Ii,

-I -,

, -

- --- _. -- -- -.- - - -!j

.." .-- ~- -" -

III

-------1--I I

;

- - -1--1--1--1

I

. i. : -~ I

I., I _

I

. ,I

L

I';I

i

I

I, I

I

-- '" -. :., !---- -:----:--:--:--.-:-,- -HI'

• .; I , . I r -_.:: I I I

I ! i I· I

; ·l4-1·_-~-·_tl-l -·1- l--··I I "1- ,- - --I --I--I- jl i I I;

! ! I I I I

1_1·~..l-\- I I

I I_._ --;-,._'-;__ -0--,-:

I : I iI

I­I

Type of Ac t ion

Respons ib leFederal Agency

Ten Lakes Montana Wilderness Study Act AreaFinal Report and Proposal

(P.L. 95-150)

Legislative

Forest Service, USDA

Respons ib IeOfficial John Block

Secretary of AgricultureU.S. Department ofAgricultureS. Building, 12th &Independence Ave. S.W.Washington, D.C. 20013

For further information contact:James R. RathbunForest SupervisorKootenai National ForestRt. 3, Box 700Libby. MT 59923(406) 293-6211

Abstrac t This Final Report and Proposal includes a wildernessrecommendation on 26,000 acres of the Ten Lakes MontanaWilderness Study Act area, located in northwestern Montanaastride the Whitefish Mountain Range, bOrdered by Canada tothe north. The remaining 8,200 acres of the 34,200 acrearea are recommended for nonwilderness designationsincluding road less management (5,300 acres) anddevelopmental designations with activities that favorwildlife. The recommendation is based upon 8 years ofstudy. analysis, and evaluation of public comments andfollows the public review of the Draft Report and Proposalreleased in November 1982. Altogether, seven alternativemanagement schemes for the Ten Lakes study area weredeveloped and analyzed, including the final ProposedAction. Publics identified that would be adversely affectedby a wilderness designation for the majority of the areainclude the oil and gas industry snd snowmobileenthusiasts. Public benefits derived from a wildernessdesignation include protected grizzly besr hsbitat,retention of the area in a primitive state, and protectionof the sensitive landscape visible from the Tobacco Valleyand U.S. Highway 93. This recommendation will be forwardedto Congress where the final decision will be made.

Date of Transmissionto EnvironmentalProtec t ion Agencyand the Pub 1ic

:

Summary of

Ten Lakes Montana Wilderness Study Act AreaFinal Report and Proposal

(P.L. 95-150)

Kootenai National Forest

KOOTENAI NATIONAL fOREST

COL U

°T~crtr'

I KOOTINAI.

2

PARK

LAKE

..,'"

FLATHEAO

I\AlISPELl

WIlIIErl~rI

I A

'N~---

\ ~TU' LAKES GLACIEREU~eKA AnEA

THOM~!I0N

r'ALL5

.~ . ,

\\

,.'"

IIII

•

srlJ~AHEWA.

Montana Wilderness Study Act AreaTen lakes

Kootenai National Forest

Ten lakes Roadless Area683 •

R. 26 W.

o 1.....--BRITISH COLUMBIA

}~ :"1

2

R. 25 W.

3 4i

miles

R. 24 W.

I.

TEN LAKES MONTANA WILDERNESS STUDY ACT AREASUMMARY

This final Ten Lakes Montana Wilderness Study Act (HWSA) srea Report andProposal is the adminisrative reconunendation to Congress for their review. TheProposal recommends 26,000 acres of wilderness. The remainder of the 34,000acre HWSA area is primarily designated for road less management with a smallportion designated for developmental activities to favor wildlife. This finalrecommendation is based upon the analysis of the resources present in the area.an examination of the public response to the ori~inal Draft Report and originalProposal. and a consideration of the tradeoffs involved in a wildernessdesignation. The following chart displays the reconunended disposition of theTen Lakes HWSA, also referred to as the Ten Lakes Roadless Area (f683).

TEN LAKES HWSA AREA (01683)

Desigpation Ai; rea % Qf Iot.l HHSA

Rec onunend ed Wilderness 26,000 76Recommended Nonwi Idernes8 8,200 24

Total HWSA 34,200* 100

Reconunended Nonwildernes9 8,200 24Designated Roadless 5,300 16Designated Developmental 2,900 8

Designated Developmental 2,900 8Wildlife 700 2Timber/Wildlife 1,500 4Timber /Wi ld 1 i fe/ Visua 1 700 2

* This figure is the correct figure for the MWSA total acres" The DraftReport and Proposal erroneously reported a 35.900 acre figure.

This wilderness recommendation is consistent with an additional 7 sOOO acresoutside and adjacent to the wilderness study area boundary that is beinganalyzed in the Kootenai National Forest Plan. This adjacent area is referredto as the Ten Lakes Contiguous Roadless Area (683A) and is presently beingreviewed by the public for their comment. If the public and Congress concursthis combined potential wilderness recOt~mendation ~ould total 33 s000 acres.The following table displays the recommended disposition of the Ten Lakes ~~SA

and the adjacent area.

TOTAL TEN LAKES HWSA 60 ADJACENT AREA

TEN LAKES MWSA AREA (683)Peaignatign Acres

ADJACENT AREA (683A)Designatigp

- TOTAL AREAAcrea - Total Acres

RCC01:lnlCndcd Wi IdernessRcc olllRlcnd ed Nonw i ide r.

Total HWSA

26,0008,200

34,200

Recommended Wi IdcrnessRecommended Nonwi ider.

Total

7,000100

7,100

33,0008,300

41,300

S-2

In the Ten Lakes ~~SA area •• ix alternatives were originally developed andanalyzed. ranging from the Current Direction (Unit Plan designation.) to fullwilderness (Alternative C). Based upon the public response to the originalproposed action, which recommended a mix of road less and developmentalmanagement but no wildernefis, the Revised Proposed ktion was developed. TheRevised Proposed Action includes incorporating the public's desire fornondevelopment for tile Ten Lakes area througll both a wilderness andnoowllderness designat ion. Some cleve lopment of resource!; is recommended wheredeemed appropriate. The revised proposed action follows closely tllerecommendations contained in the June, 1984. Montana Wilderness Bill which didnot pass before the close of the legislative session.

Oil and gas interests and snowmobiling enthusi.:lsts· would be the most adverselyaffected by a wilderness designation. The area in which Ten Lakes is locatedis considered to have one of the highest potentials on the Forest for oil andgas resources. Oil and gas leases would not be let in the 26.000 acrerecomQended wilderness and would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis on therer.lainder of the l'lWSA area. Oil and gas leases could be let if Congress wereto grant an exception for this use in wilderness legislation.

Snowmobiling. an established use in the area sincc the early 1960's. would beprohibited in the recommended wi ldernes8 though available in the remainder ofthe study area. As in the case of oil and gas leasing above. snowmobilingwould be allowed in a portion of tbe recommended wilderness only if Congrcsssgranted an exception in the legislation.

Benefits of a wilderness classification include preservation of tile primitivecharacter of the area. protection of grizzly and caribou habitat. andprotection of the visual resource along the Eureka Face. a sensitive areahighly visible from the Tobacco Valley and_ U.S. Highway 93. Based upon theanalysis of the public comments, a wilderness classification for the Ten LakesMWSA would meet with local and regional approval.

The Final Report .:loci Proposal document contains a description of the Proposed!v:.tion and a copy of the original Report and Proposal from which the Final istie~ed. Also included are the analysis of the public comments on the originalDraft Report and Proposal. copies of the letters received. and the publichearing records.

Pending the final decision by Congress. the Ten Lakes MWSA area will bemaintained in an undeveloped state to protect its wilderness potential.

For further information. contact:

Jim Shadle. Planning StaffKootenai National ForestRt. 3. Box 700Libby. HT 59923

-~ ~--~----------------------

Ten LakesMontana Wilderness Study Act Area

Final Report and Proposal(P.L. 95-150>

Kootenai National Forest

TABLE of CONTENTS

No.Page1...•.......•.•.•...............•......................IntroductionI.

A. Background & Document Organization ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1B. Evolution of the Study. Public Involvement. & Issues ••••••••• 1c. Results of Public Review ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 3D. Action Taken After Review & Revision of Proposed Action •••••• ~

II. The Ten Lakes Area ................................................ 7

A. Area Description ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 7B. Wilderness Attributes •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 8

1. Natural Integrity and Appearance •••••••••••••••••••••••• 82. Opportunities for Solitude •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 83. Primitive Recreation Opportunities •••••••••••••••••••••• 84. Other Features •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 85. Manageability and Boundaries •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 8

C. Current Resource Situation . . 8

1. Recreation •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 82. Timber •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 83. Wildlife and Fish ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 94. Minerals, Oil and Gas ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 95. Range ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 96. Cultural Resources •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 97. Water ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 9

D. Management Considerations . . 9

1. Land Use Authorizations ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 92. Fire •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 93. Insect and Disease •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 104. Non-Federal Lands ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 10

E. Proximity to Other Wilderness & Population Centers ••••••••••• 10

F. Contribution to National Wilderness Preservation System ...... 10

III.Proposed Ar;tion ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 10

A. Intent ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 10B. Description •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 10

1. Wilderness •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 102. Timber and Road Construction. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 113. Wildlife and Fish Inc luding Threatened and Endangered II4. Minerals, Oil & Gss ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 115. Visual Resource ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 116. Rec rea t ion •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 127. Range ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 128. Present Net Value ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 129. Insect & Disease •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 12

•

TABLE of CONTENTS (Continued)

Page Ito.IV. Effects of Activities ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 14

A. Effects of Wilderness Designation •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 14B. Nonwildernes8 Designation Roadles8 ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 15C. Nonwilderness Designation Developmental •••••••••••••••••••• 15

v. Summary of Proposed Action •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 17

KOOTENAI NATIONAL fOREST

~.~, .." ! .

..

I

S PU AIlEWA.

It I

T'IIII

COUEn l> ALENE

--_~90

" .',

THOMPS.ON

'ALLa

,,

, .

WHI1EfIS,\

~ALlSPELl

n

'"

PAn~

LAK£

2

Montana Wilderness Study Act AreaTen Lakes

Kootenai National Forest

Ten Lakes Roadless Area683 0.

.. , " ._'fI~"

R. 26 W.

o 1

BRITISH COLUMBIA;So!:' ]51

2

R. 25 W.

3 4i

miles

R. 24 W.

1

I. Introduction

A. Background and Document Organizaton

This Final Report and Proposal for the 34,200* acre Ten Lakes MontanaWilderness Study Act (~~SA) area, reflects the culmination of eightyears of study, involving resource data gathering, developingalternative management schemes, and soliciting and evaluating publiccomments on how the Ten Lakes ~SA area should be managed.

This document focuses on the Final Proposed Action which includes awilderness recommendation on 76% of the area (26,000 acres), road lessmanagement on 16% (5,300 acres), and the remaining 8% (2,900 acres)recommended for developmental activities primarily to benefitwildlife. The Final Proposed Action supercedes that offered in theNovember 1982 Report and Proposal (which did not recommend wilderness)and should be viewed in the context of the Proposed Action presentedin the Kootenai National Forest Plan Draft Environmental ImpactStatement. Although both documents reflect separate studies and canbe considered exclusive of eact\ other, the Forest Plan contains awilderness recommendation for areas adjacent to the Ten Lakes MWSAwhich, if implemented, would add to the Proposed Ten Lakes Wildernessthat is discussed in this Final Report and Proposal.

This document includes a discussion of the results of publicinvolvement and how that involvement led to the Final ProposedAction. Also presented is a description of the Final Proposed Action,a discussion of the resources present in the area and the outputs tobe expected, and a discussion of the effects of implementation. Theoriginal November 1982 Report and Proposal is contained in AppendixA. Appendix B contains the analysis of the public comments receivedin response to the November 1982 document while Appendix C containscopies of the responses to the original Report and Proposal. AppendixD is the record of the public hearings conducted during the publicreview period.

B. Evolution of the Study, History and Role of Public Involvement, andIdentified IS8ues

The first recorded public interest and discussion regarding what wasto become the Montana Wilderness Study Act (~SA) areas dates from1958 when former Regional Forester Tebbe announced the establishmentof a Hilgard "hold" area of about 150,000 acres (now part of theTaylor-Hilgard t~SA area). He agreed that the Forest Service wouldforego developmental activities in the area pending the completion ofa wilderness study.

Allor portions of the Ten Lakes and other study areas wereinventoried during the first Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RAREI) in 1972 and 1973. Additional debate occurred between the publicand the Forest Service in that process.

* This figure is the correct figure forDraft Report and Proposal erroneously

the HWSA total acres.reported a 35,900 acre

The Originalfigure.

2

In October 1974, the first bill waa introduced to establish what waslater to become the MWSA areas. The areas included Mt. Henry,Taylor-Hilgard. West Pioneer, Big Snowies. Bluejoint,Hyalite-Porcupine-Buffalo Horn. Middle Fork of the Judith. Sapphires.and Ten Lakes. After several years of debate, the Montana WildernessStudy Act was passed in November 1977 (Public Law 95-150).

In the meantime. RARE II was initiated in mid-1977 and the areas wereincluded in the inventory and the accompanying analysis. When theRARE II Draft Environmental Impact Statement was issued, the publicdid not respond at any length to these areas because they were advisedthat a separ~te study under the Montana Wilderness Study Act wouldfollow.

In 1979 following RARE II. a good deal of dialogue was directed to theForest Service in terms of the best study process to follow. the timeschedule, and the data needs. The latter subject centered around thequestion of the adequacy of the timber data. To help resolve thisquestion, the Regional Forester formed a citizen's timber statisticscommittee in August 1979. Their recommendations were forwarded to theRegional Forester in February 1980.

Generally, public involvement activities for the Montana WildernessStudy Act area6 were coordinated by the Northern Region Office which.in addition to establishing the above citizen's committee. organizedpublic workshops for the nine Study Act areas. Workshops to identifythe public issues for the ~NSA areas on the Kootenai (Mt. Henry andTen Lakes) were held in Eureka and Libby in September 1979. Theworkshops were conducted using the nominal group process with 66people participating.

Issues for the wilderness study areas were identified by the Region.based on the issues raised at the public workshops. These issues wereapplied to all nine areas under study. The Region published a Reportand Proposal pertsining to three of the study areas (Mt. Henry.Taylor-Hilgard. and West Pioneer). directing that the remaining sixareas be addressed in the respective Forest Plans. The issues thathad been used to direct the study of the nine areas were applied tothe individual study areas and addressed in the evaluations.

The public issues selected by the Regional Forester to guide theanalysis of the MWSA areas were:

Timber - What i8 the timber potential of the area and where istimber management most appropriate?

Recreation - What are the amount and kinds of recreationopportunities the area presently supports or is capable ofsupporting?

Wildlife - What are the principal game. nongame, and threatenedand endangered species and what are the opportunities for habitatimprovement?

Hinerals - What is the hardrock, oil, and gas potential of thearea and how should the area be managed for that potential?

3

Wilderness Suitability - What are the wilderness attributes ofthe study area and to what extent is the area suitable forwilderness?

Other Wilderness - What other Federal lands are classifiedwilderness. proposed wilderness. or are under study 86 wildernessin the surrounding area and to what extent should they influencethe classification of the study lands?

Wilderness Quality - What consideration should be given towilderness quality in determining which lands are proposed forwilderness?

Protection - What is the present condition and the potential forserious fire and/or insect and disease infestation; what are thecurrent protection measures. and what measures are needed?

Community Stability - What consideration should be given tomaintaining current employment levels for dependent communities?

Social Situation - What is the social structure of thecommunities and counties adjacent to the study area, and whatpotential effects should be considered?

RPA - What resources do the areas contain and how should thestudy area's resource outputs be allocated toward meeting the RPAprogram goals?

Opportunities for Physically Handicapped - How much need is therefor the study lands to contribute to recreation opportunities forphysically handicapped and elderly persons?

In November 1982, a Draft Report and Proposal was released to thepublic for review and comment. The provisions of Public Law 95-150allowed for a 90-day review period. This period was extended anadditional 45 days by the Regional Forester upon request by members ofthe public.

Provisions of the Bill also required public hearings as part of thepublic review process. Consequently, three public hearings wereconducted; in Eureka, in Libby, and in Kalispell, on January 17 J 18,and 19 , 1983, respectively. Forty four participants presentedwritten and/or oral comments and recommendations.

C. Results of the Public's Review

The Original Proposed Action recommended about 50% of the area fornonwilderness. roadless. management with the remainder designated forsome form of development to benefit wildlife.

4

During the review period, 391 people responded to the originalproposal including the 44 participants at the public hearings. Theresponses were stratified using 8 content analysis process. Responsesinc luded letters. pet it ions. and pub lie hearing appearances. Themajori~y of comments were received in the form of personal letters.Petitions snd form letters did playa part in the total responses.There were three petitions totalling 59 signatures, all from theEureka area. Form letters were received primarily from the snowmobileclubs in eastern Montana voicing support for continued use ofsnowmobiling in .lontana. (See Appendix B for a detailed discussion ofthe analysis and evaluation of the public comments.)

About 70% of the respondents lived either within the Forest boundaryor immediately adjacent to it; the respondents can thus be categorizedaa primarily local.

The issue of wilderness/nonwilderness is highly polarized and this isreflected in the responses to the original Report and Propoaal. About48% of the respondents flatly disapproved of the recommendations madein the original Report and Proposal preferring. instead, Alternative Cwhich recommended that the entire area be wilderness. About 42%approved of the original proposed action (including those who approvedwith "condtions" or suggestions for improvement). while the remainderof the respondents offerred no opinion one way or the other.

A group of local citizens in the Tobacco Valley area (representingseveral local organizations) formed a committee and volunteered theirtime and experience to prepare a "Citizens' Alternative." Theirproposal requested that the existing Ten Lakes acenic area (6500acres) be expanded to include almost the entire study area (about35,000 acres) and that snowmobiling be allowed. (Following thepreparation of the "Citizens' Alternative,lI a petition was receivedfrom people belonging to the groups supposedly represented by theabove committee. stating that they did not support the "Citizens'Alternative.")

Of those 48% who disapproved of the original proposal and who favoreda wildernes6 alternative for Ten Lakes, most were from the areaimmediately adjacent to the Forest, followed closely by people wholive within the Forest boundary. The most often stated reasons fortheir preference were:

Nonwildernesa would be detrimental to wildlife.

Timber values in the area are too low to warrant including thearea in the timber base.

Because the area ia the last wild remnant of the Whitefish Range,should be aet aside as wilderness; area has high wilderneaaattributea.

Snowmobilers already have enough area in which to recreate.

Ares needa to be protected from oil and gas development.

5

Of those 42% of the people who approved of the original ProposedAction, most were from eastern Montana, followed by people from thelocal area and from the area immediately adjacent to the Forest. Themost often stated reasona for approving the original Proposed Actionwere:

Leave the area open for snowmobiling.

Timber in the area should be managed.

Area should be made available for oil and gas exploration.

There is already too much wilderness in Montana.

A Scenic Area designation would be better than wilderness becausesuch a designation would protect the area while still allowingfor some development.

To summarize, preference for a wilderness classification in Ten Lakesstemmed from a concern for wildlife (primarily threatened andendangered species), lack of developmental opportunities to justifynonwilderness, the quality wilderness attributes present in the area,and the feeling that wilderness would be the best designation toinsure continued protection.

For those supporting a nonwilderness designation for the area. theprimary reasons for their position stemmed from a desire to continuesnowmobile use in the area. a desire to develop the resources that arepresent including timber and oil and gas potentials, the desire tomaintain management flexibility, and the belief thst there is alreadytoo much wilderness in Montana.

The polarization of the wilderness issue focuses on whether the areawould be better protected as wilderness, as a scenic area, or otherforms of management, roadles8 or nonroadless. The following is asummary of the major issues identified by the public in the review ofthe November 1982 Draft Report and Proposal in the order of most oftenexpressed to least often expressed: (Other issues were addressed withless intensity. Appendix B contains all the items raised by thepublic in their review).

1. lARue StAtemept: The area should be classified wildernessbecause of the grizzly and caribou values in the area; wildernessprovides the best protection for these areas.

2. leAve StAtement: Because the area is a popular snowmobile area,wilderness should not be the designation as this would prohibituse.

3. lalue StAtement: The timber values in the area are low; theyneither add or detract significnntly from the Forest totals andas such, do not warrant a nonwilderness classification for thearea.

6

4. I,,"e Statement: Ten Lakes is the last remoJ.nlng wild remnant ofthe Whitefish Range that contains scenic beauty and opportunitiesfor solitude; the wildernesa values outweigh the need fordevelopment.

~. leaYe SCetement: Snowmobile use should not be a reason fornonwilderness because (1) it ia not known the extent ofsnowmobile use and (2) snowmobiles already have most of theForest in which to recreate.

6. 1,,", Sc..temcpt: The area should be protected from the effectsof oil and gas development; such protection would be available ifthe area were wilderness.

7. lalMe Statemept: Timber in ten Lakes will not contribute to theForest's ability to meet RPA timber goals.

8. 1.,lIe Statement: There is a shortage of wilderness in Montana.

9. 1.lye St'temept: A Scenic Area designation would not provide thesame degree of protection 8S a wilderness; in terms ofprotection. wilderness classification is preferable.

10. l"ue Stetcmep,: The timber values in the area outweigh thewilderness qualities and therefore should be managed.

D. Action Taken After the Public Review and Revision of the OriginalProposed Action

Analysis of the public comments revealed that there is a strong desirefor protection of the Ten Lakea Area. Even among those who approvedof the original Proposed Action (nonwilderness) concern was expressedover too much development projected (or the area. The results of theanalysis of public comments were interpreted as being strongly infavor of a nondevelopment designation for the area,with a significantdesire for a formal wilderness.

The original Proposed Action was deemed inappropriate in light of thepublic comments because of the amount of develpment projected, and wasthus reconsidered. The reconsideration involved examining asignificant amount of nondevelopment including potential wildernessboundaries that could be easily managed. The snowmobile clubs wereadvised that some form of a wilderness designation would probably beforthcoming and that their involvement to arrive at a suitabledesign3tion was essential. The Libby Sno-Kats. a local snowmobileclub, had submitted a map of important snowmobiling areas and wereinterested in remaining involved in the process. Organizers of the"Citizen's Alternative" were apprised of the reconsideration and theirinput was sought.

__c_

7

During the Sununer of 1984, the boundaries of the revised ProposedAction were finalized and included a wilderness recommendation. Thisnew wilderness recommendation proposed approximately 26,000 acres ofwilderness inside the Ten Lakes MWSA area and an additional 7000 acresoutside and adjacent to the Study Area. This coincided closely withthe Montana Wilderness Bill submitted by the Montana CongressionalDelegation in June 1984. That recommendation was for a wildernessdesignation on 25,000 acres plus 7,000 acres of lands adjacent thatwere not originally a part of the Ten Lakes Study Area. A specialroad less management area and some limited development was recommendedon the remainder of the area. The Montana Wilderness Bill failed topass by the close of Congress in December 1984.

The reconunendation made in this Final Report and Proposal will bepresented to Congresss for their consideration on whether wildernessor nonwiderness should be the management direction for the Ten LakesMWSA area.

II. The Ten Lakes Area

A. Area Description

The Ten Lakes ffilSA road less area is located in the northeast corner of theForest, adjacent to the Canadian border. Portions of the area have been ina t·protectedtl status since 1964 when a 6,500 core area was designated theTen Lakes Scenic Area. This core area is mountainous, with talus slopes,rock outcroppings, and bare ridges common in the upper elevations.Prominent mountain peaks are Ksanka and Independence in addition to Poormanand Green Mountain and St. Clair Peak, which surround the inner core area.Subalpine basins with clear lakes, beautiful mountain meadows with anabundance of flowers, and gnarled veteran alpine larch and whitebark pine,make this "core" an area of scenic beauty.

The lower elevations of the surrounding rondless area contain somecommercial forests. Dominant timber. species in the "corell subalpine basinswhere the timber quality is poor, are Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir,whitebark pine, lodgepole pine, and alpine larch. The growing season isvery short and snow depth usually exceeds 12 feet.

The entire area is generally surrounded by signs of past forest managementactivities, roads, or population centers. The Ten Lakes MWSA area isdirectly west of the Thompson-Seton and Tuchuck road less areas andoverlooks tile Tobacco Valley where the towns or Eureka. Fortine. and Tregoare located. Nany of the basins surrounding the area were logged duringthe spruce bark beetle infestation in the early 1950's. which explains theIIfinger" configuration of the area.

Existing use is considered moderate (14,900 RVD's) and consists primarilyof hiking, nature photography, cross country skiing. and snowmobiling.

8

B. Wilderness Attributes

1. Natural Integrity and Appearance

Overall, the natural integrity is high with the Stahl Peak lookout,Wolverine Cabin, and trails the only manmade features within theboundary.

2. Opportunities for Solitude

Opportunities for solitude are good within the core of Ten Lakes butrange from poor to moderate in the remainder of the area. ~hi8 isbecause of the open ridges that face out into developed areas whichtends to detract from the opportunitiea for solitude.

3. Primitive Recreation Opportunities

Good opportunities for primitive recreat ion exist 'such as hiking,camping, and wildlife observation. Chsllenging experiences includerock climbing and wildlife photography.

4. Other Features

The area is a part of the Whitefish Range of the Northern ContinentalDivide grizzly bear ecosystem. Other features include panoramic viewsof Glacier Park from the open ridges.

5. Manageability and Boundaries

There are three patented mining claims and a few old logging roadsjust within the boundary that present nonconforming uses.

The MWSA area has a convoluted configuration which inhibits wildernessboundary management. This configuration results from heavily loggedbasins which creates a roadles8 area of exposed "fingers" extendinginto developed areas. The boundary lines are located, for the mostpart, on midslope contours which would be difficult to identify andadminister. Opportunities for improving the boundary do exist and havebeen incorporated into the Final Proposed Action.

C. Current Resource Situation

1. Rec reat ion

The Ten Lakes MWSA area has the potential to provide about 16,900RVD's of road less recreation. Current use of the area is moderatewith most activity focused in campgrounds immediately outside theroadless boundary from where day hikes into the area are made. Somesnowmobile use occurs primarily in the Wolverine and Bluebird Basins,and across Therriault Pass.

2. Timber

About lB,400 acres are considered tentatively suitable timberlands.Host of the timberland is located on lands with 55%+ slopes whichwould require skyline or aerial harvest methods.

..

9

3. Wildlife and Fish

The area contains elk, whitetail and mule deer, bear. and moosehabitat. Small portions of winter range (500 acres) are also locatedin the area. Ten Lakes is part of the Northern Continental Dividegrizzly bear ecosystem and sightings have been made. Evidenceindicates that caribou use the area though the extent is not known •It is assumed that the use is transient and that the main herd islocated in Canada. Research efforts to determine the status of thecaribou are presently underway.

Bluebird, Rainbow, and Wolverine Lakes support a cutthroat troutfisheries.

4. Minerals, Oil and Gas

The mineral potential is considered low. The MWSA area lies withinthe overthrust belt. As such, the area is considered to have one ofthe highest oil and gas potentials on the Forest though no leases arein effect inside the MWSA area. All the surrounding srea is underlease.

5. Range

The area has the potential to provide about 1,000 AUM's of livestockforage, all of which would be on transitory range. There are nograzing allotments in the area.

6. Cultural Resources

There have been no prehistoric sites identified in the Ten Lakes MWSAroad less area. Based on surveys done in similar areas. theprobability of sites occurring is considered low. Seven historicsites have been recorded including the Wolverine Cabin. a border guardstation, and five mining sites.

7. Water

The area contains portions of the Blacktsil, Ksanka, Sinclair.Therriault, Stahl, Wolverine. and Bluebird Creek watersheds.Precipitation ranges from a low of 20 inches in the Ksanka Creekportion of the area to a high of 65 inches in the Blacktail andBluebird Creek portions. Runoff varies from 5 to 60 inches, dependingon the drainage. Water quality is considered high, even during peakrunoff periods.

D. Management Considerations

1. Land Use Authorizations

There are no special uses.

2. Fire

The area llas had moderate fire occurrence (12 fires in the last 23years). The fuels situation is primarily dense conifer with downedwoody materials as ground fuels.

10

3. Insect and Disease

Mountain pine beetle and spruce bark beetle activity is occurring inthe area. There sre about 5,600 acres of susceptible lodgepole andspruce that are affected.

4. Non-Federal Lands

There are three patented mining claims totalling about 100 acreswithin the area.

E. Proximity to Other Wilderness and to Population Centers

Ten Lakes is about 65 miles from the existing Cabinet MountainsWilderness and about 40 miles from Glacier National Park. The area isabout 60 miles from the populated Flathead Valley and 200 miles fromMissoula. Hontana, the nearest population centers.

F. Contribution to National Wilderness Preservation System

This area contains portions of the Northern Continental Divide grizzlybear ecosystem which is represented in the existing wilderness system.

III Final Proposed Action

A. Intent

The intent of the Proposed Action is to preserve the majority of theprimitive character of the Ten Lakes ~~SA through a combination of awilderness designation, where a boundary can be easily identified andmanaged, and through other nondevelopmental designations such assemiprimitive nonmotorized recreation wllere a wildernessclassification would not be appropriate. Where the timber resourcesin the area are considered more appropriate for management.designations Bre made that allow some activities to occur, primarilyfor wildlife benefits (involves about 6% of the area).

B. Description

1. Wilderness

The Final Proposed Action contains 26,000 acres of proposed wildernesswhich is approximately 76% of the area. Excluded from the proposal isthe extreme eastern portion located along the Mt. Wam ridge. Proposedmanagement in that area is nonwilderness (roadless) recreation onapproximately 5,300 acres (16% of the area). (See Alternative Maps).Pockets of development are designated in the lower portions SinclairCreek, Clarence, and Rich Creek drainages. This developmentaldesignation is adjacent to existing roads and is primarily to benefitwildlife.

The final Proposed Action map reflects the total wildernessrecommendation which includes about 7,000 acres of land outside theMWSA boundary, identified as "Ten Lakes Contiguous Ar'eas 01683A" inthe Forest Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Thesecontiguous areas are not evaluated in this Report but. rather. arediscussed in the DEIS, Appendix C.

".

. '

:

11

2. Timber and Road Construction

About 2,200 acres are designated for developmental activities whichinclude some timber harvest and a limited amount of road building.Timber management would occur in commercial timber lands locatedwithin grizzly habitat and would be conducted with prescriptionsfavoring the grizzly bear. The prescription regulates the schedulingof activities so that they occur during periods of nonuse by grizzliesand provides for road closures when the harvest activities arecomplete.

No timber harvest is projected until the third decade when anestimated 1.4 MMBF would be harvested annually. Approximately 4.2miles (total) of new road construction would be needed to harvest the14 MMBF.

3. Wildlife & Fish Including Threatened and Endangered

The entire area lies within the Northern Continental Divide GrizzlyBear Ecosystem (NCDGE) snd numerous sightings of grizzlies have beenmsde. The estimated grizzly population in the ~CDGE ranges from440-660 bears. The Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan calls for a targetpopulation for the NCDGE ecosystem of 560 bears, of which theKootenai's share is 13. The r,'inal Proposed Action would provide alow risk of failure in meeting the recovery gosl.

Evidence of caribou use in the Ten Lakes area has been found althoughthe extent of that use has yet to be determined. A wilderness androadless designation for the area would protect the available habitat.

There are about 500 acres of big game winter range located within thearea that would be managed for big game primarily whitetail deer.These acres are designated nonwilderness in the Final Proposed Action.

The cutthroat trout fisheries in Bluebird, Rainbow, and WolverineLakes would be maintained.

4. Minerals, Oil and Gas

Approximately 76% of the Ten Lakes ~&SA would be unavailable formineral. and oil and gas exploration and development. The mineralpotential is considered low but the oil and gas potential is rated ashaving one of the highest potentials on the Forest. no leases wouldbe let for oil and gas exploration in the proposed wilderness. Theconfiguration of the area is 8uch that directional drilling (romoutside the area would be possible if Congress were to grant anexception to allow oil and gas exploration. Lease applications on theremainder of the area not designated wilderness would be available forleasing consideration in a separate environmental assessment process.

5. Viaual Resource

The landscape along the Eureka Face (that portion of the area thatfaces out into the Tobacco Valley and ia highly visible from Highway93) would be maintained in a natural appearance. The development thatwould occur in the Sinclair Creek drainage. located along the EurekaFace. would be conducted with limitations designed to protect theviewing resource.

12

6. \lec reat ion

About 13,000 RVDs of wilderness use would be provided in the FinalProposed Action, with about 1,2>0 RVDs of seimprimitive nonmotorizedrecreation provided. Although a small portion of the area would bedeveloped, roads would be restricted and thus would be unavailable for~otorized forms of recreation.

Snowmobile use would not be available in the recommended wildernessbut would be allowed in the nonwilderness portions.

7. R41nge

No grazing opportunities would be available and thus no livestock AUMswould be produced.

8. Present Net Value

The PNV of the Proposed Action is $3,156,000.

9. Ineect and Disease

Of the projected timber harvest, about 25% would be lodgepole pinesusceptible to mountain pine beetle infestation. Most of thelodgepole pine currently suaceptible would be unavailable for harvest.

The following chart diaplays the outputs that would be expected fromthe Final Proposed Action.

13

OUTPUTS for SELECTED RESOURCESthat are associated with the

FINAL PROPOSED ACTION

26,000(5,300)

(00)0,500)

(700)8,200

CATEGOKX

Wilderness Designation AcresRoadless Designation

Developmental DesignationWildlifeTimber & Wi Id lifeTimber, Wildlife, & Visual

Total Nonwilderness

Timber Harvest (KHBF)Tota I Decade ITotal Decade 3Total Decade 5

RoadsMiles of New RoadsMiles Restricted

UNITS

o14o

44

Acre. of Grizzly Bear Habitat Availablefor Grizzly Bear Recovery

(Situation I) 34,200

Acre. of Big Game ManagementWinter RangeSUDUller Range

Acres of High Potential Minerals orOil/Gas that are Inaccessable

HineralsOil & Gas

Recreation RVO. (Total)Primitive (wilderness)Semiprimitive-NonmotorizedSemiprimitive-Motorized

(Snowmobiling)

Range - AURs

Number of Jobs

Returns to the TreasuryTotal Decade ITotal Decade 3Total Decade 5

Present Net Value (1978 Dollars)

2,9001,4001,500

o26,000

15,50013 ,000

1,200

1,300

o

17

o$63,000

o

$3,156,000

14

IV. Effects of Activities

This section discusses the effects of activities that would occur if thefinal Proposed Action were implemented. The discussion focuses on theeffects of wilderness designations and nonwildernes8 designations, bothroadless and developmental with activities associated with wildlifemanagement.

A. Effecta -of Wilderne•• De.ignation

The Proposed Action recommends 26,000 acres of wilderness bedesignated in the Ten Lakes HWSA. There are no apecificground-disturbing management activities associated with wildernessalthough the establishment of wilderness may, in itself, have effectson other resources and uses.

A wilderness clas~ification will protect the naturalness of thearea. Primitive recreation opportunities would be maximized andsecurity would be provided for big game and grizzly bears.

There are about 18,400 acres of suitable timberland that would not beavailable for harvest.

Grizzly bear habitat (Situation 1 - critical to the recovery of thespecies) covers the entire study area. Wilderness management wouldprovide security to the bear by prohibiting roading thereby reducingpotential increases in human activity. However, opportunities toincrease forage for bears through prescribed burning and timberharvest would not occur.

Opportunities to manage big game Summer and winter range where itoccurs would not be available. Management activities associated withwildlife habitat management include timber harvest and prescribedburning. However, the security provided by wilderness would bebeneficial to wildlife in that access into the area would be limited.

Wilderness will prohibit the exploration for, and removal of, mineralresources. Under the Wilderness Act, the land would be withdrawn frommineral entry for hard rock mining. This restriction is notconsidered significant to hard rock minerals because the mineralpotential is considered to be low. The oil and gas potential is ratedas being one of the highest on the Forest. (Overall the potential foroil and gas on the Kootenai National Forest is considered moderate).Oil and gas leases would not be let. However, the configuration ofthe area is such that opportunities for directional drillingexploration would be possible if Congress were to grant an exceptionthat would allow this activity.

Activities permissable in wilderneas, when authorized by the 1964Wilderness Act or wilderness management plans, cost more thanactivities in areas without the restrictions. Restrictions applyprimarily to mode of transportation, use of chainsaws in thewilderness, and removing signs of the intrusion after projectcompletion. When permitted, activities such as disease and pestcontrol and fire suppression, would be conducted while protecting thewilderness values which, in turn, requires more time, adherence tomore stringent requirements, and more money being spent.

"

. ,

15

Social and economic effects would center around the resource values ofrecreation, wildlife. wilderness, and timber. Primitive recreationactivities such as hunting in a road less setting, would continue.Timberland inside the proposed wilderness would not be available, thusnot supporting the local wood products industry. Those publicsvaluing wilderness would be supportive of the Final Proposed Action.

B. Nonwilderness Designation - Roadless

This designation would occur in the extreme eastern portion of thearea, along the north-south ridge radiating from Mt. Wam. Thedesignation totals about 5,300 acres. There are few, if any,ground-disturbing management activities specifically associated withthis unroaded management.

The road less character of the area would be maintained in thisemphasis as would the semiprimitive recreation opportunities. Oldgrowth timber habitat will be provided and security for grizzlies andbig game would be maintained.

Oil and gas lease applications would be evaluated through theenvironmental assessment process. Leases could be granted withrestrictions to protect the primitive character of the area as much asposs ib Ie.

Like wilderness. road less designations require stiffer requirementsfor conducting activities. requirements that are designed to protectthe qualities inherent in a road less designation. Restrictions onaccess and mode of travel are major limitations for conductingactivities. often making the activity expensive to accomplish. Suchactivities can include wildlife and fish habitat improvements.mineral. oil and gas exploration/development. insect and diseasecontrol. and wildfire suppression.

The social and economic effects are primarily the benefits ofsemiprinlitive recreation opportunities. Timber would not be availablefor harvest in this designation.

'.

c. Nonwilderness Designation - Developmental

About 2.900 acres are designated to developmental activities designedprimarily to favor wildlife. i.e. big game and grizzly bears. Timberharvest and associated activities. such as road building. have moreeffect on the physical and biological environment than any otherforest management empllasis. The extent of the effects are dependenton management prescriptions selected.

Activities are not scheduled to occur until the third decade. Totalroad nliles expected to be needed to manage the area is estimated to be4.2 miles but. becau~e of tile requirements of the prescriptionsfavoring wildlife. the roads would be closed after the activity iscomplete.

As roading and other development occur. the naturalness of the areawill be impacted. Roading foregoes the opportllnity to reconsider thearea for wilderness in the future and reduces the opportullity forprimitive recreation and experiences of solitude.

16

Timber harvest and roads could result in a short term displacement ofbig game. Activities conducted in big game habitat are coordinatedwith wildlife needs and include the closure of roads upon completionof the activity and insuring that adequate cover is left. Long termbenefits to wildlife include maintsining and improving wildlifeforage.

Timber management activities can directly affect the grizzlypopulation in the short term by logging activities and the long termby road access into a roadles8 area. Access into the area coulddisplace the bear and increase the opportunity for human/bearencounters. Timber management activities. if well coordinated. canproduce benefits by producing more desirable forage for grizzliesthrough certain timber harvest and site preparation practices such assIDal1 clearcuts and broadcast burning instead of tractor piling.Roads would be closed in a timely manner to minimize human/bearencounters and displacement_

The harvest of SOme of the mature lodgepole pine will provide anopportunity for control of insects and disease because all diseased orsusceptible trees are removed and a young. vigorous stand isinstalled. It is expected that about 2S% of the projected timberharvest would be lodgepole pine.

Social and economic effects are related primarily to the resourcevalues of timber. wildlife. wilderness. and recreation. The harvestof timber is important to the economic base of communities in thelocal area. Timber from the Ten Lakes MWSA area would contribute tothe economic base although that contribution would be small. Huntingexperiences could be altered in those portions of the .area scheduledfor development because of the change in the road less setting to aroaded natural setting. Road closures would retain the area closer toits existing character. Concerns about impacts on grizzly bear. biggame. and other species could be raised by the activities scheduled inthis emphasis, but would be addressed by efforts to mitigate theimpac ts.

,0

'0

".

17

v. Summary of the Final Proposed Action

If the Proposed Action were implemented. there would be little change fromthe way the area is presently being managed. Except for the few sreas ofproposed development along the edge of the area, the primitive character of .the Ten Lakes MWSA area would be maintained. There would be few visible 'manmade intrusions to impact the naturalness of the area.

Grizzly habitat would be protected as would old growth timber habitat.Water quality would be maintained and yields would not exceed that whichwould be expected to occur naturally.

Snowmobiling, an estabilished use in the srea since the 1960's, would notbe permitted in the recommended wilderness area but would be allowed tocontinue on the nonwildernees portioos.

Oil and gas leasing would not be permitted in the recommended wildernessbut could be allowed elsewhere in the area. Limited timber harvestingwould occur on small portions of the srea, primarily to enhance wildlifehabitats.

Based upon the results of the public's review of the November 1982 DraftReport and Proposal. a wilderness designation would be acceptable to thelocal and regional publics. Snowmobiling and oil and gaa interests wouldbe the most adversely affected as would the timber industry but to a lesserdegree.

Pending the final decision by Congreas, the Ten Lake. MWSA will be managedas a Wilderness Study Area in order to preserve it. existing primitivecharacter.

The'following Table displays the significant points for all thealternatives considered during the study of the Ten Lakes MWSA, includingthe Final Proposed Action.

1 of 3 18

RN LAKES MONTANA WILDEnNESS SlUDY AnEA (PL-95-150)COMPAAISON or ALTEANATIDES

(Auerll1l8 nnnulIl Aesulls)

Resource nem or Results Unit of Decedo Current Orlglnel ALI All ALI ALI rlNALMeasure Direction Proposed A B C o ~~OS£D

(No Action) Action TlON( 11/B2

WILDERNESS

Recommended 10 ConiTess Acres I 0 0 16,40C 29,60( 31,200 6,600 26,000

RoedlessAcres Rooom- Acres I 16,400 18,600 0 0 0 12,100 6,300mended

lotel Wilderness endRoedless Acres Recomc Acres 1 16,400 18,600 16,40( 29,60( 34,200 18,60C 31,300mended

TIMBER

Alloweble Sole Quentlly MMBF I 1.1 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

2 0.2 3.8 2.2 0.2 0.0 3.8 0.0

3 0.5 3.5 '8.2 0.5 0.0 3.5 1.4

'1 0.0 2.3 1.2 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0

5 0.2 1.8 0.6 0.2 0.0 1.8 0.0

Sulteble TImberlendAcres I 5,700 16,500 18,600 5,500 0 16,600 2,200

(Areas Avelleble forTimber Mamt.)

Proportion of lolelPercent I 29 85Tlmberlend evelleble for 96 27 0 85 11

menll\lllmeni (Reguleled)

..FACILITIES

Locol Rood Construction Miles I 1.0 0.3 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.0end Reconstruction 2 0.4 2.0 11.3 0.4 0.0 2.0 0.0

3 1.1 2.0 7.7 1.1 0.0 2.0 0.44 0.0 1.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.05 . 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0

Tolel Roads EventuallyMiles

Constructed 5 32 69 106 32 0 69 4

RECREATION

Roeded MenllQllmenl Areas Acres 1 5,660 8,900 18,56C 5,500 0 8,900 2,900Roedless Menegement Ar...InclUding Wilderness

Acres I 28,540 25,300 15,64C 2B,700 34,200 25,300 31;300

Area Available for Acres 1 34,200 34,200 18,50C 6,200 0 28,000 8,200

Snowmobllinn Pen:enl 100 100 54 18 0 82 21.

2 of 3 19

•

.'

TEN LRKES MONTRNR WILDERNESS STUDY RRER (PL-95-150)COMPRRISON OF RLTERNRTlUES

(Ruerllue RnnulIl Result..)

RtlSOIJrce Item or Results Unit of Decede Current Orlglnel All ALl ALl· ALl IfINAL'"

Measure Direction Proposed A B C D ,pROPOSED(No IIctlon) IIctlon ACTION

( 11/82"

VISUAL QUALI TV

Protective VOO's onIIcres I 3,000 12,100 7,500 3,600 C 12,IOe 2,000Sultoble Tlmberlend

(Retention 8< PertlelPercent 1 53 73 "0 65 C 73 91Retention VOO's

Combined)

Preservetlon VOO's IIcres I 0 0 16,"00 29,000 3",200 6,500 26,000

Retention VOO's IIcres I 32,200 26,000 700 2,600 C 19,50e 5,300

Pertlal Retention VOO's IIcres 1 1,000 ",900 6,800 1,000 C ",900 2,700

lotel IIcres of33,200 30,900 3".200 30,90ePreservation, Retention, IIcres I 23,900 33,200 3",000

8< Pertloel RetentionVOO'.

WILDLIfE

Supportive Orlzzly /lcres I 30,900 33,000 22,700 31,20C 3",200 33,OOe 3",200Hebltot

Total Road Restrictions Miles 5 22 3" 66 22 C 3' "Evantually Required

lotol Roods Remelnlng Miles 5 10 35 "0 10 C ·3E 0Open

OIL 8< (lAS EXPLORAIION I

Special Condition Areas IIcr.. I 28,900 32,800 2~ ,"00 31,20C 3",20C 2,800 34,200InclUding RestrictedOCcupency

Restricted OCcuponcy Areo Acre! 1 26,000 26,100 17,"00 30,"OC 3",20C 6,100 3",200

INSECT 8< OISEASESAlVAOE

Portion or Areo Avelleble IIcr.. 1 3",200 3",200 19,500 6,300 029,900 8,200for Solvage Percent 1 100 100 5" 18 0 82 2"

3 of 3 20

lEN lllKES MUNIIINII 1II1lUElINESS StuUY III1ER (Pl-95- I 5U)CUMPIIIIISUN UF 1I11EIINllnUES

(1Il1eroye IInnuol lIesulls)

Resource Hem or Resulls Vnll of Decode Current Orlgin.1 All All All All INALMeasure Olrectlon Proposed A 8 C 0 ROPOSElJ

(No Action) Action ACTION( 11/82 - .

LOCAL ECONO~IY

Ch.nge. In Tol.I Ernploy- Jobs I .18 +6 +19 .18 0 .5 0ment from the I 98U 8••• 2 .5 '63 .32 • 5 U .62 0Yeer 3 + II +60 +109 + II 0 +58 +21

4 .4 .47 .20 +4 0 '44 05 '7 +43 'IU '8 0 .39 0

Returns 10 the Sl.les 2 Thousand I 30 0 35 3U 0 0 0( 1978 Dollars) DolI.rs 2 8 153 80 8 U 153 0

3 24 167 413 24 0 167 24 U 229 148 0 0 229 05 35 179 37 35 U 179 0

ECONOMIC COMPARISONS

R.lurns to the V.S. 2 [hous.nd I 12U U 138 120 0 0 0Tr.asury ( 1978 Doll.rs) Dollars 2 32 613 320 32 0 613 0

3 95 669 1654 95 0 669 64 () 914 593 0 0 914 05 139 717 148 139 U 717 U

Huns: I Not I••••bl. until·Congr.ss octs

2 FInal ProposelJAcllonva!uesarBnot directly cullljJsralJle becausedlrrerenlrnodel value! were usedb.tween the Urall ."d Ih. F1".1Report

, .