Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact South Fowl ...

Shortly after, Representative Burton (California) introduced HR 12250 which would add
35,000 acres to the BWCA and 220,000 acres to be managed as National Recreation Area
for those parcels between the wilderness units. The final bill to come out of House and
Senate conference established the BWCAW at around 1,100,000 acres. The new
boundaries were mapped out and a legal description was drawn to follow that map (Leg.
His. PL 95-495). There was no area defined as National Recreation Area in the final bill.
Congress debated the Act for three years and the deadlock was only broken when
representatives of groups with differing views met in a marathon negotiating session
where a compromise agreement was reached. Interestingly, with the passage of the ’78
Act, the public controversy did not come to an end. There were loud protests including
public “lockouts” at District offices. Demonstrations took place on April 14, 1978 when
an estimated 1,000 people protested by reading an eviction notice to the Gunflint District
Ranger while the City of Grand Marais cut the electricity to the District Office (Cook
County News Herald, 2006). Not everyone easily accepted the decisions made by
Congress.
One could ask the question, “Did the ’78 Act reduce or eliminate ambiguity?” The
answer should be “Yes”. While Congress did not totally eliminate motorized use or
create a “pure” wilderness, they were specific and clear with their directions. Congress
clearly defined the boundaries for the new BWCAW. Logging was eliminated from
within the Wilderness. The law contained provisions for motorboats on specifically
named lakes and very limited snowmobiling on specifically named routes. Otherwise
motor use in the Wilderness was prohibited.
Interestingly, one could also ask the question, “Did the ’78 Act reduce or eliminate
ambiguity outside the BWCAW?” Again the answer should be “Yes”.
• First, Congress provided specific direction in the Wilderness Act of 1964 under
Section 2 (a) “…and no Federal lands shall be designated as “wilderness areas”
except as provided for in this Act or by a subsequent Act.”
• Second, over the years Congress has provided guidance for managing National
Forest System lands through a series of Laws, notably the “Organic Act”, the
Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act”, the “Endangered Species Act”, the Resources
Planning Act (RPA) and the “National Forest Management Act” (NFMA).
Forest Plans are prepared under the auspices of these Acts to provide strategic
management of each National Forest.
• Third, the 1964 Wilderness Act provided clear separation between management
strategies for wilderness and non-wilderness, although the BWCA was somewhat
muddled given provisions that allowed exceptions (prior to 1978 such as logging,
snowmobiling and motor boating where found within the BWCA).
• Fourth, the ’78 Act clearly established the new Wilderness boundaries and ended
all logging, most of the snowmobiling and dramatically reduced motor boat use
within the BWCAW. The same Act contained language that directed the Forest
Service (through the Secretary of Agriculture) to provide additional opportunities
for those uses outside the newly established Wilderness boundaries (i.e. Section
18(a).
8