free from 

modern human control and manipulation. Moreover, stocking would also affect the natural 

character of the wilderness by introducing a non-native species solely for the purpose of creating 

and maintaining a recreational fishery in lakes that are naturally fishless. In light of these 

findings, the NPS concludes that fish stocking does not meet the minimum requirement for 

administration of the Stephen Mather Wilderness. 

The NPS is prohibited by law from carrying out a management action that would impair or 

derogate the wilderness resource unless the action is authorized by Congress through legislation. 

This prohibition is derived from several key pieces of legislation including the NPS Organic Act 

of 1916, the General Authority Act of 1970 and the 1978 amendment to the General Authority 

Act of 1970 (commonly referred to as the “Redwood Amendment”). The Redwood Amendment 

provides:

“... [T]he authorization of activities shall be construed, and the protection, management, 

and administration of [NPS] areas shall be conducted in light of the high public value and 

integrity of the National Park System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the values 

and purposes for which these various areas have been established, except as may have been 

or shall be directly and specifically provided by Congress. (16 USC 1a-1)." 

The NPS cannot permanently override legislative mandates that collectively prohibit derogation 

of park resources and values with a policy variance. Therefore, the NPS has determined that the 

Selected Action shall not be implemented unless Congress grants authorization by July 1, 2009 

that fish stocking is appropriate. 

In addition to legal, regulatory and policy prohibitions regarding fish stocking, the rationale for 

seeking authorization from Congress is based upon the need for an enduring resolution to the fish 

stocking controversy. This controversy has caused the NPS considerable administrative 

challenges for almost 40 years. The administrative burden created by the controversy has 

diverted substantial fiscal and human resources from other important matters of conservation 

concern, including the need to address other substantial fishery management issues and threats 

elsewhere in the North Cascades Complex. 
15

In summary, the NPS has determined that it lacks the authority to implement fish stocking. 

Therefore, the Selected Action will not be implemented unless Congress grants unambiguous 

authority to do so.

If Congress does not act to authorize fish stocking in the North Cascades Complex and the 

Stephen Mather Wilderness by July 1, 2009, then the NPS will implement Management 

Alternative D as described in Chapter II of the Final Plan/EIS. This deadline is important for 

providing the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife reasonably sufficient notice to 

coordinate logistical actions necessary to implement stocking (as July is generally when the high 

lakes begin to ice out, enabling access by foot and the ability to stock), as well for providing for 

timely park efforts to resume monitoring. This deadline is also based upon recognition that the 

legislative process is an intricate and time-consuming process that is by no means assured.

FINDINGS ON IMPAIRMENT OF PARK RESOURCES AND VALUES

The NPS Management Policies (2006) require analysis of potential effects to determine whether 

actions would impair park resources. The NPS managers must always seek ways to avoid, or to 

minimize to the greatest degree practicable, adverse impacts to park resources and values. 

However, the laws do give the NPS the management discretion to allow impacts to park 

resources and values, when necessary and appropriate, to fulfill the purposes of a park as long as 

the impact does not constitute impairment of the affected resources and values. 

The impairment that is prohibited by the Organic Act of 1916 is an impact that, in the 

professional judgment of the responsible NPS manager, would harm the integrity of park 

resources or values, including the opportunities that otherwise would be present for the 

enjoyment of those resources or values. Whether an impact meets this definition depends on the 

particular resources and values that would be affected; the severity, duration, and timing of the 

impact; the direct and indirect effects of the impact; and the cumulative effects of the impact in 

question. 
16

An impact to any park resource or value may, but does not necessarily, constitute impairment. 

An impact would be more likely to constitute impairment to the extent that it affects a resource 

or value whose conservation is: 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the enabling legislation or proclamation 

of the park,

key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the 

park, or

identified in the park’s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning 

documents as being significant.

An impact would be less likely to constitute impairment to the extent that it is an unavoidable 

result, which cannot be further mitigated, of an action necessary to preserve or restore the 

integrity of park resources or values. However, the impact threshold at which impairment occurs 

is not always readily apparent.

After analyzing the environmental impacts described in the plan/EIS and public comments 

received, the NPS has determined that implementation of the Selected Action will not constitute 

impairment to any of the North Cascades Complex resources and values. Instead, the impact 

analysis indicates that continued stocking would generally cause minor to moderate, long-term 

adverse impacts; and removal of reproducing populations of fish would have short-term adverse 

effects but long-term beneficial effects. 

MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM

Measures to enable adaptive management of the mountain lakes fishery, and minimum 

requirement/minimum tool considerations regarding actions in the Stephen Mather Wilderness, 

are the primary tools and procedures that will be applied to minimize environmental harm. 

Adaptive management is based on the premise that managed ecosystems are complex and 

unpredictable. The purpose of adaptive management is to give policy makers a better framework 

for applying scientific principles to complex environmental decisions. It is an analytical process 

for adjusting management and research decisions to better achieve management objectives. 
17

The NPS must use adaptive management to comply with the Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations (40 CFR 1500) requiring the adoption of a monitoring and enforcement program. 

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. By monitoring the success or failure 

of management actions in the context of complex ecosystems, environmental harm can be 

minimized.

 

The Final Plan/EIS includes a monitoring plan (Volume II, Appendix F) to enable adaptive 

management of the mountain lakes fishery. Based on monitoring and adaptive management, the 

following management actions may change or be discontinued, with decisions made according to 

lake-specific circumstances: species to be stocked; densities of fish to be stocked; and the 

category and type of fish removal methods to be applied to lakes with high densities of 

reproducing fish. 

High densities of reproducing fish populations will be eliminated from lakes using three general 

methods of fish removal: mechanical (e.g. gillnetting), chemical (the piscicide antimycin), and

spawning habitat exclusion. To minimize adverse impacts from fish removal, mitigation 

measures have been identified for each type of fish removal method. The specific choice of 

mitigation will depend upon lake conditions. For example, mechanical methods as opposed to 

antimycin will be used on shallow lakes generally smaller than 5 acres, provided they do not 

have conditions that might make removal infeasible (e.g. an abundance of large woody debris). 

Mechanical methods may prove more time consuming and costly than antimycin application, but 

NPS policies regarding use of pesticides mandate the use of less toxic alternatives if such options 

exist and are feasible to implement. 

The piscicide antimycin will only be applied to larger, deeper lakes where professional 

experience and research suggests that mechanical removal of fish will not be feasible. 

Antimycin was selected for use because it is toxic to fish in extremely low (part per billion) 

concentrations; it has limited toxicity to non-target aquatic organisms; and it rapidly degrades via 

natural pathways of oxidation, such as in turbulent streams. Moreover, antimycin has been 
18

applied successfully in several National Park Service units, including Great Basin National Park, 

Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Crater Lake National Park. 

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION

The public scoping phase formally began in January 16, 2003 with the publication of a Notice of 

Intent to prepare Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Plan and Draft EIS in the Federal 

Register. The NPS in February 2003 prepared and distributed Public Scoping Brochures 

describing the planning process and announcing that four public scoping meetings would be 

convened in late March 2003 in the surrounding communities of Sedro-Woolley, Wenatchee, 

Bellevue and Seattle, Washington. The Public Scoping Brochures summarized the purpose of 

and need for a fishery management plan for the North Cascades Complex, the objectives for the 

plan/EIS, and the history of mountain lakes fishery management. The brochure also contained 

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

website was created in January 2003 and was 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.

The public scoping meetings were held in Sedro-Woolley on March 18, 2003 (21 people 

attended); in Wenatchee on March 20, 2003 (5 people attended); in Bellevue on March 25, 2003 

(21 people attended); and in Seattle on March 27, 2003 (25 people attended). The format for 

each meeting included and opening presentation, followed by having participants beak out into

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

preliminary alternatives. Issues and concerns were recorded at the public meetings and in 

subsequent written comments and emails. The public comment period ended on April 18, 2003.

Upon conclusion of the public scoping period the NPS received 30 pieces of correspondence, 

including 22 pieces of correspondence from individuals, six from organizations, and one each 

from a business and a local Tribe. The correspondence collectively provided 248 comments, and 
19

96% of comments received were considered substantive. A public scoping report was prepared 

and posted on the project web site. 

The formal public comment period for the Draft Plan/EIS began on May 27, 2005 with the 

Federal Register publication of the EPA’s Notice of Filing of the Draft Plan/EIS. The NPS’ 

Notice of Availability was published on May 31, 2005. The 90-day opportunity for public review 

and comment initially ended on August 26, 2005, but was extended until September 15, 2005 to 

give interested parties more time to provide written comments on the lengthy draft document. 

Correspondence received during the public comment period included letters, electronic mail, 

transcripts from public meetings, and comments on the NPS Planning, Environment and Public 

Comment website. The NPS received 65 pieces of correspondence from individuals, and from 

members and representatives of 7 recreational groups, 1 business, 2 federal government 

agencies, 1 state government agency, and 4 conservation and preservation groups. The 

correspondence contained 475 comments on various topics. A majority of the comments focused 

on the pros and cons of continued stocking or removal of fish from the lakes. Only a limited 

number of comments addressed the specific methods of fish removal and the anticipated impacts 

of those activities. 

The formal release of the Final Plan/EIS occurred on July 18, 2008 with publication in the 

Federal Register of the EPA’s Notice of Filing of the Final Plan/EIS (the NPS’ Notice of 

Availability was published on July 23, 2008). Volume II includes a public comment and 

response report, including the full text of all correspondence received. The majority of comments 

received focused on various aspects of the alternatives proposed in the Draft Plan/EIS. Of the 97 

comments addressing the alternatives, 31 comments addressed the preferred alternative 

(alternative B). Thirty-five comments regarded alternatives that had been eliminated for 

consideration in the draft plan/EIS, and 6 comments proposed new alternatives. Other topics that 

received numerous comments included the Park Legislation and Authority section in the Purpose 

and Need for the Plan (71 comments), comments related to impacts of the proposal and 

alternatives on aquatic organisms (36 comments), and the NPS’ Minimum Requirements 

Analysis regarding fishery management actions in the Stephen Mather Wilderness (32 

comments). 
20

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) began in October 

2002. The WDFW agreed to serve as a cooperating agency in the NEPA process, and to actively 

assist in a technical advisory capacity. The NPS and WDFW convened a Technical Advisory 

Committee (TAC) composed of NPS and WDFW biologists, and several environmental 

consultants. The purpose of the TAC was to advise and provide recommendations regarding 

compilation and evaluation of data for each of the 91 lakes under consideration in the Plan, to 

formulate strategies and tactics for fisheries management actions, including removal of 

reproducing populations of fish, and continued stocking. Specific tasks included:

Refining, based on public input, the nature and scope (spatial/temporal) of ecological 

issues to be evaluated in the Plan;

Recommending reasonable fishery management actions for park management to consider 

in developing alternatives;

Providing baseline data and professional expertise to describe the affected environment 

for the EIS;

Developing impact analysis methodologies based upon best available science;

Reviewing and commenting on the impact analysis section of the Draft Plan/EIS;

Providing technical guidance on presentations for public meetings; and 

Review and comment on the draft EIS. 

WDFW personnel participated in seven Technical Advisory Committee Meetings during 

preparation of the Draft Plan/EIS. WDFW provided substantial data, information and technical 

expertise that were used to inform the environmental impact analysis, the management 

provisions regarding stocking as part of Management Alternatives B and C, and in the strategies 

and tactics proposed for removal of reproducing fish populations. WDFW personnel also 

provided an alternative interpretation of the NPS’ Minimum Requirement Analysis, asserting 

that fish stocking would indeed meet the minimum requirement for administration of the Stephen 

Mather Wilderness. Following release of the Draft Plan/EIS, WDFW personnel provided 

technical assistance in responding to select comments received during public review. 
21

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Discussions with the EPA began in January 2003. EPA requested that the NPS include in their 

impact analysis: (1) water quality, (2) nonnative fish as pollutants, and (3) impacts to bull trout 

from downstream dispersal. EPA also recommended consultations with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). EPA reviewed 

the Draft EIS and expressed concern for manipulating the native ecology through continued 

stocking. In a letter dated August 24, 2005, EPA provided comments on the plan, expressed 

support for Alternative D, and assigned a rating of EC-l (Environmental Concerns - Adequate) to 

the Draft Plan/EIS. The EPA also reviewed Final Environmental Impact Statement, and on July 

18, 2008 they submitted a letter to the NPS expressing appreciation for responding to their stated 

concerns for continued stocking. The letter concurred with the NPS’ determination that the 

Selected Action will meet the objectives of the Plan/EIS, and it expressed support for adoption of 

Management Alternative D should the NPS not receive Congressional authority to implement 

Management Alternative B. Finally, the EPA formally announced its lack of objections to the 

proposed final plan in the Federal Register on September 12, 2008

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Informal consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) began in the summer of 

2003 with a species list request. Informal discussions with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

continued during preparation of the Draft Plan/EIS and corresponding Biological Assessment 

(BA). The NPS submitted the Draft Plan/EIS to the USFWS in May 2005, but due to heavy 

workloads within the USFWS, the BA was not assigned until March 2006. After the initial BA 

was drafted and submitted to the USFWS for their concurrence, critical habitat for bull trout was 

designated in 29 reaches within the North Cascades Complex. The BA was amended to include 

an analysis of impacts to bull trout critical habitat, then resubmitted to the USFWS in July 2006. 

The amended BA determined that implementation of the Preferred Alternative (Management 

Alternative B) “may affect, [but is] not likely to adversely affect” the threatened coastal Puget 

Sound distinct population segment of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus), marbled murrelet (Marmoratus marmoratus), Canada lynx (Lynx Canadensis), 

grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horriblis), and the endangered gray wolf (Canis lupus). The NPS 
22

received a concurrence letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on August 18, 2006. The 

consultation record is included in Volume II, Appendix C of the Final Plan/EIS.

National Marine Fisheries Service

Informal consultations with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) began in 

the summer of 2003. NOAA Fisheries recommended that the NPS evaluate impacts to chinook 

salmon (threatened) and coho salmon (candidate). In August 2005 the NPS submitted a 

Biological Assessment to NOAA fisheries, seeking concurrence with a “not likely to adversely 

affect” determination concerning Puget Sound chinook salmon (Oncorhyncus tshawytsha). The 

NPS received concurrence from NOAA Fisheries on September 15, 2006. The consultation 

record is included in Volume II, Appendix C of the Final Plan/EIS.

Native American Tribes

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, Swinomish 

Tribe, Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Nooksack Tribal Office, and Colville Confederated Tribes. 

The Swinomish Tribe submitted comments on the Draft Plan/EIS, expressing 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 to verify 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, although 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 the 

plan/EIS.

Washington State Historic Preservation Office

The Washington State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was contacted in the summer of 

2003 regarding their cultural resource and ethnographic concerns related to mountain lakes 

fishery management. The SHPO did not envision any concerns for the various actions under 
23

consideration but expressed interest in receiving appropriate correspondence. A copy of the 

Draft Plan/EIS was sent to the SHPO for their review and comment. No comments were 

received. Further consultation was discontinued because the Draft Plan/EIS did not identify 

effects to historic properties that would constitute an undertaking in the context of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). If implementation of the Mountain Lakes Fishery 

Management Plan leads to specific undertakings currently not envisioned (e.g. unanticipated 

discoveries of cultural resources that could be adversely affected by fishery management 

actions), then the NPS will initiate section 106 consultation in accordance with the August 2008 

Programmatic Agreement among the National Park Service, the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers for 

Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

U.S. Geological Survey

The U.S. Geological Service (USGS) Forest Range and Experiment Station and Oregon State 

University conducted more than a decade of research into the ecological effects of introduced 

trout and char in the mountain lake ecosystems of North Cascades. This research was mandated 

in the late 1980’s by the Director of the National Park Service and the Assistant Secretary of the 

Interior to enable research-informed management of the mountain lake fishery. The research 

yielded extensive baseline information on the mountain lake ecosystems, and new insights into 

the ecological effects of introduced trout and char on zooplankton, macroinvertebrates and 

amphibians, especially the long-toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum), and the 

northwestern salamander (Ambystoma gracile). Early on in the planning process, the NPS 

requested the researchers participate in the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), but they 

recused themselves from involvement in the TAC to maintain scientific objectivity. Informal 

discussions with various staff members from the USGS occurred throughout the planning 

process. These discussions have served to clarify their research findings and to gather additional 

data and information in support of this plan/EIS.

CONCLUSION

Among the four management alternatives considered, the Selected Action (with authorization 

from Congress as discussed above) meets the NPS legal and regulatory requirements and 
24

research-informed policy guidance that informed this conservation planning effort. The Selected 

Action will protect natural, cultural, and environmental resources, and will provide for continued 

sport fishing opportunities in a manner that conserves the biological integrity of the mountain 

lake ecosystems. The Selected Action will not result in the impairment of park resources and 

values. 

The Selected Action will not be implemented unless Congress takes action to authorize

permanent fish stocking as appropriate within the North Cascades National Park Service 

Complex. If Congress does not provide such authorization by July 1, 2009, then the NPS will 

implement Management Alternative D, the Environmentally Preferred Alternative, as described 

in the Final Plan/EIS. If Congress does authorize stocking, then the NPS will incorporate this

legislative direction, including any prescriptive guidance regarding management of the mountain 

lakes fishery, into the Final Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Plan. In either case, the 

official responsible for implementing the Selected Action is the Superintendent, North Cascades 

NPS Complex.

Approved by:

<signed> 11/26/08

____________________________________________ _______________

Jonathan B. Jarvis Date

Regional Director, NPS Pacific West Region
APPENDIX A. LAKE MANAGEMENT ACTIONS

Table I. Standard Management Actions

This table describes the standard fishery management actions that will be implemented to manage the mountain 

lakes fishery. The standard management actions in this table are broken down into classes 1-4, based on the 

presence, reproductive status, and estimated density of fish in the lakes. These standard management actions will

require periodic monitoring and evaluation to enable adaptive management. 

Table II indicates how each of these management actions will be applied to the 91 lakes governed by the Mountain 

Lakes Fishery Management Plan.

For a lake that is currently fishless:

1 The lake will 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 will be reduced by changing stocking densities, stocking 

cycles, or the species of stocked fish. If these management changes do not work, then discontinue stocking.

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

to foster recovery of native organisms. The duration of the resting period will be determined on a lake-bylake basis based upon monitoring results. If monitoring results indicate favorable recovery of native 

organisms, then restock the lake with low densities of nonreproducing fish and monitor lake conditions. If 

monitoring results indicate fish are causing major adverse impacts, then reduce stocking densities, stocking 

cycles, or the species of stocked fish. If these management changes do not work, then discontinue stocking.

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

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

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

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

indicator taxa are low, maintain the low fish densities. If monitoring data indicate fish are causing major 

adverse impacts, then completely remove fish.

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

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

stocking and remove all fish.

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

following management actions:

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

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

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

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

indicate fish are causing major adverse impacts, then reduce stocking densities, stocking cycles, or the 

species of stocked fish. If these management changes do not work, then discontinue stocking.
26

Table II. Lake-specific Management Actions

This table describes the specific management actions that will be implemented for each of the 91 

lakes governed by the Final Plan/EIS. 

Lake Name Lake Code Current Condition Management Action

Azure MP-09-01 Fishless 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Despair, Lower M-14-01 Fishless 1

Despair, Upper M-13-01 Fishless 1

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

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

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

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

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

East, Lower MC-14-02 Fishless 1

East, Upper MC-14-01 Fishless 1

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

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

Green Bench LS-04-01 Fishless 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Middle, Lower MC-16-02 Fishless 1

Middle, Upper MC-16-01 Fishless 1

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

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

Nert M-05-01 Stocked with nonreproducing fish 4A
27

Lake Name Lake Code Current Condition Management Action

Noisy Creek, Upper LS-14-01 Fishless 1

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

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

Panther Potholes, Upper RD-05-01 Fishless 1

Pegasus EP-10-01 Fishless 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redoubt MC-11-01 Fishless 1

Reveille, Lower MC-21-02 Fishless 1

Reveille, Upper MC-21-01 Fishless 1

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

Sky EP-13-01 Fishless 1

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

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

Sourpuss ML-01-01 Fishless 1

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

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

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

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

Talus Tarn M-06-01 Fishless 1

Tapto, Lower MC-17-03 Fishless 1

Tapto, Middle MC-17-02 Fishless 1

Tapto, Upper MC-17-01 Fishless 1

Tapto, West MC-17-04 Fishless 1

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

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

Thunder RD-02-01 Fishless 1

Tiny MC-15-01 Fishless 1

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

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

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

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

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

Unnamed FP-01-01 Fishless 1

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

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

Vulcan ML-04-01 Fishless 1

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

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

Wild MC-27-01 Fishless 1

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