In a classic David versus Goliath tale, two grassroots organizations have joined forces to battle powerful environmental groups that hope to use the courts to expand the boundaries of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) beyond the lines designated by the 1978 BWCAW Act. The Arrowhead Coalition for Multiple Use (ACMU) of Cook County and the Conservationists with Common Sense (CWCS) of Ely have hired Attorney David Oberstar of the law firm Fryberger, Buchanan, Smith, & Frederick, PA. to help the groups intervene with the US Forest Service on a lawsuit it is involved in, initiated by the Izaak Walton League, the Sierra Club North Star Chapter, Wilderness Watch, and the Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness.
Grand Marais - In a classic David versus Goliath tale, two grassroots organizations have joined forces to battle powerful environmental groups that hope to use the courts to expand the boundaries of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) beyond the lines designated by the 1978 BWCAW Act. The Arrowhead Coalition for Multiple Use (ACMU) of Cook County and the Conservationists with Common Sense (CWCS) of Ely have hired Attorney David Oberstar of the law firm Fryberger, Buchanan, Smith, & Frederick, PA. to help the groups intervene with the US Forest Service on a lawsuit it is involved in, initiated by the Izaak Walton League, the Sierra Club North Star Chapter, Wilderness Watch, and the Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness.
ACMU and CWCS representatives are concerned that, if successful, the environmental groups will create a precedent establishing a “buffer zone” around the BWCAW, restricting economic and recreation uses outside of the wilderness. ACMU and CWCS acknowledge that the Boundary Waters Wilderness is a treasure to be preserved. The communities surrounding the wilderness have come to accept the restrictions put in place with the Boundary Waters Act of 1978. However, CWCS President Nancy McReady said there is still a sense of loss in both Ely and Cook County because of the cabins that were torn down and burned; because of the resorts that were closed; and for the access that was lost to favorite fishing and camping areas and snowmobile trails when the BWCAW was created. She said, Unfortunately that loss is like a raw wound that is being reopened by this lawsuit filed by these groups to stop the construction of the South Fowl Snowmobile Access and to further increase restrictions on forest use outside of the Boundary Waters.
The lawsuit started with the closure and subsequent proposed 2.2-mile reroute of a snowmobile trail in Cook County. The trail, called the Tilbury Trail by locals, was constructed through an area logged by Verl Tilbury, in the 60s. Tilbury logged the area at the end of the Arrowhead Trail in Hovland, adjacent to what is now the BWCAW. The snowmobile trail connected the McFarland and South Fowl Lakes, connecting the cabins on both lakes and giving access to the many ice fishermen who fish South and North Fowl Lakes. The trail is visible on Forest Service aerial photos outside the Boundary Waters borders in 1970.
In 1978, when the BWCAW Act changed the borders of the wilderness, a small portion of the Tilbury Trail was included. However, that closure was never enforced. No signs were erected. In fact, ACMU members state that US Forest Service and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) employees frequently used the trail themselves to reach portages and conduct forest-related activities.
This was the case until 2003, when Forest Service Gunflint District Ranger Dennis Neitzke announced that the trail “had come to his attention,” announced that the trail was closed, and provided proposals for alternate routes. Subsequently, the Forest Service provided two opportunities for public comment in July – August 2004 and November – December 2005.
ACMU and CWCS supported “Alternative 2, North Route,” a route that starts with another old logging road and travels through an area that had also been logged. At its nearest point, for only a few hundred feet, the new route would be approximately 400 feet from the BWCAW, far above the Royal River on the inner edge of a bluff with a buffer of trees screening the trail from the river. ACMU and CWCS supported the Forest Service’s plan to construct the trail primarily by hand-cutting, with no blasting or heavy equipment required. The groups also supported the Forest Service decision that the trail would not be connected to the North Shore Snowmobile Trail system and that it would not be groomed. Like the historic user-created Tilbury Trail, the intent was for the trail to be used by cabin owners to access their homes and by anglers to travel between McFarland and South Fowl Lakes for ice-fishing.
Ranger Neitzke finally issued his decision on February 21, 2006, to build “Alternative 2, North Route.” The decision was appealed on April 10, 2006 by Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness, Friends of Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, Sierra Club North Star, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Wilderness Watch, and the Izaak Walton League. In May 2006, Forest Service Supervisor James Sanders upheld the local Ranger’s decision.
ACMU and CWCS representatives were pleased that the Forest Service was finally fulfilling its responsibility under the 1978 Act to replace one of the snowmobile trails that was lost because of inclusion in the wilderness. ACMU president Curtis Gagnon of Grand Portage, MN, said his organization supported the new 2.2-mile trail because it offered a similar experience to the former trail. He said, We believe the Forest Service made the right decision. The northern route is a nice replacement trail for the historic trail that was inadvertently included in the Boundary Waters. This takes a motorized trail out of the wilderness and offers trail users a similar trail to use. It's a win-win situation.
Volunteers from ACMU and CWCS were prepared to assist the Forest Service with cutting the new trail. Gunflint Ranger Neitzke said the project was scheduled for mid-August 2006, but work was delayed because Forest Service crews were busy fighting the catastrophic Cavity Lake wildfire in the BWCAW. On August 17, 2006, the lawsuit was filed by the Izaak Walton League and the other groups.
The groups claim that the Forest Service’s environmental assessment violates federal law because the trail will create compacted snow that will adversely affect the Canada lynx, that the trail violates NEPA because the Forest Service did not properly consider the noise impact of snowmobiles on this infrequently used area of the BWCAW, and that allowing snowmobile access onto South Fowl Lake violates the 1978 BWCAW Act and the 1964 Wilderness Act. The lawsuit asks the Forest Service to manage North and South Fowl lakes as wilderness lakes—including instituting a motor boat permit quota. Motor boat use on the lakes is currently restricted to no larger than 9.9 HP, but there is not, nor has there ever been a permit quota in place. This motor restriction is only required on the American side of the lakes. On the Canadian side, there are no motor or aircraft restrictions.
ACMU and CWCS find these claims unfounded and superfluous, but it is the last assertion that most intrigued Attorney Oberstar and induced him to take on the case.
In the ACMU/CWCS filing to intervene, Oberstar stated, The BWCAW Act contains a complicated listing of lakes where motorboat use is allowed within the Wilderness. Those who negotiated this unique legislation were less than artful in the final text. While a detailed boundary of the wilderness area is set forth in the legislation, two lakes, North Fowl Lake and South Fowl Lake which are outside the Wilderness, were erroneously included within the motor use size limitations in the Act. The Forest Service, unwilling to propose a correction to a very emotional and hotly contested BWCAW legislation, chose to apply the motorboat limit to these two lakes even though they are outside of the Wilderness. Plaintiffs bring this action, in part, to attempt to bring these two lakes within complete Wilderness regulation. My clients oppose wilderness regulation of North Fowl Lake and South Fowl Lake and will seek to have the Federal Court lift the motor limit restrictions erroneously placed on the two lakes.