Chain of Lakes

Goal

To protect the wilderness by preventing an increase in the day-use motor quotas on the Moose, Saganaga, and Farm chains of lakes in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness..

Background

The 1978 BWCA Wilderness Act directs the Forest Service to establish motor quotas for all Boundary Waters lakes where motors are permitted. These quotas are not to exceed the average use during the years 1976, 1977, and 1978. The Act further states that resort and home owners are to be given access to “that particular lake” on which they live and their use is not to be counted in calculating the quota cap.

When it originally established quotas, the Forest Service interpreted “that particular lake” to mean chains of connected lakes. Upon the release of the 1993 BWCA Wilderness plan, the Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness challenged this interpretation in court. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the Friends that “that particular lake” referred only to the particular lake on which the property was situated.

Given a clarified definition, the Forest Service decided to recalculate the day-use motor cap and establish new quota levels. In February 2002, the Forest Service released its decision to nearly triple current motor quotas on the Moose, Saganaga, and Farm lake chains. After exhausting administrative options, the Friends, Sierra Club, Superior Wilderness Action Network, American Lands Alliance, Minnesota Canoe Association, American Canoe Association, and Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation challenged the excessive and unfair motor increase in federal court to protect the wilderness for all Minnesotans.

Issues

1. The decision violates the 1978 BWCA Wilderness Act and the Eighth Circuit Court’s Ruling

• The intent of the 1978 Act was to reduce motorboat use within the wilderness as a way to protect, enhance, and preserve the natural values of the BWCAW. Tripling day-use motor permits on three lake chains is directly counter to this purpose.
  
• The Court recognized the Act’s intent to reduce motor use, and the decision did not direct the Forest Service to increase motor quotas.
  

2. The decision violates Forest Service policy

• Forest Service policy mandates that when management decisions have to be made, wilderness values should take precedent over other considerations. Yet, according to the Chain of Lakes Environmental Assessment, the chosen action will have the greatest negative effect on the wilderness.
  

3. Motorboats harm aquatic ecosystems

• Found on 75% of all boats, the two-stroke engine fails to burn 25 to 30 percent of its fuel. Instead, this fuel is dumped directly into the water.
  
• Motorboats disturb water birds. A recent study found that birds flee even greater distances from motorboats than from jetskis.
  

4. Homeowners and their guests already have reasonable access

• Homeowners and their guests have unlimited access to the lake on which they live and are exempt from obtaining a permit.
  
• There are unlimited day-use paddle permits available. Those who are unable to obtain day-use motor permits are free to access the wilderness by canoe.
  

5. The public doesn’t want more motors in the BWCAW

• More than two-thirds of the comments received by the Forest Service favored maintaining current quota levels.
  

Conclusion

The Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness opposes the decision to increase motor use in order to protect the quality of wilderness sights, sounds, and smells for future generations.