A wilderness study on permanently protecting Minnesotaâ€™s

PRESERVING THE CANOE COUNTRY HERITAGE

A wilderness study on permanently protecting Minnesota’s remaining wild places.

"Nature is the ultimate humbler, both of persons andof civilizations. It can be destroyed by greed, but itnever flatters the greedy; it can, for a time, be madethe domain of the elites, but it outlives them; it canbe temporarily outpowered, but never, except at theperil of all, overwhelmed. On the other hand, natureshowers its bountiful blessings upon the mighty andthe meek in equal proportion. The howl of a wolf,the cry of a loon, the lap of clean water against anuntrammeled shore constitute the only commoncurrency; to defend them is to labor in the most elementary way for the general good."

-Paul Gruchow

A wilderness study on permanently protectingMinnesota’s remaining wild places.

May 2003

PRESERVING THE CANOE COUNTRY HERITAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe are grateful to our field volunteers who spent countless hours conducting inventories of 120,496 acres of

roadless areas in northern Minnesota. They hiked, paddled, bushwhacked, photographed and recorded data inwetlands, on lakes, along rivers and streams, and within the boreal and St. Lawrence-Great Lakes forests located

across the Quetico-Superior Ecosystem. They endured thunderstorms, black flies, mosquitoes, wind, snow,heat and cold because they believe in the importance of protecting our wild places.

In addition, we thank members of our Wilderness Review Committee who met over a two-month period toexamine the information collected by our field volunteers. The Committee's efforts to carefully examine each

unit and make a recommendation regarding the unit's protection were invaluable.

We are particularly grateful to Andy Holdsworth who trained our field volunteers and Keri Carhart who

created the GIS maps found throughout this study.

Finally, we thank the Friends interns. Beginning in January 2001, five interns worked on the Inventory andWilderness Study. Friends interns truly have made this project possible. We give each of them special thanks.

Angie AndersonChel Anderson

Julia BurtonDavid Campbell

Anna Constance

Cyndi CookKaren Dingle

Joshua DavisAndrew Deutsch

Hunter Duncan

Joy ErcoliShawn Ercoli

Shannon FarrellMelosa Grande

Jan Green

Jonathan GreenJenny Griesbach

Chris HaanClyde Hanson

Julie Hignell

Andy HoldsworthCree Holtz

Chris HormanAbra Hovegaard

Bert Hyde

Johnnie HydeKent Jones

Elisa JusterTom Keegan

Gene KremerMolly Kollmeyer

Russ LakeCorinne Lambert

Tammie Larsen

Tim LindstromBecky Locke

Jen LynchPeter McDaniel

Nathan McKinney

Paul MonroeLindsay Moore

Martin NieMegan Nolan

Lois Norrgard

Dan PetersonJoy Schochet

Britain ScottClifford Scott

Pam Sidman

Laura SmithSteve Snyder

Ray SpencerSue Spencer

Melinda Suelflow

Nick VavrichekKris Wegerson

Jean WhiteDiane Wintzer

Preserving the Canoe CountryHeritage, A Wilderness Studyon Permanently Protecting

Minnesota's Remaining WildPlaces is made possible

thanks to the efforts ofmore than 50 field volun-teers and the Board, staff

and interns of the Friendsof the Boundary WatersWilderness.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................................1

Wilderness Worth Protecting........................................................................................................................3

The Canoe Country Heritage.......................................................................................................................6

Why More Wilderness?...................................................................................................................................7

Methodology....................................................................................................................................................10

Roadless Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................................................12

Units adjacent to the BWCAWAgassa Lake........................................................................................................................................13

Baldpate Lake.....................................................................................................................................15Big Lake/Portage River.....................................................................................................................17

Brule Mountain..................................................................................................................................19

Cucumber Lake.................................................................................................................................21Eagle Mountain..................................................................................................................................23

East Otter Lake.................................................................................................................................25Echo River...........................................................................................................................................27

Gunflint Lake SE................................................................................................................................29

Homer Lake.......................................................................................................................................31Lake Jeanette......................................................................................................................................33

Lima Mountain...................................................................................................................................35Magnetic Lake....................................................................................................................................37

Meander Lake....................................................................................................................................39

Mine Lake...........................................................................................................................................41North Arm, Burntside......................................................................................................................43

Urho Creek........................................................................................................................................45Willow Creek....................................................................................................................................47

Wolf Lake...........................................................................................................................................49

Units separate from the BWCAWCabin Creek.......................................................................................................................................51

Hog Lake.............................................................................................................................................53Mississippi Creek..............................................................................................................................55

Picket Lake.........................................................................................................................................57

Seven Beaver......................................................................................................................................59

Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................................61

Glossary............................................................................................................................................................61

Footnotes.........................................................................................................................................................62

Appendices.......................................................................................................................................................63

Today in Minnesota, there is an opportunity to perma-nently protect the few remaining roadless areas found inthe Superior National Forest. These are special placesthat include such Minnesota treasures as Eagle Mountain,Agassa Lake, and Turnip, Parsnip, and Squash Lakes, or, asthey are affectionately known, the vegetable lakes. Manyof these areas are adjacent to the Boundary Waters

Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW), the only large lake-land wilderness in the National Wilderness PreservationSystem. Protecting these roadless areas ensures that thewild and natural places we love today will be here forfuture generations.

With permanent protection, these lands will providehealthy habitat for fish, birds, and other wildlife; places forsolitude and recreational activities for hunters, anglers,bird watchers, paddlers, campers, hikers, kayakers, andskiers; and clean water for all Minnesotans. If we do notprotect these lands, we risk losing thousands of acres ofMinnesota wild lands to logging, development, roads, off-highway vehicle and snowmobile use, and other activitiesthat disrupt wildlife, damage soils, impact water quality,and shatter peace and quiet.

Wilderness Worth Protect ing

The Superior National Forest is one of two national

forests in Minnesota. Covering more than three millionacres of forests, lakes, and bogs, Superior National Forestis home to the Boundary Waters Canoe AreaWilderness. It includes nearly 1,100 pristine lakes thatvary in size from 10 to 10,000 acres. This international-ly-renown “canoe country” provides habitat for suchwildlife species as the gray wolf, black bear, moose,Canada lynx, common loon, and American bald eagle.

The BWCAW is the largest federally-designated wilder-ness east of the Rocky Mountains and north of theEverglades. It is one of four key parcels of the interna-tional Quetico-Superior Ecosystem that includesVoyageurs National Park in Minnesota and QueticoProvincial Park and LaVerendrye Provincial Park inOntario. Together, these parcels protect more than 2.5million acres of the roughly 10 million acre internationalecosystem, a wilderness treasure of immense biological,recreational, and intrinsic value.

The Canoe Country Her i tage

Minnesotans have a deep commitment to the borderlakes region, a great internal system of waterways. Witha long and rich history, the area exemplifies Minnesotans’

strong and steadfast belief in the importance of protect-ing their wilderness heritage. Canoeists still paddle wild,unspoiled routes, including the original “Voyageur high-ways.” They camp among the towering red and whitepines of the old “north woods” forests that coveredabout a quarter of what is now the Boundary WatersCanoe Area Wilderness. And hunters, anglers, and trap-

pers still follow the seasonal cycles of their quarries.

Today, more than 200,000 people visit the BWCAW eachyear, making it one of the most heavily used wildernessareas in the country. Visitors come from across the stateand around the country to the Boundary Waters and itssurrounding lakes and lands to paddle, fish, hike, camp,hunt, view birds and wildlife, enjoy the scenery, and “…find silence, oneness, wholeness - spiritual release.”

1They

cherish their experiences in this remarkable region andwant assurances that they will be able to pass to the nextgeneration a protected American wilderness.

Why More Wilderness?

There are four major reasons why people want to pro-tect more wild lands. They want to:

1. take a break from their daily routines and pursue outdoor recreational activities,

2

2. live in areas that are near open places, parks, and wilderness and that boast strong local economies,

3. ensure that nature provides clean air, clean water, and protected habitat for wildlife, and

4. protect wilderness for its own sake.Americans cherish their wilderness heritage.

More than six in 10 Americans believe that there is notenough wilderness permanently protected for futuregenerations.

3Furthermore, according to January 2003

polling conducted by Zogby International, “more thantwo-thirds of respondents believe that 10 percent ormore of all lands in the United States should be protect-ed as wilderness. When told in fact only 4.7 percent ofthe land in the U.S. has been permanently protected,nearly two-thirds feel that is ‘not enough.’ ”4

Our opportunity today in Minnesota is to address thegap between the amount of land currently protected andthe amount of land the majority of people in the country,and in Minnesota, would like to see protected. Accordingto a 2000 poll conducted in Minnesota, 83 percent ofrespondents favored the protection of Minnesota’s road-less areas.

5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1

Recommendat ion

Preserving the Canoe Country Heritage is a study thatdetails the results of an exhaustive inventory done onapproximately 120,000 acres of roadless areas in theSuperior National Forest. Our goal is to build the casefor support to both the U.S. Forest Service and lawmak-ers so that they will take the necessary steps to perma-nently protect these lands aswilderness.

Of the roadless areas invento-ried, this study recommends

approximatley 89,228 acres, in24 separate units, receivewilderness protection. Theseareas range in size from 556acres (East Otter) to 14,200acres (Seven Beaver).Nineteen of these units(approximately 48,349 acres)are adjacent to the BoundaryWaters Canoe AreaWilderness and their additionwould expand the boundariesof this unique national wilder-ness treasure. Five of the units(approximately 40,879 acres)are separate from theBWCAW but lie within theSuperior National Forest.

In preparing this study, the

Friends of the BoundaryWaters Wilderness, aided bytrained field volunteers, con-ducted the inventory of avail-able lands and gathered datathat was then reviewed by acommittee of experts. Theland consists of individualunits, each with unique charac-teristics. In some instances, aselected unit creates a naturalboundary, such as a river orstream, for the BWCAW. Afew of the units complete anexisting canoe route or createa new one. Many of the units provide opportunities fortrue wilderness experiences due to their remote loca-tions or rugged landscapes. And many of the units pro-tect wildlife and/or native species habitat.

For example, the Cucumber Lake Unit is ruggedcountry with 14 small lakes within its border. With per-manent protection, Bean, Squash and Jim Lakes could

provide paddling and portaging access to the CrocodileRiver and lakes beyond. The Lake Jeanette Unit, withmore than 60 acres of small wetlands, provides excellenthabitat for deer, grouse, bear, and moose and is a popularhunting area in the fall. In the Lima Mountain Unit,there are sedge wetlands near Fiddle Lake, betweenFiddle Creek and Forest Service road 152 (FR152). Bypermanently protecting these areas, we preserve

Minnesotans’ commitment totheir canoe country heritageand love of outdoor recre-ational activities.

Establishing the BoundaryWaters Canoe AreaWilderness as one of the firstwilderness areas in theUnited States was no easytask. The story of theBWCAW is a series ofthreats such as logging, dams,mining, and roads coupledwith the heroic actions ofwilderness advocates whofought those threats so thatfuture generations mightenjoy the canoe countrywilderness of northeasternMinnesota.

The legacy of those whoworked to establish theBWCAW awakens us to the

opportunity to recommitourselves to the wild and nat-ural places we so deeplycherish. We hope you willjoin us in advocating wilder-ness designation for nearly90,000 acres in the SuperiorNational Forest. If we don’tact today, the opportunitymay disappear forever. “Bywaiting, one risks being toolate; on the other hand, therecan be no such thing as beingtoo early.”

6

2

Minnesota Historical Society

In northern Minnesota and across the border intoCanada lies a unique wilderness area known as theQuetico-Superior Ecosystem. Within its borders is theSuperior National Forest, which is home to the BoundaryWaters Canoe Area Wilderness.

The Quet ico-Super ior Ecosystem

The Quetico-Superior is an international ecosystem cov-ering over 10 million acres, making it a wilderness treas-ure of immense biological, recreational and intrinsicvalue.

The Quetico-Superior includes over 2.5 million acres ofprotected area, including the Boundary Waters CanoeArea Wilderness; VoyageursNational Park to the west; andOntario’s Quetico ProvincialPark and LaVerendryeProvincial Park to the north.These protected lands com-prise an area larger thanYellowstone National Park.

Characteristic vegetation of theregion is a mixed forest, with

groves of old growth pine andcedar. Representative speciesinclude quaking aspen, red andwhite pine, paper birch, jackpine, black and white spruce,balsam fir, and tamarack.

Wetlands, lakes, and rivers are widely dispersed acrossthe region and are important features of the landscape.A large network of connected waterways links the regionfrom Lake Superior to Hudson Bay to Rainy Lake andLake of the Woods. These waterways provided impor-tant travel routes for early human inhabitants and todaycontinue to serve as travel corridors for a variety ofwildlife, including several threatened and endangeredspecies.

The Archean bedrock outcrops common in this regionattract lightning strikes, making fire a regular occurrenceand influence in the Quetico-Superior Ecosystem. Fire

determines the species composition, age classes, and spa-tial patterns of the region’s forests. Historically, the dom-inant fire regime consisted of large-scale crown fires orhigh-intensity surface fires that killed most of the vegeta-tion across large areas, resulting in new, even-agedforests. Additionally, low-intensity creeping fires that

killed only portions of stands were common in red andwhite pine stands.

Wildlife in the ecosystem is abundant and includesmoose, black bear, lynx, snowshoe hare, white-tailed deer,and the gray wolf. In Minnesota, it is estimated that there

are 2,600 gray wolves, more than any other state in thecontinental United States. Fish species such as walleye,northern pike, smallmouth bass, lake trout, brook trout,and rainbow trout also are abundant. And bird speciesinclude bald eagle, pileated woodpecker, great gray owl,boreal chickadee, hermit thrush, and a variety of water-fowl. In 2001, Superior National Forest was named oneof 100 Globally Important Bird Areas by the AmericanBird Conservancy. The forest has 163 nesting species; it

includes 24 species of woodwarblers, the greatest numberbreeding in any national forest.

7

Super ior Nat iona lForest

The Superior National Forest isone of two Minnesota nationalforests and extends for 150miles along the U.S./Canada

border in northeasternMinnesota. Covering three mil-lion acres of dense bogs andforests, Superior NationalForest boasts surface watertotaling over 445,000 acres or695 square miles. In addition,

there are more than 2,250 miles of streams that flowwithin the forest boundaries. Given such diversity inlandscape, it is not surprising that the forest is a haven forrecreational activities – fishing, paddling, boating, camping,kayaking, hunting, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling,snowshoeing, and dog sledding.

Superior National Forest is managed according to theprinciples and guidelines outlined in a comprehensiveForest Land and Resource Management Plan. “A forestplan is a management strategy that guides all naturalresource management activities and establishes manage-ment standards and guidelines for a national forest.

Forest plans provide for multiple use and sustained yieldof goods and services from the national forests in a waythat results in maximum long-term net public benefits inan environmentally sound manner.”

8Superior National

Forest completed its last plan in 1986. The new plan iscurrently under review and will guide Forest Service pol-

WILDERNESS WORTH PROTECTING

3


icy in Superior National Forest for the next 10 to 15years.

As part of this revision process, the Forest Service wasrequired to inventory and evaluate all roadless areas andto make recommendations to Congress for land to beadded to the National Wilderness Preservation System.In its current planning process, the Superior NationalForest identified and inventoried 28 units comprising60,206 acres as possible additions to the wilderness. Thefinal Forest Land and Resource Management Plan willinclude the agency’s recommendations regarding theseunits, although an act of Congress is required to desig-

nate new wilderness areas.

Boundary Waters Canoe AreaWilderness : An Embatt led Wilderness

The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, which liesentirely within the Superior National Forest and is man-aged by the U.S. Forest Service, is 1,087,000 acres oflakes, rivers, streams, swamps, and forests. It includes1,100 crystal-clear lakes, varying in size from 10 acres to10,000 acres. There are more than 1,500 miles of canoeroutes and some 2,000 campsites.

Over the past 100 years, the area has witnessed onethreat after another – from logging, mining, and dams tofloat planes, motorboats, and off-highway vehicles. Someof these threats, like dams and float planes, have dimin-ished over the years. Other threats, such as motorboatsand off-highway vehicles, still remain, both inside and out-side the Boundary Waters’ borders. Thus, the Boundary

Waters is recognized as one of the most embattledwilderness areas in the National Wilderness PreservationSystem.

9

A brief review of the history of the Boundary Watersprovides valuable lessons and serves as a “strongreminder to current and future generations of conserva-tion and political leaders of the dynamic challenges facingenvironmental policy issues.”

10The legacy of those who

have worked to establish this area awakens us to theopportunity to recommit ourselves to ensuring that thewild and natural places we love today remain for futuregenerations.

Before the 1964 Wi lderness Act

The history of the efforts to protect the border lakesregion extends for more than a century. Logging in thearea began in 1895, and in response, early conservation-ists both within and outside of government began efforts

to protect the region. Their efforts led to the withdraw-al by the federal General Land Office of 500,000 acresfrom potential settlement.

In 1909, President Theodore Roosevelt used these acresand subsequent land withdrawals to establish theSuperior National Forest. In 1919, the Forest Servicehired a young landscape architect, Arthur Carhart, to pro-duce recreational development plans for national foreststhroughout the country. The Superior National Forestwas one of them, and in 1922, he surprised his superiorsby suggesting a recreation plan that emphasized canoe-ing.

11

In 1926, Secretary of Agriculture William Jardine desig-nated “a large part of the forest for wilderness recreationand promised to leave as wilderness as much of the

Superior National Forest as possible and to ‘leave not lessthan 1,000 square miles of the best canoe country in theSuperior without roads of any character.’ ”

12

At about this time, efforts by lumber baron EdwardWellington Backus to construct a series of hydro-electricdams and flood the border region were thwarted by con-servationists led by Ernest C. Oberholtzer. Their effortsled to the Shipstead-Newton-Nolan Act, which prohibitsthe alteration of natural water levels and logging within400 feet of lakeshores. But it did not prevent loggingaway from lakeshores, and several years later, theQuetico-Superior Committee was formed to addressissues concerning the wilderness. Appointees includedOberholtzer and Bob Marshall, both of whom wereamong those who founded The Wilderness Society in1935.

During the 1940s and 1950s, the “Superior RoadlessArea” was bursting with activity as float planes frequent-

ed dozens of fly-in resorts. Conservationists becameconcerned that the wilderness character was being lost,and Congress responded to those concerns by authoriz-ing funds to purchase the resorts and cabins in 1948.One year later, President Truman signed an executiveorder that established an unprecedented air space reser-vation above the roadless area and prevented float planesfrom landing.

13

During this same period, the Forest Service moved for-ward with its own agenda, creating a plan that would limitmotorboats and establish a 362,000-acre No-Cut Zonein which logging would be prohibited. Outside that zone,however, logging continued. By 1958, despite Jardine’scommitment to keep the wilderness free of roads, muchof the “roadless” area had become crisscrossed withroads.

1964-1978

In 1964, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area (BWCA)became part of the National Wilderness PreservationSystem. However, the BWCA was singled out; logging

4

and motorized travel would continue due to compromiselanguage incorporated into legislation authored byMinnesota Senator Hubert H. Humphrey. Humphrey, a“legislative godfather of the national wilderness preser-vation system,”

14waged a 15-year battle to secure

wilderness designation for the Superior Roadless Area, asthe BWCA was then called. In the end, due to harsh andunwavering opposition, the Wilderness Act of 1964included the compromise provisions. Achieving fullwilderness status equal to that of other areas in thecountry was a task left to future wilderness advocates.

Over the next 14 years, wilderness supporters increased

their efforts to permanently protect the border lakesregion. Controversy continued around logging, snowmo-biles, and motorboats. A major congressional battlebegan in 1975 and resulted in passage of the BoundaryWaters Canoe Area Wilderness Act in 1978. The actended logging and snowmobile travel, and restrictedmotorboat use to a handful of lakes on the area’s periph-ery. The 1978 act also added to the wilderness 16,200acres of roadless areas identified during the SecondRoadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE II).Remaining outside the BWCAW with no formal protec -tion were 72,602 acres of RARE II lands.

The Last 10 Years

Like many wilderness areas across the country, theBoundary Waters and the Quetico-Superior ecosystemcontinue to face controversial policy issues. From 1994through 1998, wilderness opponents sought to: openadditional lakes in the BWCAW to motorboat use; open

wilderness portage trails to truck and jeep traffic; turnVoyageurs National Park into a state or county park; andsubject management of both the BWCAW and VoyageursNational Park to local anti-wilderness management coun-cils.

Today, disagreements continue on the management of theBWCAW, most notably the pressure to increase thenumber of motorboats in the wilderness. Approximately24 percent of the water surface in the Boundary Watersallows motorboats. For those committed to the valuesof wilderness and the intent of the 1964 Wilderness Act,the addition of more motorboats in the wilderness isuntenable. Motors harm aquatic species, pollute water,and disturb the peace and quiet of wilderness.

The push for more motorboats is disheartening becauseas early as the 1920s, people recognized the value of pro-tecting the area for wilderness recreation such as canoe-ing. People like Carhart and Jardine anticipated a world,

and a state, that would become increasingly populated,with increasing demands for the extraction of its naturalresources and overall development. Their wilderness

vision inspired bold efforts to protect a corner of thewild canoe country for our generation. Today, we musthave the foresight to learn from our history and to pro-tect the few remaining wild places in northern Minnesotafor generations to come.

Perhaps biologist, guide, teacher, writer and conserva-tionist Sigurd Olson said it best:

“This is the most beautiful lake country on the continent.We can afford to cherish and protect it. Some placesshould be preserved from development or exploitationfor they satisfy human need for solace, belonging and per-

spective. In the end, we turn to nature in a frenzy chaot-ic world, there to find silence, oneness, wholeness – spir-itual release.”

15

Although marked by political controversy, events of thelast ten years provide hope that we will honor the canoecountry heritage and the legacy of past wilderness advo-cates by furthering the vision of a forest and lakelandwilderness ecosystem. Recent work in the field of con-servation biology provides a scientific justification for theprotection of large wilderness areas by documenting thatour existing protected areas are too small and too iso-lated to sustain nature’s processes and biodiversity overtime.

16Simply put, science is telling us we need larger

wilderness areas and more of them. And fortunately,Americans want them too.

Over the past five years, polls and people’s actions haveconsistently shown that preserving wilderness is impor-tant to them. Thanks to grassroots efforts across the

country, the United States added one million acres to theNational Wilderness Preservation System in 2000. Statesfrom Maine to California and from Alaska to New Mexicoare now working to protect more and more wilderness.And citizens are making their voices heard: the ForestService’s Roadless Area Conservation Rule received thelargest public response to any federal rulemaking in his-tory.

17

Minnesotans are echoing those sentiments. More than31,000 Minnesotans submitted comments in support ofthe roadless protection, and according to a March 2000poll, 83 percent of Minnesota respondents supported theprotection of 62,000 acres of federal forest lands inMinnesota as roadless areas.

Nationally and locally, the wilderness movement is grow-ing and gaining momentum. Today, we have an opportu-nity to lend energy and enthusiasm to the movement byadvocating the protection of nearly 90,000 acres near the

Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.

5

It is impossible to think about the heritage of theQuetico-Superior Ecosystem without reflecting on thecanoes and “water highways” that have been central to away of life for 5,000 years. Steeped in Native Americanand Voyageur history, the region remains in some areas aspristine now as when the rivers and lakes were first pad-dled.

The earliest humans, the Paleo Indian culture, lived in theregion as long as 8,000-12,000 years ago. While it is notknown when they invented the canoe, it is believed thatbeginning in the Copper Culture (3,000 B.C.), canoesmade long distance travel and commerce possible.

The Ojibwe began arriving in the region in the 1600sfrom the east coast near the St. Lawrence Seaway. Theyrelied on the land for food, clothing and shelter; traveledon foot and by birch bark canoe; and hunted, fished, andgathered food with the changing seasons, tapping treesfor syrup in spring and harvesting wild rice in the fall. “Itwas a seasonal life cycle nourished by the richness of theland as well as by its beauty.”

18

Not long after the arrival of the Ojibwe, the Voyageurscame, beginning 250 years of travel along the “water high-ways,” or lakes and streams, of the Quetico-Superior andfar beyond. The Voyageurs formed commercial relation-

ships with the Native Americans and traded items withthem in exchange for furs, which were then delivered toEuropean forts for transport overseas.

19

The fur trade and the life of the Voyageurs continuedthrough most of the 19th century. By the end of thatcentury, however, changing fashion, the diminution of the

animal population, and new U.S. treaties with the NativeAmericans brought the fur trade to an end.

Preserv ing the Canoe Country Her itage

Today, across the Quetico-Superior Ecosystem, there isthe opportunity to see the country as Native Americans

and Voyageurs knew it. Canoeists still paddle wild,unspoiled routes, including the original “Voyageur high-ways.” They camp among the towering red and whitepines of the old “north woods” forest that covered abouta quarter of what is now the Boundary Waters CanoeArea Wilderness. Hunters, anglers, and trappers still fol-low the seasonal cycles of their quarries, and in theprocess, they develop a greater appreciation of thewilderness area and the canoe country heritage.

20

Many of the units recommended for wilderness designa-tion provide opportunities for preserving that heritage.For example, the Big Lake/Portage River Unitincludes the Portage River that serves well as a travelroute. The unit provides exceptional opportunities forrecreation, including watching for wildlife such as moosein the swampy areas near the river. The Cabin CreekUnit, an unexpected treasure contains four lakes:Shoepack, Thunderbird, Bonanza, and Moose, two ofwhich attract campers to primitive campsites. And the

Wolf Lake Unit, just north of Lake Vermilion, annuallyattracts anglers, hunters, hikers, and berry pickers. Bypermanently protecting these areas, we permanently pro-tect Minnesotans’ commitment to the canoe countryheritage and their love of outdoor recreational activities.

THE CANOE COUNTRY HERITAGE

6


Why more wilderness? The answer is simple: to perma-nently protect lakes, lands, rivers, and streams thatMinnesotans already cherish. Protecting these roadlessareas is not about taking away opportunities. Rather, it isabout ensuring that what we have today will be heretomorrow.

Studies and polls have repeatedly shown that Americanswant more land preserved as wilderness. According toJanuary 2003 polling conducted by Zogby International,“more than two-thirds of respondents believe that 10percent or more of all lands in the United States shouldbe protected as wilderness. When told in fact only 4.7percent of the land in the U.S. has been permanently pro-tected, nearly two-thirds feel that is ‘not enough.’ ”

21

There are four major reasons why people want to pro-tect more wild lands. They want to:

1. take a break from their daily routines and pursue outdoor recreational activities,

22

2. live in areas that are near open places, parks, and wilderness and that boast strong local economies,

3. ensure that nature provides clean air, clean water, and protected habitat for wildlife, and

4. protect wilderness for its own sake.

Americans cherish their wilderness heritage.

The 24 units identified for permanent protection in thisstudy are, for the most part, areas that Minnesotans andothers already enjoy. But these lands are at risk of log-ging, development, roads, off-highway vehicles and snow-mobiles, and other activities that disrupt wildlife, causewidespread erosion, impact water quality, and shatterpeace and quiet.

Preserve Recreat iona l Opportunit ies

“Today, we spend more time indoors than any society inhistory. A third of us work nine hours or more in anoffice each day. The average commute takes 26 minuteseach way. We’re trapped by our lifestyles, and we’re nothappy about it. Increasingly, people are turning toAmerica’s forests, mountains and rivers to rejuvenate.”23

In Minnesota, this particularly holds true. In 2001, nearly

75 percent of all Minnesotans engaged in some type ofoutdoor recreational activity such as hiking, camping, birdwatching, paddling, and skiing.

24Fifty-four percent took

part in wildlife viewing (second in the nation), and 39

percent went fishing or hunting (third in the nation).25

We are a state of outdoor enthusiasts who value theplaces where we can enjoy such activities.

Most of the units recommended for wilderness offer avariety of outdoor activities. The Echo River Unit pro-vides excellent habitat for grouse, partridge, ducks, deer,

and moose and is popular for hunting. The Mine LakeUnit, which contains a portion of the Kekekabic Trail, hasbecome a major travel way for wildlife as a result of the1999 blowdown. Lucky wildlife viewers and hikers mightsee wolves, bear, and moose along the trail. And paddlerscan enjoy a “Boundary Waters-like” experience in thePicket Lake Unit, including camping on one of thelake’s three backcountry campsites.

There are plenty of opportunities for anglers in the rec-ommended wilderness units, including good walleye fish-ing on Homer Lake in the Homer Lake Unit and onone of several lakes in the Seven Beaver Unit. Andthroughout these units, there are opportunities for “soli-tude and natural experiences” which, according to a 1999nationwide poll, are very important to seven out of 10hunters and anglers. In fact, in the same poll, 84 percentof hunters and 86 percent of anglers supported efforts toprevent development within roadless areas “to providehunters and anglers places to hunt and fish with more

solitude and no disturbance by vehicles, including off-roadvehicles.”

26

Throughout Minnesota, hunting areas are being bulldozedto accommodate suburban and rural subdivisions, andlakes are filled with the buzz of outboard motors. Unlesswe act now, we risk losing the vast diversity of recre-ational experiences for which Minnesota is known. Whilesome of the proposed units exhibit signs of logging, off-highway vehicles, snowmobiles, or motorboats, for themost part, these units are wild and can provide true out-door and wilderness experiences for all those who loveto watch birds and animals, paddle canoes, camp outunder the stars, gather berries for their next homemadepie, or simply revel in the silence of wilderness.

Strengthen Loca l Economies

Recent studies have shown that Americans want to live inplaces that are near open spaces, national forests, parks,

and wild lands. In fact, seven of the 10 fastest growingmetro areas in the country either border or are adjacentto national forests and parks.

27

Not surprising, then, is the fact that wild lands help local

WHY MORE WILDERNESS?

7

economies. For example, a 1994 study conducted by theInstitute for Southern Studies in Durham, North Carolinafound that “states that do the most to protect their nat-ural resources also wind up with the strongesteconomies and the best jobs.”

28

Cook County, in the far northeastern corner ofMinnesota and home of the Gunflint Trail and Vento Unitof the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, seemsto confirm the statistics. Its population has increased bynearly 34 percent since 1990, and housing units haveincreased by nine percent during that same period. Also,median household incomes grew by more than 15 per-

cent from 1989 to 1999, when adjusted for inflation.29

This growth rate is higher than that of the Twin Citiesmetro area during the same period (14.4 percent) andnearly doubles the national growth rate (7.7 percent).

30

Another thrivingcommunity, in theheart of SuperiorNational Forest, isEly, a primaryentrance to theBWCAW. “The Elyarea is experiencinga huge surge incommercial andlakeshore develop-ment. Newcomersare starting busi-nesses and buildingvacation and retire-

ment homes at anunprecedented rate.Qualities unique toEly include pure and plentiful fresh water, pollution-freeair and almost non-existent crime. Ely has been equippedwith the latest in advanced telecommunications infra-structure that even many big cities cannot supply.”

31

Ely is also a magnet for the tourist dollar. According to a2002 customer profile survey released by the MinnesotaDepartment of Tourism, Ely attracts visitors who are, onaverage, “better educated, earn more money, and spendmore of it than visitors to other popular tourist destina-tions in the state.”

32The majority of visitors are from

Minnesota and about one-third cite outdoor recreationas the primary reason for their trip to Ely.

The statewide statistics tend to confirm the benefits ofthe value of wild lands to Minnesota’s economy.According to the Department of Natural Resources,

“Minnesota’s fish and wildlife populations support animpressive $3.5 billion annual outdoor recreation indus-try that includes hunters, anglers, bird watchers, wildlife

photographers, people who feed birds, and other natureenthusiasts who travel to see and enjoy the state’swildlife.”

33

The message is clear: communities and regions that pre-serve their wilderness heritage have a great opportunityfor economic vitality that is less prone to the boom andbust cycles of extractive industries.

Protect Water, Air and Habitat Quality

While Americans appreciate wilderness areas for theirrecreational opportunities, they value them more

because of their importance to the continued health andecological balance of our world. According to a2001/2002 poll conducted by the U.S. Forest Service aspart of its National Survey on Recreation and

E n v i r o n m e n t ,Americans said thattheir top fivewilderness valuesare: 1) protectwater quality, 2)protect air quality,3) protect wildlifehabitat, 4) ensurefuture generationshave wilderness, and5) protect rare andendangered species.

Trees, wetlands,lakes, and rivers are

nature’s tools forcleaning the air andwater and providing

safe havens for birds, fish, and other wildlife. Protectionof forest watersheds, for example, is essential to ensuringa continuous and safe water supply since the ForestService estimates that 60 million Americans receive theirwater from sources with headwaters on a national forest.Forests and trees intercept moisture, thereby increasinginfiltration into the soil and reducing runoff. They canslow snow melt, which prevents water, soil, and preciousnutrients from being swept away to other areas duringspring thaws.

Roadless forests and undeveloped lakeshore also are crit-ical to maintaining quality habitat for the wildlife that is anessential piece of the canoe country heritage. Migratorysongbirds, many of which prefer forest interior habitats,rely on unfragmented forest as refuge from high levels ofnest predation and parasitism.34 Similarly, some species

of fish seem to depend on emergent and floating-leaf veg-etation, which is more abundant along undevelopedshoreline than developed shoreline.

35

8


Unfortunately, the fragmentation, and outright loss, ofroadless forest areas continuously harms wildernessresources. In the past 10 years, the human population inand around Superior National Forest increased by twopercent. The number of housing units in the areaincreased by eight percent, and there are increasing num-bers of second homes. On one hand, we recognize thevalue of wilderness to boost local economies, attract newvisitors and homeowners, and increase the tax base. Onthe other hand, more people results in more houses, cab-ins, and roads. “The construction of more and moreroads and the impacts and development these proliferat-ing roads brings, pose two threats to unprotected wilder-

ness: fragmentation of the roadless land into smaller andsmaller pieces, and development gnawing away at theedges, eroding more and more of the unprotectedwilderness.”

36

Fragmentation of the Superior National Forest alsooccurs from logging roads, off-highway vehicle routes, andsnowmobile trails. During the era of logging for pulp-wood in the Superior National Forest, hundreds of milesof gravel roads and slightly graded spur roads were built.Many of these roads remain. Now used mainly by off-highway vehicles and snowmobiles, these roads still scarthe forests and provide uncontrolled and unregulatedaccess to the land and, according to studies, producemany negative ecological effects. Roads are associatedwith wildlife mortality, increased erosion and sedimenta-tion, increased poaching, and the spread of invasivespecies.37

Of the units inventoried, field volunteers found evidence

of many abandoned logging roads and off-highway vehicleand snowmobile trails. In the Agassa Lake Unit, thereis an overgrown logging road that accesses the centralportion of the unit and another trail that leads to SlimLake within the Trout Lake unit of the BWCAW. In theEast Otter Lake Unit, the South Lake hiking trail getssnowmobile traffic in winter. And in the Hog LakeUnit, which has more than seven miles of unimprovedroads, there is fairly high use of off-highway vehicles on atrail to the lake.

It is important to note, however, that while trained fieldvolunteers saw evidence of these used trails they alsosaw proof of nature healing itself. Permanent protectionof the proposed units will help safeguard the quality ofour air, water, and habitats by enlarging the area of theBWCAW and preserving five other key parcels.

Preserve Wilderness for FutureGenerat ions

Americans share a deep commitment to the value ofwilderness, particularly the importance of preserving

wilderness for future generations. This value of wilder-ness applies to their own option to visit and the benefitof simply knowing wild places exist and are being pre-served.

38

Nearly 90 percent of all Americans want to protect wildplaces “just so they will always exist in their natural con-dition, even if no one were to ever visit or otherwisebenefit from them.” For some, it is simply knowing that“earth has higher uses than we put her to.”

39For others,

wilderness is a place to renew; a place to find silence, soli-tude, inspiration, and reflection.

Biologist, wilderness guide, teacher, activist and writerSigurd F. Olson understood all of this as well as anyone.Olson dedicated his life to protecting America’s wilder-ness. He was a founder of the Friends of the BoundaryWaters Wilderness and a fierce defender of the canoecountry of northern Minnesota.

Olson was also a charter member and president of TheWilderness Society and led efforts across the country topreserve wild places. For nearly 60 years after his firstencounter with the Boundary Waters, Olson fought tokeep the landscape as uncorrupted as possible — itsislands free of roads, its rivers free of dams, its lakes freeof motorboats, its shores free of resorts, its skies free ofprivate and commercial aircraft.

In a tribute to Sigurd Olson on the anniversary of his100th birthday, Minnesota writer Paul Gruchow wrote,“To him [Sig], nature is not principally a utility, not asource of new medicines, not a provider of ecological

services to industrial society, not a supplier of renewableresources, not even a cure for aches of the heart. It justis, and it matters because we share with it a commonpast, and because, once we become aware of that com-monality, we know in a deeper and truer way who weare.”

40

9

The purpose of the Quetico-Superior EcosystemWilderness Inventory (“Inventory”) was to conduct acomprehensive inventory of Roadless Area ReviewEvaluation (RARE II) areas and other roadless areas with-in the Superior National Forest as identified in theSuperior National Forest Plan revision process. Targetedlands for the Inventory included 1) 72,602 acres of RARE

II areas and 2) 47,894 acres of uninventoried roadlessareas. Of these lands, which total 120,496 acres, 103,045acres are directly adjacent to the BWCAW.

In order to complete on-the-ground surveys, the Friendsused the growing practice of citizen science and engagedits members and the public in its research. A primarybenefit of citizen science is that it can generate largequantities of data that might otherwise be costly or timeprohibitive.

41In addition, as citizens learn more about

the natural areas and understand more thoroughly theconditions that affect habitats in both positive and nega-tive ways, they become more credible voices for wilder-ness protection.

The Friends engaged field volunteers from three states inconducting wilderness inventories. Their field work pro-vides the basis for our recommendations.

Training

University researchers led the field volunteer training,

which consisted of a Power Point presentation, introduc-tion to the field packets, and a supervised session in thefield. The training instructed participants about whichtypes of human disturbances (roads, timber harvests,gravel pits) and natural features (lakes, streams, old foreststands) to document. The training also gave direction asto how to map photo locations on the United StatesGeological Survey (USGS) maps.

Each volunteer received a field packet created for a spe-cific survey unit. Packets included:

�Photocopy of the appropriate section of the SuperiorNational Forest recreation map. On this map we markedthe survey unit boundaries.

METHODOLOGY

10


�Photocopy of the appropriate 7.5 minute USGS map(s).On this map we marked the survey unit boundaries andany known human disturbance detected from maps orMinnesota Department of Natural Resources aerial pho-tography.

�Instruction sheet (Appendix 1)

�Inventory photo form (Appendix 2)

�Wilderness and ecological qualities form (Appendix 3)

�Observation log form (Appendix 4)

�Numbered 27-exposure camera

Once out in the field, volunteers were asked to identifythe characteristics of each unit, including but not limitedto boundaries; ecological conditions; unique natural fea-tures; roads and other developments; and other humanactivity and impact.

Once field packets were completed and returned, the

field inventory coordinator critically reviewed eachreturned field packet to assure minimum quality stan-dards were met. Any remaining questions from initialfield surveys were resolved with additional field surveysand/or further consultation of aerial photos. From thedata provided by field volunteers, unit summaries werewritten for each area.

Data Review and Evaluat ion

A Wilderness Review Committee, composed of scien-tists, wilderness advocates, and conservation profession-als, was formed to review the inventory data and formu-late recommendations for wilderness additions. TheCommittee first established a set of guiding criteria.

Guiding Cr iter ia

Minimum Standards (taken from Forest Servicecriteria):

1. No more than 20 percent of the area should have been harvested for timber in the last ten years.

2. Areas adjacent to the BWCAW should be a minimum of approximately 1,000 acres. Areas not adjacent to the BWCAW should be a mini-mum of approximately 2,500 acres.

3. At least 70 percent of the area should be in federal ownership, and the area should not be needed to access non-federal properties.

4. The area should not contain more than one-half mile of improved roads per 1,000 acres.

5. The area should contain only roads that are under Forest Service jurisdiction.

6. The area should be “manageable.” For example,round areas are better than long, narrow areas and areas surrounded by federal lands are preferable to areas surrounded by other types of ownership.

Other Cons iderat ions :

1. The area provides a landscape connection between the BWCAW and other types of pro-tected areas (Scientific and Natural Areas and

Research Natural Areas, for example).2. The area includes high native species diversity

and/or uncommon vegetation communities.3. The area completes an existing canoe route or

creates a new route.4. The area creates a natural boundary rather than

a political one.5. The area provides a wilderness experience with

opportunities for solitude and/or primitive recreation.

6. The area contains special ecological, geological, educational, scenic, or historical features.

7. The area has the ability to be shaped by the forces of nature over the long-term.

The Wilderness Review Committee evaluated each sur-vey unit against the guiding criteria, using inventory dataand other sources such as previous knowledge and infor-mation from the Department of Natural Resources(DNR). Each unit was either eliminated, recommended

as presented, or recommended with boundary changes.

It is important to note that a recommended unit did notnecessarily have to meet all the established criteria. Butit could not fail exceptionally on one count, or fail tomeet several criteria. In addition, and contrary to popu-lar belief, an area did not need to be totally free of theevidence of human activities to qualify for wildernessdesignation. Aldo Leopold, a founder of the wildernessmovement, affirmed this notion when he stated, “… inany practical [wilderness] program the unit areas to bepreserved must vary greatly in size and in degree of wild-ness.”

42

11

The units described in this study encompass approxi-mately 89,228 acres, in 24 separate units. They range insize from 556 acres (East Otter) to 14,200 acres (SevenBeaver). Nineteen of these units (48,349 acres) directlyabut the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, andfive of the units (40,879 acres) are separate from theBWCAW but lie within the Superior National Forest.

In some instances, a selected unit creates a naturalboundary, such as a river or stream, rather than a politi-cal one. A few of the units complete an existing canoeroute or create a new one. Many of the units provideopportunities for true wilderness experiences due totheir remote locations or rugged landscapes. And manyof the units protect wildlife and/or native species habitat.

Approximately two-thirds of the 24 units contain all orpart of at least one lake, and roughly one-half contain sev -eral lakes. All units contain one or more streams. Andone unit includes highly-valued, patterned peatlands.

Many of the units contain old logging roads, some ofwhich are now used by snowmobiles, off-highway vehi-

cles, and cross-country skiers. Several units contain his-torical features, including an old mine. And hiking is pop-ular in many of the units, including most notably on thenationally-recognized Kekekabic Trail.

Each unit is described briefly, including type of ecosystem,important physical and historical features, human and

other threats or impacts, and the percentage of land infederal, state or private ownership. Each unit also isaccompanied by two maps: 1) a full-page map depictingthe unit boundaries; and 2) an insert map identifying thelocation of the unit within the Superior National Forest.

Notes:

References to the Forest Service in the unit descriptionsare taken from its December 2002 Roadless AreaInventory.

Each unit description includes location coordinates that

correspond to government-issued plat maps.

ROADLESS UNIT DESCRIPTIONS

12

13

The Agassa Lake Unit is just south ofthe Echo Trail and adjacent to the TroutLake Unit of the BWCAW. The unit isa nice northern lake and bog area, andmost of the area is far enough fromboth the Echo Trail and motorized BigLake that it provides excellent oppor-tunities for peace and quiet, and soli-tude.

The primary attraction is 72-acreAgassa Lake, a beautiful body of waterwith one existing backcountry camp-site. The lake is accessed by the Agassa Trail, oneof three trails providing access into the unit'sinterior. The Agassa Trail begins at the Echo Trail,where strategically-placed boulders blockmotorized forms of travel. The trail windsthrough mixed hardwood forest as well as birch,80-100 year-old pines, and approximately 60-70year-old spruce. The Agassa Trail is maintained asthere is a wooden boardwalk over a bog.

A second trail is virtually free of human impactalthough there is some evidence of use byhunters. The third trail is overgrown, and like the

second trail, is difficult to find. This trailtravels through a boggy area, withbeautiful moss covering the forestfloor. Volunteers found blueberries,raspberries, an understory of ferns, aswell as signs of moose, wolf, and bear.Both of these trails offer hikers excel-lent opportunities for a true wildernessexperience.

Also, there is a possibility of creating acircular canoe route within the TroutLake Unit of the BWCAW. According

to maps from the 1960s, there was once aportage between Slim Lake and Big Lake. If thisportage was re-built through the Agassa LakeUnit, it would create a nice route that includedBig Lake, Lapond Lake, Big Rice Lake, Hook Lake,Rice Lake, and Slim Lake.

The unit is 97 percent in Forest Service owner-ship, with the remaining three percent (two iso-lated 40-acre parcels) belonging to the state.

AgassaLake

Unit

Approximately

2,356 acres

T64N, R13W:

Sections 1-3, 10-13, 24

14

15

The Baldpate Lake Unit is north of theEcho Trail and is named for BaldpateLake that lies within the borders of theBWCAW. A portion of this unit wasoriginally part of a RARE II area of 645acres. In 1978, 160 acres of the RAREII area, including Baldpate Lake, wereadded to the BWCAW. The remaining485 acres, plus an additional 1,140 acresof federal land, make up the currentproposed unit. The unit is nestledbetween the BWCAW on the northand east and the Echo Trail on the west.As a result, the unit displays both human impactand great potential for wilderness.

Vegetation in the northwest part of the unitincludes pine, spruce, aspen, and maple. Bogscontain cedar, black spruce, and alder. The unit isa popular cross-country skiing area; berry pickingand hunting also occur.

The Stuart Portage on the western edge of theunit provides ample opportunity for hiking andsolitude. According to the field volunteer, thissection "felt like a wilderness area." The ridge

and bog, presence of fire scars, andspectacular old growth pines all con-tributed to this feeling. The area alsoincludes an unmaintained logging road,described as a "grassy old road."

The unit is 100 percent in ForestService ownership.

BaldpateLakeUnit

Approximately

1,625 acres

T65N, R13W:

Sections 22-23, 26-27

16

17

The Big Lake/Portage River Unit is adja-cent to the northeast corner of theTrout Lake Unit of the BWCAW. Thenorthern and eastern edges of the BigLake Unit follow the Portage River, pro-viding a natural barrier. Therefore,access to the area is limited, and thereare few signs of human use. The 20-mile Portage River connects Big RiceLake in the Trout Lake Unit to NinaMoose Lake in the Central Unit, makingthe Big Lake Unit an important land-scape connection.

According to the Forest Service, no logging hastaken place in the unit since the late 1960s.Swampy areas near the river provide excellentmoose habitat. Portage R and the Portage Riverare beautiful and would provide exceptionalopportunities for recreation. The Forest Servicereports that the river "serves well as a travelroute," and field volunteers felt that a gravel pitroad ending at the river could provide a put-inarea for canoes accessing Portage R. While theEcho Trail runs along this unit's northern bound-ary, rapids on the Portage River prevent visitors

from hearing traffic.

The unit is 92 percent in Forest Serviceownership, with the remaining eightpercent (approximately 100 acres inthree separate parcels) belonging tothe state.

Big Lake/Portage

RiverUnit

Approximately

1,194 acres

T65N, R13W:

Sections 19-20, 28-30

18

19

The Brule Mountain Unit is extremelyremote, and adjacent to the BWCAWon its western edge. One small lake,Bulb Lake, lies entirely within the area.The main feature, however, is BruleMountain located in Section 22. Bruleis Minnesota's second-highest peak andis geologically classified as a granophyre(a fine-grained granite that is erosionresistant).

According to the field volunteer, theunit's forest is amazingly diverse. Theunit is a mixed coniferous and hard-wood forest of natural origin.Deciduous treesinclude alder, aspen, andbirch, while coniferoustrees include cedar,spruce, fir, and pine.

Old red and white pine can be foundalong the high ridges. Field volunteersfound evidence of moose, deer, andbear.

Because the area is remote with littleevidence of human use, it is well suitedto provide wilderness qualities such aspeace and quiet, and solitude. Thereare no roads or trails that access thearea.


BruleMountain

UnitApproximately

1,650 acres

T63N, R1W:

Sections.

14-15, 22-23, 26-27

Known as the Mit Lake Unit inthe Forest Service's Dec.

2002 Roadless Area

Inventory.

20

21

The Cucumber Lake Unit is adjacent tothe BWCAW and can be accessed bylakes and rivers both inside and outsideof the wilderness. The unit is similar inappearance to the BWCAW with itsconnected waterways. There are 14small lakes, known as the vegetablelakes, in the unit - Bean, South Bean,Parsnip, Melon, Strawberry, Kraut,Turnip, Squash, Peanut, Cucumber,Onion, Mauser, Jim, and Little Jim. All ofthese lakes are close enough to eachother to provide potential canoeroutes.

The field volunteer described the CucumberLake Unit as being "mostly very wild, quiet, andundisturbed." The Forest Service also concludedthat the area, "supplies the remoteness and soli-tude aspects of the recreation experience thatthe Superior National Forest is noted for."

The rugged and rocky terrain contains forestsconsisting of birch, aspen, and spruce with somered and white pines of varying ages. Forest typeis typical of a re-growth from a long-past distur-

bance with a canopy of 50-70 feet anda heavy shrub layer. Plant communitiesalong the water consist of submergent,floating, and emergent vegetation. Also,there is good evidence of beavers,wolves, moose, deer, and a variety ofbirds including bald eagle.

Although there has been some recentlogging in Sections 13 and 24, the valueof the whole area as wilderness is highnonetheless.

The unit is 100 percent in Forest Service owner-ship.

CucumberLake Unit

Approximately

4,770 acres

T64N, R1E:

Sections 13-14, 21-28

T64N, R2E:

Section 18

22

23

The Eagle Mountain Unit combines andconnects three units, totaling 2,745acres, inventoried by the Forest Serviceunder the name Brule Lake - EagleMountain in the December 2002Roadless Area Inventory. The EagleMountain Unit also is part of an originalRARE II area called Brule Lake-EagleMountain. This original unit totaledapproximately 21,500 acres, but 7,427acres were added to the BWCAW in1978.

The proposed unit surrounds theBWCAW where it juts down towardsFR 170, creating strong protection forEagle Mountain which lies within the BWCAW.Eagle Mountain, at 2,301 feet, is the highest pointin Minnesota, and like Brule Mountain, is geologi-cally classified as a granophyre

This unit adds protection to part of the CascadeRiver, as well as part of Whale Creek. Additionalso will enhance the wilderness experience ofabout one-half mile of the Eagle Mountain trail, awilderness trail accessing the Eagle Mountain

peak and extending to Brule Lake, alsoin the BWCAW. Hiking, hunting, sight-seeing, camping, and fishing are all pop-ular in and around the unit.

Vegetation within the unit includesaspen, spruce, and birch. According tothe Forest Service, the area nearTomash Lake on the western side ofthe unit has some upland cedar, whichis relatively rare in the SuperiorNational Forest.

The portion of the unit just east ofTomash and Cascade lakes overlapswith the Cascade Lake Potential

Candidate Research Natural Area. It is roadlessbut for one partially over-grown logging roadpenetrating Section 32.

More than 98 percent of the unit is in Forest

Service ownership, with the remaining two

percent (two isolated 40 acre parcels) ownedby the state.

EagleMountain

UnitApproximately

4,400 acres

T63N, R2W:

Sections 29, 31-33, 36

T62N, R2W:

Sections 1, 4-6, 8-12

Known as the Brule Lake-

Eagle Mountain Unit in the

Forest Service's Dec. 2002Roadless Area Inventory.

24

25

The East Otter Lake Unit is north ofthe Gunflint Trail and Poplar Lake.Though small, this unit is an ideal addi-tion to the BWCAW. Wilderness des-ignation would create a natural bound-ary for the BWCAW using the northshore of Birch and Moss lakes and thestream connecting them. This newboundary would add protections to theeast end of East Otter Lake and thecreek connecting East Otter andDuncan Lake.

The unit is a very scenic area withexcellent opportunities for quiet recre-ation, especially hiking and canoeing.The area can be reached by Birch Lake,Moss Lake, or the South Lake Trail offthe Gunflint Trail. The South Lake Trail,which runs through the center of thearea, provides access to the BorderRoute Trail and to South Lake on theU.S./Canada border.

Vegetation consists of balsam fir, birch,aspen, white cedar, white pine, tama-

rack, and black spruce. The East Otter Lake Unitlies within a potential Special ManagementComplex (SMC) that contained forest over 100years old. Although some of the area was affect-ed by the July 4, 1999 blowdown, scattered old-growth white and red pines remain. Also, thereis a stand of old cedars south of East Otter Lake.The Forest Service reports that several rareplant species may be found here.

The unit is 100 percent in Forest Service ownership.

EastOtterLakeUnit

Approximately

556 acres

T65N, R1W:

Sections 31-32

26

27

The Echo River Unit is adjacent to theBWCAW, approximately two milessoutheast of the town of Crane Lakeand extending south along the EchoRiver until it turns west towards EchoLake. The Echo River forms the west-ern edge of this unit, creating a natural,recognizable, and easily managedboundary. The BWCAW forms theunit's eastern and northern edges.

The area can be accessed from theHerriman Hiking Trail, which begins offCounty Road 424. The Herriman Trailoffers loops to Herriman Lake, LittleVermilion Lake, and a loop along theEcho River. The Herriman Trail systemprovides excellent opportunities forwilderness hiking, cross-country skiing, and soli-tude. The Echo Loop is particularly scenic as itfollows the path of the river, and many old whitepines are visible.

Hunting for grouse, partridge, ducks, deer, andmoose is popular in the unit, according to theForest Service. Although there is one 40-acre

unnamed lake within the area, it is notconnected to any other waterways.

The only land not in Forest Serviceownership is the state land in Section16.

EchoRiverUnit

Approximately

3,900 acres

T66N, R16W:

Sections 6-8, 14-17,

22-23

T67N, R16W:

Sections 19, 30-31

Known as the Echo River andBeaver Stream Units in the

Forest Service's Dec. 2002

Roadless Area Inventory.

28

29

The Gunflint Lake SE Unit lies on theU.S./Canada border. The eastern end ofGunflint Lake and Little North Lakeform the northern boundary of thisunit. The unit is adjacent to theBWCAW on its eastern edge. Thereare no roads in the unit, but the areacan be accessed from the Border RouteTrail, or by water from Gunflint Lake orCrab Lake. Wilderness designationwould create a natural boundary andprotect this unit's special features.

The Gunflint Lake Unit includes 30-foothigh Bridal Falls which receives manyvisitors, thanks to a trail running fromGunflint Lake. The unit also contains anold railroad grade and a stack of logs 30 feet highand extending 130 feet across, set there tobridge a gap for the railroad, according to theForest Service.

The unit was hit hard by the July 4, 1999 blow-down; some large white pines still remain, makingthem imposing and unique features of the land-scape. There are three known species of rare

plants within the unit, according to theForest Service.


[email protected]

GunflintLake

SE UnitApproximately

1,300 acres

T65N, R2W:

Sections 17, 19, 30

T65N, R3W:

Sections 24-25

The Gunflint Lake SE Unitwas one of two units not sur-

veyed by a field volunteer.

30

31

The Homer Lake Unit is just south ofBrule Lake in the BWCAW. The unit'seastern boundary is FR326, and itsentire western boundary abuts theBWCAW. Lake Gust forms a part ofthe unit's southern boundary. The unitis part of the Homer-Baker-Brule LakesRARE II area. More recently, the entireHomer Lake Unit was included in theCascade Lake Potential CandidateResearch Natural Area.

In the center of the unit is Homer Lakewhich serves as entry point #40 to theBWCAW. Homer Lake is used by bothpaddlers and motorboaters. There is aboat launch on the lake's eastern tip. Inaddition to providing access to canoeroutes throughout the Boundary Waters, there isa user-developed portage into Axe Lake.

The Forest Service reports that there are threecampsites on Homer Lake (one maintained andtwo user-developed), and more would be addedif the area were included as part of the BWCAW.The unit and its surrounding area are popular for

fishing, hunting, sightseeing, and berrypicking. The field volunteers ran into afox trapper several times and startled abull moose as he ambled down FR326.

The area has been untouched by log-ging in the past 40 years and containssome old growth swamp conifers. It ishabitat for boreal owl and rock vole, aswell as potential "critical habitat" forthe Canada lynx, officially listed as"threatened" under the EndangeredSpecies Act.

The unit is 95 percent in Forest Serviceownership, with 183 acres of state landin three separate parcels, and 86 acresof Cook County land in two separateparcels.

HomerLakeUnit

Approximately

5,687 acres

T63N, R3W:

Sections 22-27, 34-36

T62N, R3W:


14

Known as the Baker Homer

Brule Unit in the Forest

Service's Dec. 2002 RoadlessArea Inventory.

32

33

The Lake Jeanette Unit is just north ofthe Echo Trail. The unit's northern bor-der abuts the BWCAW; the unit'ssouthern border is, in part, the northshore of Lake Jeanette, creating a natu-ral boundary for the BWCAW.

Along the south shore of Lake Jeanette,there is a drive-in campground and aboat launching ramp. Although thereare six additional back-country camp-sites, most along the north and easternshore of the lake, the field volunteersstated that the shore line showed no evidence oftrails, fires, or campsites.

The lake receives moderate to heavy use, accord-ing to the Forest Service, but volunteers notedthat even though there were signs of humanimpact on the land, the pristine and serene lakewas "highly recommended" for inclusion in theBWCAW.

With more than 60 acres of small wetlands, theLake Jeanette Unit is excellent habitat for deer,grouse, bear, and moose. The forest is a mixed

forest that includes spruce, aspen,birch, and tamarack. It is a popularhunting destination in the fall. The areais roadless and free of recent logging.


LakeJeanette

Unit

Approximately

1,933 acres

T65N, R15W:

Sections 5-6, 31-33

34

35

The Lima Mountain Unit is adjacent tonearly six miles of the eastern edge ofthe Central Unit of the BWCAW.Secondary highways FR315 and FR152comprise most of the remaining bound-aries of the unit.

At 2,238 feet, Lima Mountain isMinnesota's fourth highest point. Thereis a foot trail accessing the peak fromFR315. From the peak there is a sce-nic view of much of the unit.

The unit includes portions of Poplar Creek, BruleRiver, and four small lakes: Lima, Sled, Fiddle, andDislocation. There is a portage trail bisecting theunit, from FR315 to Morgan Lake, BWCAWentry point #45. There is also the unmappedRam Lake Trail that enters the BWCAW throughthe southern portion. According to the field vol-unteer that "although the trail is wide enough formotorized use, it is clearly marked as a foot trail,and a metal gate blocks any motorized vehicles."The Lima Mountain, Morgan Lake and Ram Laketrails all provide great opportunities for solitudeand quiet. The area is also considered to be

good for bird watching.

The field volunteer states that "the for-est is a beautiful mix of old and newforest. Tall paper birch (30-40 feet) arenotable features on all the trails in theunit, as well as thick moss coverings onrock and lush ferns throughout theunderstory." Also, there are some fens(low marshy areas) near Fiddle Lake,between Fiddle Creek and FR152.

The unit is somewhat compromised by ForestService logging roads 152J and 152JA, unim-proved spurs accessing Fiddle and Lima lakesfrom FR152. However, very little logging hastaken place in recent years. Wilderness designa-tion would close the roads to anything but foottraffic.

This unit is 91 percent in Forest Service own-

ership, with approximately 240 acres of state

land in four separate parcels.

LimaMountain

UnitApproximately

2,540 acres

T63N, R1W:

Sections 2-3, 10

T64N, R1W:

Sections 23, 25-26, 35

36

37

The Magnetic Lake Unit lies just west ofGunflint Lake and Magnetic Lake, bothalong the U.S./Canada border. Thenorthern boundary of the unit abutsthe BWCAW.

Wilderness designation for this areawould preserve the wilderness qualitiesof the Magnetic Rock Trail, a day usetrail accessing Magnetic Rock. The trailgets very little use, and its overlook hasno signs and has undergone no development,although hikers can see a small portion ofGunflint Trail. Pogo Lake, which is shallow anddoes not support fish, is not viewed as a destina-tion.

There is development visible from the east andwest ends of the trail. A new road has beendeveloped into private property just east of theeastern boundary of the unit. There is also asmall primitive road along the southeast borderof the unit. There are several cabins near the endof this road and on Gunflint Lake.

Forest cover consists of mixed aspen and birch

with some jack pine and balsam fir.Also present are white and blackspruce. There is a wide marshy area inthe creek valley. Blueberries, snowber-ries, reindeer moss, small ferns, andtwinflower are common wherebedrock is exposed. Some MichiganLily is growing in the western forest.

The eastern one-half has extensiveblowdown, a portion of which has been

bulldozed into piles and burned. Aspen is alreadygrowing in these bare areas. The surviving forestappears to be 30-50 years old. The western one-half of the unit shows some evidence (charcoal)of old fires. Deer, moose, wolf, and mink arefound here.

The whole area provides very nice hiking andan excellent geological study area, as there is

much exposed bedrock. The field volunteerfound the unit to be "very interesting."


MagneticLake Unit

Approximately

1,133 acres

T65N, R4W:

Sections 23-24

38

39

The Meander Lake Unit lies north ofthe Echo Trail and northwest ofMeander Lake. The unit's west, northand east borders directly abut theBWCAW.

Part of the Meander Lake Unit burnedin the Little Indian Sioux fire of 1971.The unit is regenerating and is other-wise free of the evidence of humanimpact except for a few old signs foundby the field volunteer - an old barreland a shell casing. The Sioux Hustler

Trail travels through the southwestcorner of the Meander Lake Unit andenters the BWCAW at the unit's west-ern edge. The addition of the easternhalf of this section would enhance pro-tection of the Little Indian Sioux Riverand add wilderness mileage to theSioux Hustler Trail.

The field volunteer noted that birch,spruce, and poplar trees are commonand all around 40-feet tall. Additionally,there is a creek, Clora Creek, which

originates in the Meander Lake Unit and flowsinto the BWCAW.

The Forest Service remarks that this unit "sup-plies the remoteness and solitude aspects of therecreation experience that the Superior is notedfor."

This unit is 80 percent in Forest Service owner-ship and 20 percent in state ownership.

MeanderLakeUnit

Approximately

1,560 acres

T66N, R14W:

Sections 31-32

T66N, R15W:

Section 36

40

41

The Mine Lake Unit lies near the end ofthe Gunflint Trail. The unit's southernand western borders abut theBWCAW. Field volunteers describedthe unit as "a very nice area with goodviews, rich forest and lake habitat."

The Kekekabic Trail, constructed in the1930s as an access trail for firefightingand forest management, is a rugged 40-mile hiking trail that runs through thecenter of this unit. The east end of thetrail suffered from the July 4, 1999 blowdown.Damage is prevalent, and the Kekekabic Trail hasbecome a heavily-used game trail, making wildlifewatching for wolves, bear, moose, and mink par-ticularly rewarding.

Since the blowdown, trees appear to have beencleared, stacked, and burned without the use of abulldozer. Areas where blowdown occurred havea typical thick re-growth.

Forested areas consist of birch, aspen, balsam fir,spruce, and some jack pines. According to thefield volunteer, they appear to be about 50-70

years old. A small section of land nearthe west end of the trail was burnedabout 10 years ago. Marshes and bogscover some of the area. Many blueber-ries could be found here. Areas alongthe water were rich with submergent,floating, and emergent species.

The old Paulson Mine is located withinthe unit although the field volunteercould not find signs or trails leading tothe mine shaft even though the Forest

Service has stated that it may be required tofence and sign the area to ensure visitor safety.

There are three lakes in the unit: Mine, Edith, andWest Round. West Round and Edith receiveheavy canoe traffic as they are part of a highlytraveled BWCAW entry route (Brant Lake entrypoint #52) with portages on either side of bothlakes.

The area is 100 percent in Forest Service

ownership.

MineLakeUnit

Approximately

1,209 acres

T65N, R4W:

Sections 28-29, 33

42

43

The North Arm, Burntside Unitextends along the western shores ofthe North Arm of Burntside Lake, justoutside of Ely. Wilderness designationwould extend protections to theshoreline of Burntside Lake, creating anatural boundary. The border exten-sion also would protect one of the fewshorelines that have not yet been devel-oped on Burntside Lake.

About one-third of the unit is old-growth red and white pine forest, withan understory of 15-40 foot maples, 15-30 foot birches, alder brush, ferns and wildflow-ers. The unit is very rugged, with high scenicvalue. Multiple loons were spotted on the lake,as well as moose tracks on trail, and blueberrypatches.

The unit is roadless and free of human impactexcept for the motorboats on Burntside Lakeand a portage trail that runs from Burntside toCrab Lake in the Trout Lake section of theBWCAW.

According to the field volunteer,"Cabins are common on the east sideof the lake, but less on the west side.Even with them nearby, the area isimpressive with tall white pines liningmost of the shoreline. As soon as youget into the forest, you feel even moreremote. In the area (on land) and inback bays, there are excellent opportu-nities for solitude and primitive recre-ation. We saw more canoes thanmotor boats on waters next to theunit."

The land is approximately 80 percent in ForestService ownership. There are three 40-acreparcels of private land within the unit, and thesecould be considered for purchase, or simply pre-cluded as they are accessible only by water.There are also county and state acres.

NorthArm,

BurntsideUnit

Approximately

3,243 acres

T63N, R13W:

Sections 3-4, 8-10,

16-17, 19-20, 30

44

45

The Urho Creek Unit is south of theEcho Trail and southeast of LakeJeanette. The unit's eastern boundary isdirectly adjacent to the BWCAW. Theunit can be accessed from FR471 andthen FR471C which, according to theForest Service, is improved 0.2 milesinto the area. However, field volunteersnoted that the travelway, with one-foot-tall grass in the center, was not main-tained.

The end of the travelway is marked bya dirt barricade. There is an old logging roadbeyond the travelway surrounded by regenerat-ing forest and some taller pines and birches. TheForest Service states that about 106 acres washarvested in the last 10 years; field volunteersnoted that it is starting to regenerate.

The Norway Trail runs north-south the fulllength of this unit near its western border. Fieldvolunteers who hiked the trail described the areaas "nice, scenic, peaceful…with little apparenthuman use." Obviously, wilderness designationwould help enhance the wilderness experience

of the Norway Trail and protect thescenic qualities of this hiking corridor.

The unit is considered by the ForestService to be of high scenic value withcommon rock outcrops and extensivemature jack pine. This old-growth is ofhigh value to several species; much ofthe unit is potential "critical habitat" forthe Canada lynx. There is an historicalcabin site in Section 27.

The unit is part of the Little IndianSioux River watershed, and there are small lakesand ponds at the beginning of four creeks thatflow into the Little Indian Sioux River in theBWCAW: Marvins, Teds, Urho, and Spike HornCreek.


UrhoCreekUnit

Approximately

5,013 acres

T65N, R15W:

Sections 15-16, 21-22,

27-28, 33-34

46

47

The Willow Creek Unit lies directlynorth of FR170 and northeast ofCrescent Lake. The current boundaryof the BWCAW juts out awkwardlyaround Kinogami Lake which is includ-ed in the BWCAW. The Willow CreekUnit would improve the buffer for thatlake, plus add protection to WillowCreek, which connects Kinogami andCrescent lakes.

This area was part of the larger Baker-Homer-Brule Lakes RARE II area butnever received any formal protection.

No logging has taken place within the unit duringthe past 10 years, but there is an unimprovedroad accessing Kinogami Lake from FR170, onthe east side of Willow Creek; access is blockedat FR170. This road could be potential access to160 acres of state land isolated within the unitand adjacent to the BWCAW.


WillowCreekUnit

Approximately

1,360 acres

T62N, R3W:

Sections 17-20

48

49

The Wolf Lake Unit is just north ofLake Vermilion, a lake outside thewilderness and studded with privateholdings, both commercial and residen-tial. The unit is a popular area for hunt-ing, fishing, hiking, and berry picking, andwilderness designation would help toprotect those recreational activities.There are 68 acres of old-growth redpine.

The primary attraction within the unitis 179-acre Wolf Lake, which is accessi-ble by water on Wolf Creek, which runs betweenLake Vermilion and Wolf Lake, and by a portagetrail from Vermilion's Wolf Bay to Wolf Lake. Asmall parcel of Wolf Lake shoreline is privatelyowned and contains a cabin. The landownermaintains the property in a primitive state.

This unit is part of a larger, once-roadless areaknown as Little East Creek. In 1999, a forestaccess road was built through the area, and sev-eral private cabins have been built. The Wolf LakeUnit is what remains of the roadless area.


[email protected]

WolfLakeUnit

Approximately

2,920 acres

T63N, R16W:

Sections 17-21, 27-29.

50

The Cabin Creek Unit is about eightmiles directly north of Little Marais.FR359 defines a portion of its westernboundary and FR171 runs along itssoutheastern border. This unit is a por-tion of the original, 8,098-acre RARE IIarea, also called Cabin Creek.Additionally, much of the current unitoverlaps with the Cabin CreekPotential Candidate Research NaturalArea.

The Cabin Creek Unit is "an unexpect-ed treasure." Much of the unit isnorthern hardwood forest, a rarity inthe Superior National Forest. This forest is dom-inated by a mix of red and sugar maple, as well ascedar and birch. The topography is dramatic withelevations ranging from 1,600 - 1,930 feet. Theview overlooking Moose Creek has a wildernessappearance.

The western part of the unit was heavily loggedin the past. Large areas are starting to be refor-ested, with 20-25 foot poplar trees.

Despite clear travel on roads in andaround the area, this area provides agreat wilderness experience. One fieldvolunteer said "it would have beengreat to have seen this area protectedfrom roads and logging years ago." Oldlogging trails turned into hiking trailsallow for a scenic walk through the oldhardwood forest (some trees are 50-60 feet tall), coupled with rolling hillsand steep ridges.

There are four lakes within the unit:Shoepack, Thunderbird, Bonanza, andMoose. Thunderbird has two primitive

campsites, while Shoepack has one. Protectionof the unit would ensure continued wildernessrecreational opportunities as well as water qual-ity.

The unit is 80 percent in Forest Service owner-ship. There are approximately 1,500 acres ofstate land in six isolated parcels, 40 acres ofcounty land, and 60 acres of private land.

CabinCreekUnit

Approximately

8,360 acres

T59N, R6W:


28-33

T59N, R7W:

Section 25

51

52

53

The Hog Lake Unit is approximately 14miles northwest of Tofte and justnortheast of and adjacent to theTimber-Frear area, currently a semi-pri-vate recreation area and also aPotential Candidate Research NaturalArea. A small portion of the Hog LakeUnit overlaps with the PotentialCandidate Research Natural Area.

The Hog Lake Unit is undisturbed withthe exception of a few previous timbersales and an off-highway vehicle routeto Hog Lake.

The northeastern side of the unit is quiet andpeaceful with few signs of human activity; volun-teers found shoe prints only. The forest here isovergrown and more diverse. Stands of jackpine, red pine and aspen are prevalent. On thisedge of the area the road becomes passable onfoot only, providing an excellent hiking trail toenter the unit's interior. Volunteers found similaropportunities for solitude and primitive recre-ation in the southern portion of the unit. Theydescribed mixed vegetation consisting of aspen,

black spruce, and fir.

There are five lakes within the unit: BigSnow, Little Snow, Clover, Retreat, andHog.

The topography is mostly upland, rang-ing in elevation from 1,700-2,000 feet.The unit is considered by the ForestService as a potential SpecialManagement Complex of the white/redpine ecosystem type, which, with itsexisting old-growth (200 acres of pine

in excess of 100 years old), would make it anexcellent staging ground for the regeneration ofold-growth pine forest.

The area is 100 percent in Forest Service ownership.

Hog LakeUnit

Approximately

7,369 acres

T61N, R5W:

Sections 3-5, 7-10,

14-16, 18, 21-23, 26-28

T62N, R5W:

Section 32

54

55

The Mississippi River Unit is south ofthe Eagle Mountain Unit on the southside of FR170. The unit's easternboundary is an old railroad grade andits southern boundary is a stream thatparallels Mississippi Creek, giving theunit its name. It is a significant amountof land separate from the BWCAWand represents an intact-functioningecosystem.

The unit is almost entirely roadless.The northern portion of the unit lies within theCascade Lake Potential Research Natural Area.Additionally, the entire unit is part of a 7,211-acre RARE II area, also called Mississippi Creek.

This area received a high biodiversity rankingfrom the Minnesota County Biological Survey.Nearly half of the forest is more than 70-years-old and includes spruce, aspen, birch, and cedar.Jack pine and tamarack also were noted. There isone small lake, Babble Lake, which offers solitudeand great hiking trails but no fishing; it's onlyabout eight feet deep, according to the ForestService.

Parts of the northern portion of theunit are swampy and dense. Field vol-unteers recommended this unit forrecreationists who like to crashthrough swamps and over fallen downtrees. Some areas (around Babble Lakeand along FR170) were not as swampyand were beautiful but already "discov-ered," as campsites and trails had beenestablished.

In the southern part of the unit, field volunteersnoted dense vegetation. All-age forests includedaspen stands, spruce and cedar, balsam fir, andbrushy hazelnut, some in poor condition and oth-ers in excellent condition. Field volunteers spot-ted moose and deer tracks, as well as wolf scat.

The unit is 91 percent in Forest Service owner-ship, with 518 acres of state land in five separateparcels, with 400 of these centrally located.

MississippiCreekUnit

Approximately

5,670 acres

T62N, R2W:

Sections 17-22, 26-34

56

57

The Picket Lake Unit lies about 10miles north of Lake Vermilion, east ofthe Vermilion River and south of theEcho Trail.

The area surrounding the Picket Lakeunit is well logged with many roads, butthis expansive area is largely uncom-promised and promises excellentopportunities for a wilderness experi-ence. Field volunteers described PicketLake as "a very Boundary Waters-typelake," with three backcountry camp-

sites in its western end, and canoeaccess in the eastern-most bay. Alsowithin the unit are Finstad Lake, andFinstad and Picket Creeks.

The forest is jack pine, aspen and birch,with evidence of some logging withinthe last 30 years. The landscape pro-vides a nice combination of wetlandsand uplands.

Picket Lake attracts anglers, paddlers,and campers while the surrounding

area sees hunters and trappers. Off-highwayvehicles clearly are using the trail leading to theeast end of Picket Lake, and several former log-ging roads are being used by off-highway vehiclesas well.

The unit is more than 99 percent in ForestService ownership. There is an isolated 40-acreparcel of county land.

PicketLakeUnit

Approximately

5,280 acres

T65N, R16W:

Sections 19-22, 27-33

58

59

The Seven Beaver Unit is approximate-ly 20 miles east of Aurora. This unit isby far the largest unit recommended inthis study. It is extremely remote, andentirely roadless. It also is under con-sideration as a Potential CandidateResearch Natural Area given its uniqueecological features.

The Seven Beaver Unit contains someof the few patterned peatlands outsideof the Red Lake area (the DNR's SandLake Peatland lies just to the north-east); a large amount of vegetationmore than 70-years-old; and severallake types.

There are four lakes within the unit:Big, Swamp, Round, and Seven Beaver.Seven Beaver Lake is the headwater ofthe St. Louis River, a primary LakeSuperior tributary. The lake containswalleye as well as wild rice. There is a campsitein the southeast end of Seven Beaver Lake, twomore on Round Lake, and four on Big Lake.

Currently, there is an effort underwayto produce a cooperative managementagreement for the large SandLake/Seven Beaver area (which includesthe Seven Beaver Unit) between TheNature Conservancy, Lake County, St.Louis County, the Minnesota DNR, andthe Forest Service.

Approximately 92 percent of the unit isin Federal ownership, with 880 acres ofcounty land, 200 acres of state, and 120acres of private land.

[email protected]

SevenBeaver

Unit

14,200 acres

T59N, R12W:

Sections 23, 25-27,

33-35

T58N, R12W:

Sections 1-4, 9-16,

22-27, 35

T58N, R11W:

Sections 6-7, 18-19

Seven Beaver Unit was one oftwo units not surveyed by a

field volunteer.

Friends Archives

60

61

The story to protect Minnesota’s border lakes regionbegan more than 100 years ago with individuals whobelieved strongly in the importance of protecting wildplaces. They knew then the value and significance of keep-ing even small corners of our world free from theonslaught of civilization. They recognized, like Henry

David Thoreau, that “ … in wildness is the preservationof the world.”

43

Today, we have the opportunity to continue the legacy ofprotecting our canoe country heritage, and as important,to pursue the protection of these lands because it is whatpeople want. In poll after poll, with people from all walksof life and with a wide range of passions, Americans wantmore land permanently protected as wilderness.

They want to make certain that today, and tomorrow,they and their children and their grandchildren will haveplaces to fish and hunt, watch wild animals and birds, pad-dle a canoe, camp out under the stars, and enjoy theworld in all its natural splendor.

They want to be able to live in places that support strongeconomies as well as attractive lifestyles. They want com-munities that protect their natural resources … notextract them.

And, they want assurances that they will have clean air tobreathe, clear water to drink and land that is healthy andcapable of protecting habitat for thousands of differentspecies, including those that are threatened or endan-gered.

Americans want more wild places, and in Minnesota, wecan help make that happen.

The 24 units proposed for permanent protection in theSuperior National Forest are, for the most part, alreadywild. Our challenge is simply to ensure that they are wild

10, 20 and 30 years from now. We must not assume thatthe way we use these lands today will be available to usin the future. If we want to continue to hunt for moose,deer and grouse throughout the Superior NationalForest; paddle the vegetable lakes or the Portage River;hike on the Kekekabic Trail; fish on Picket and Wolf; seelynx, wolves, and black bear; drink clean water; and allownature to function and sustain the earth, then we mustjoin together to protect these few remaining wild placesin the Superior National Forest. To do less is to turn ourbacks on all that each of us cherishes today and risk los-ing it forever.

Sigurd Olson may summarize it best when he quoted aGreek philosopher of some 2000 years ago: “ ‘Life is a giftof Nature, but a beautiful life is a gift of wisdom.’ To mostof us, a beautiful life includes the out of doors, cleanwaters, open space, and wilderness. This is part of theAmerican Dream. It will take the best and highest think-ing of which we are capable to preserve what we have in

the face of mounting population and industrial pressures.I am confident that when all the issues are weighed, thesolution will come and that as a result of it, the uniquewilderness values of the Quetico-Superior will be pre-served.”

44

CONCLUSION

GLOSSARYPotential Candidate Research Natural Area

Areas selected as potential representatives of the high-est-quality remaining examples of ecosystems found inthe Superior National Forest. Research Natural Areasare designated to be permanently protected for the pur-poses of maintaining biological diversity, conductingresearch and monitoring and fostering education.

45

RARE I I Area

In 1977, the Forest Service conducted a second RoadlessArea Review and Evaluation (RARE II). In the SuperiorNational Forest, 13 areas were identified, totaling nearly

100,000 acres. These 13 areas are known as RARE IIareas.

Specia l Management Complex

Special Management Complexes (SMCs) are placesacross each forested landscape that would provide forfeatures that have become increasingly rare: largepatches of old growth forest, old forest, rare species habi-tats, rare and representative natural communities. Theconcept of SMCs was proposed in the Notice of Intentto prepare an environmental impact statement for revis-ing the Chippewa and Superior Land and ResourceManagement Plans.

1 Sigurd F. Olson testimony to the House Subcommittee onNational Parks and Insular Affairs, Ely, MN, 8 July 1977.

2 Jeb Tilly, Human Powered Outdoor Recreation, State of theIndustry Study, Outdoor Industry Association (Boulder, 2002).

3 A Mandate to Protect America’s Wilderness, Campaign for

America’s Wilderness (Durango, 2003).4 America’s Wilderness Heritage in Crisis, Campaign for

America’s Wilderness (Durango, 2003).5 The Feldman Group, Washington D.C., 2000 poll.6 John Terborgh, Where Have All the Birds Gone? (Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 1989), 6.7 Janet C. Green, Birds of the Superior National Forest, AnAnnotated Checklist (Minneapolis: Boundary Waters Wilderness

Foundation, 2002).8 Superior National Forest, “Forest Plan Revision,” 16 April

2003, <http://www.superiornationalforest.org.>, 5 April 2003.9 R. Newell Searle, Saving Quetico-Superior: A Land Set Apart(St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1977).

10 Kevin Proescholdt, Rip Rapson and Miron L. Heinselman,Troubled Waters, the Fight for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area

Wilderness (St. Cloud: North Star Press, 1995), back cover.11 Proescholdt, xii.12 Proescholdt, xii.

13 Proescholdt, xiv.

14 Proescholdt, 2.15 Sigurd F. Olson, Congressional Field Hearing, Ely,Minnesota, 1977.

16 Michael Soule and Reed Noss, “Rewilding and Biodiversity:

Complementary Goals for Continental Conservation,” WildEarth , Fall 1998, vol. 8, no. 3.

17 America’s Wilderness Heritage in Crisis, Campaign forAmerica’s Wilderness (Durango, 2003).

18 Robert Treuer, Voyageur Country (Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press, 1979), 47.19 Judy Waytiuk, “Floating for Fur, Top Canadian Voyageur

Canoe Routes,” Paddler Magazine, January 2000, XX. 20 J. Arnold Bolz, Portage into the Past (Minneapolis: Universityof Minnesota Press, 1960), 11.

21 America’s Wilderness Heritage in Crisis, Campaign forAmerica’s Wilderness (Durango, 2003).

22 Tilly, 8.

23 Tilly, 2.24 Tilly, 11.25 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-

Associated Recreation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001.26 A Mandate to Protect America’s Wilderness, ResponsiveManagement poll, 1999.

27 Tilly, 9.28 Human Powered Outdoor Recreation, The Gold and Green

Study, 1994.

29 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000.

30 Metropolitan Council, 2003<http://www.metrocouncil.org>, 17 April 2003.

31 Ely Area Development Association,

<http://www.elymn.com>, 17 April 2003.32 Tara K. Olson, “Ely Tourists Make More, Spend More,” Ely

Timberjay, 27 April 2002.33 “Minnesota Ranks Second in Wildlife-related Recreation,Ely Timberjay, 15 June 2002.

34 Reed F. Noss and Allen Y. Cooperrider, Saving Nature’sLegacy: Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity, (Washington D.C.:

Island Press, 1994), 199.35 Paul Radomski and Timothy Goeman, “Consequences ofHuman Lakeshore Development on Emergent and Floating-

leaf Vegetation Abundance, North American Journal of FisheriesManagement, 21(1), February 2001: 46-61.

36 America’s Wilderness Heritage in Crisis, 11.37 S.C. Trombulak and C.A. Frissell, “Review of EcologicalEffects of Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities,”

Conservation Biology 14, 2000:18-30.38 A Mandate to Protect America’s Wilderness, 33.

39 Henry David Thoreau, The Maine Woods (Penguin USA,

1988).40 Paul Gruchow, “The Prophet of Joy,” Sigurd F. Olson, 1899-

1982 (Minneapolis: Boundary Waters Wilderness Foundationand The Wilderness Society, 1999), 10.

41 Rick Bonney, “Observations Count,” Wild Earth. Vol. 11,

Nos. 3 & 4, 18-21.42 Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac (New York: Oxford

University Press, 1989).43 Henry David Thoreau, “Walking,”Walden (New York:Vintage Books, 1991).

44 Sigurd F. Olson, testimony before the Selke Committee,

23 May 1964.45 Chel Anderson, Evaluation of selected potential candidate

research natural areas as representative of ecological landtypeassociations on the Superior National Forest, Minnesota ,

Minnesota County Biological Survey, Minnesota Departmentof Natural Resources. Biolgical Study No. 58, 1997.

FOOTNOTES

62

The “Skinny” on Roadless Area Inventory1. Know where you are on the map at all times. Show you know with pictures of recognizable spots.2. Be thorough, careful, and clear in your recorded observations.3. Enjoy your area!

4. Follow all travelways entering your area to their end. If they are less than 50 inches wide, follow them towhere tire tracks stop. If a travelway/road is less than 100 yards, just document the beginning and end.

5. Document the absence of structures/roads that appear on your map.

A. Document all Human Impacts, including:

Roads and other travelways:�beginning

�least road-like area�average section

�most road-like area�end (2 photos: 1 looking away, 1 looking back on rd.)�signs of construction/maintenance(presence of berms, cut-banks, culverts, gravel, etc.)�change in maintenance/construction status�main purpose/destination of road/way �junctions with streams and lakes�closure devices (check the effectiveness of gates, berms, boulders, etc.)

Other impacts:�logging impacts �mining activity�gravel pits�developed camp sites (w/picnic tables, enclosed bathrooms, etc.)�built structures (cabins, fire towers, pipelines, etc.)

�power/telephone lines (map them and provide representative photos)

B. Map unmapped roads/ways using map and compass bearings or GPS points at each notable bend.

C. Complete Wilderness and Ecological Qualities Form.

D. Write a summary of what you found on the Observation Log.SAMPLE PHOTO DESCRIPTIONS

Appendix One

Photo Tips�Mark every photo on your map with the Photo ID anddirectional arrow.�If you are unsure of your location, say so!�Clearly describe the message you want to portray ineach photo.�Note the maintenance status and functionality of anystructures and roads.�Estimate the extent of an impact (e.g. 50x150 feet gravel-pit, etc.).�Include a scale (person, clipboard, etc.)�Show the impact in context of its surroundings. �More photos are better!

Human Impacts:Roads and other motorized travelways:

�end of road at gravel pit, note recent bulldozer berms on left�maint. change from recently graveled section to 2-track,

unmaintained way, note 3' spruce in center

�avg. conditions: note small stream running down left track�least road-like area: less than 50" wide, jagged rocks on Rd. bed�junction of road with Pebble Creek, note maintained bridge�junction of road 534 with 573 (on left/right, respectively)�most road-like area: recently bladed, downed trees cut Other Impacts:

�abandoned gravel pit, 50x125 yd. area, note 5' aspen in center�recent clearcut w/8'high regenerating aspen �developed camping area- about 4 fire rings and enclosed toilet�abandoned vehicle�fire tower- unmaintained- note broken steps and rusted metal�old logging camp, cabins barely recognizeable

Wilderness and Ecological Qualities:

�incredible views over BWCAW �Moose lake, great walleye fishing here!�strong sense of solitude�birch-fir forest, note very decayed stumps in this ~100x200 ydarea

�many wolf tracks seen here�large blow down area (~100 acres?)�old-growth white pine, many trees >20" diameter, ~300x400 ydarea

�many impressive, large (>15 inch in diameter) white cedars onthis lake

�tamarack bog forest present with surprisingly large tamaracks�jack pine-oak forest (approx. 500x600 yds.) with many rare moc-casin flowers

�pictographs on small cliff�lots of songbirds in this area

63

INVENTORY PHOTO FORM

Area Name:______________________ Sub-Area:____________________________________________________Quad___________________Name(s):________________________________________________________________Date:_________________________ Your Name(s):_____________________________________________________

Appendix Two

photo ID #(e.g. FR-03-14)

Mapped orGPSed?

Forest Road#/Map Area

Signs ofConstruction/Maintenance?(describe)

Description - main message of the photo, keydetails to note, road number, etc.

64

WILDERNESS AND ECOLOGICAL QUALITIES FORM

Area Name:___________________________________ Sub-Area:___________________________________Date:_______________________ Your Name(s):_________________________________________________

Wilderness Qualities:

Describe the scenic/aesthetic qualities of the area. Describe the degree to which the area is natural and free fromhuman impacts, especially as perceived by a potential wilderness user.

Describe the opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation.

Ecological Qualities:

Briefly describe the major types of vegetation communities present, including any unique/rare communities.

Describe the current condition of these communities, in terms of approx. age of forest, signs of past wildfire, quality oflake and pond habitats, abundance and diversity of wildlife, etc.

Appendix Three

65

OBSERVATION LOG

Area Name:_____________________________________________Sub-Area:_______________________

Date:________________ Your Name(s):____________________________________________________

Appendix Four

1) Record any observations that aren't covered by the Inventory Photo Form, Wilderness/Ecological

Qualities Form, or map. 2) Summarize your major findings on human impacts and wilderness/ecological qualities.

3) List what areas and roads still need to be surveyed.

66

Staff

Melissa Parker Lindsay, Executive DirectorDonna McNamara, Director of Finance and AdministrationSarah Strommen, Policy DirectorSean Wherley, Policy and Education CoordinatorAmy Wilkenloh, Membership and Outreach Coordinator

Board of Directors

Doug AndersonPaul AslanianDick FlintLee FrelichPete JungDarrell KnuffkeMike MatzJon NelsonMary ProbstCarolyn SampsonBetsy SchmiesingSteve SnyderWever WeedKris Wegerson

Wilderness Review Committee

Angie Anderson, political policy and environmental science B.S. student, University of Minnesota-Duluth

Chel Anderson, biologist

Jan Green, naturalist

Andy Holdsworth, conservation biology PhD student,University of Minnesota

Steve Snyder, attorney and wilderness advocate

Sarah Strommen, Friends staff, Masters of EnvironmentalManagement

Kris Wegerson, physician and wilderness advocate

The mission of the Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness is"to protect, preserve and restore the wilderness character of the Boundary WatersCanoe Area Wilderness and the Quetico-Superior Ecosystem."

For more information, please contact:

Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness401 North Third Street, Suite 290

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612-332-9630

612-332-9624 (fax)[email protected]

Documents

A wilderness study on permanently protecting Minnesotaâ€™s