KABETOGAMA- From the very first question Voyageurs National Park Superintendent Bob DeGross was asked at last Thursday’s town hall meeting in Kabetogama to review the park’s revised Frozen Lake Surface Use Plan, he got a clue as to the reception he would receive from the full house crowd.
Before DeGross could answer a question put to him about whether he could be counted on to listen, a voice in the room called out an emphatic “No!”
DeGross, however, let the comment pass, telling the crowd that the revisions to the initial proposal from last year were evidence that park officials had taken the public’s feedback seriously and had tried to make modifications to reflect those concerns.
But the overriding sentiment among the attendees was that no frozen lake surface plan was necessary and that it represents an overreach of federal authorities to regulate waters that are owned by the state of Minnesota. Restrictions on motorized vehicle use in the plan would seriously limit the ability of resorts and other outdoor activity vendors to meet the needs of their customers, they contended, seriously impacting their ability to remain profitable.
The revised proposal
DeGross began by reviewing the proposed plan as it stands now, noting that information from the current public comment period would be utilized to make as many additional revisions as possible within Park Service regulations regarding motorized vehicle use.
Some of the changes to the original plan include:
Abandonment of proposed moderate use and low use zones that would have had a significant impact on ice shelter transportation, placement and occupancy requirements.
Establishment of a larger system of ice roads of up to 32 miles, to be staked when the ice is a minimum of eight inches thick, with up to 18 of those miles converted to plowed roads when the ice thickness reaches 12 inches.
Parking areas along ice roads would be expanded from 300 to 500 feet from the center line, and also allowed along Lake Kabetogama’s developed shoreline. Individuals would be allowed to plow in parking areas to facilitate placement of ice shelters.
 Any state-registered and/or licensed motor vehicle would be allowed to use plowed and staked ice roads as long as they adhere to weight restrictions.
 Permanent ice shelters that adhere to state regulations can be left unoccupied. Transportation of shelters by motor vehicles would be allowed along ice roads and within parking areas, while shelter transport not associated with an established ice road would require the use of a snowmobile.
DeGross emphasized that the plan focuses on regulation of motorized vehicles other than snowmobiles.
Conflicting positions
A conflict between federal regulations and state law appears to be central to the disagreement between citizens and park officials over any plan proposing to regulate motor vehicle use on VNP’s frozen lake surfaces.
DeGross has repeatedly said that the proposed plan is intended to bring the park into compliance with federal regulations which state that motorized vehicles may only be operated on established roads and parking areas in national parks, and nowhere else. Historical practice of motorized vehicles having access to the vast areas of frozen lake surfaces is inconsistent with that rule, DeGross says, and must be regulated in some fashion.
The opposing view is rooted in the original legislation that transferred the property of the park from the state to the federal government. That law specifically states that the state did not cede ownership of the waters of the park to the feds, or the beds of those waters, and since the state still owns the lakes state regulations should apply. This position has found an advocate in the state Department of Natural Resources. Northeast Region Director Shelly Patton went on record in last year’s public comment period, noting that the federal government did not have the authority to implement a plan that would strip either the state or riparian property owners of their legal rights to access these frozen public waters because the Park Service does not own them. Frozen lakes are not considered extensions of land and remain public waters, in this case subject to the state’s authority.
“This issue between the state’s rights and the federal government’s authority has been going on ever since the creation of the park,” DeGross told the Timberjay. “And there have been a variety of different lawsuits that have been fought. If I’m not mistaken, four of them have been litigated in the courts. And three of those have come back saying that the federal government does have authority within the legislative boundaries of the park.”
Patton, who said she’s had a good working relationship with DeGross for years, also weighed in on the dispute.
“This is something where the state laws don’t align with what they foresee as a federal regulation, a road regulation that they’re applying to waters, and I don’t really understand how that works,” she said. “So, that’s what we’ve got to get resolved. And I want to point out one important thing, that Minnesota is a riparian rights state. If you own land that abuts public waters, you have a right to go on those waters, as long as you’re not impeding or doing something illegal, and you have access to the whole surface of the water, The state says you can go all the way out to the other side of the lake. You have the free right to travel on those waters. That’s been held up by the Supreme Court in Minnesota and the U.S., so that’s an important right.”
No exception
During the comment period, DeGross was asked whether the park could be exempted from the motorized vehicle regulation due to the park’s unique nature as a water-based park. Commenters said they believed DeGross should be advocating for local accommodations rather than falling in line with existing NPS regulations.
DeGross indicated that he had tried to pursue workarounds with his superiors. One suggestion he said he made was a creative attempt at a solution.
“I went to park leadership and I said, ‘Why don’t we just call all of Lake Kabetogama a parking area, and all of the area on the west end of Rainy Lake where this motorized use takes place and call that a parking area?’” Defining those areas as such would allow unrestricted motorized vehicle use. But his suggestion didn’t fly.
“I was shot down with that,” he said.
DeGross told the Timberjay that his superiors are focused on creating an acceptable access plan that fits within the regulation.
“I have conveyed this issue to my supervisors and the management and leadership of the National Park Service in a manner that advised them that this is a very unique and controversial issue associated with Voyageurs National Park,” DeGross said. “Actually, I encouraged us to really consider special rulemaking as it relates to this use at the park. And my direction was to come back and work through the process and identify what we would be able to allow within the regulation that’s established.”
One speaker said he appreciated DeGross’s situation, but that the changes to the plan weren’t responsive to the concerns citizens have expressed.
“I kind of do believe you are on our side and you’re trying to figure out a way to do this. I don’t know why, but I really do,” he said. “But I think you’re put in a really bad position right now. And you didn’t hear us or your superiors didn’t hear us.”
DeGross and the crowd failed to find common ground on the need for a plan, given the historical use of the lakes in winter, the lack of any clear cultural or environmental resource impacts, and the continuing conflict over state versus federal jurisdiction. Commenters maintained their position that the plan would infringe on their individual rights and negatively impact the local economy by depressing visitor use of the lakes.
After the meeting, DeGross said that the process moving forward would be to complete the public comment period by June 28 and incorporate the information gathered in an environmental analysis of the proposed plan, again making responsive modifications where possible. That analysis will be put out for yet another public comment period later this fall, after which a final plan will be developed by next spring.
“My objective is to clearly identify what is and is not allowed, and where it is and where it is not allowed, so that everyone knows the playing field, and that we provide reasonable access, we assure the protection of the natural and cultural resources, and that we follow the regulations that I’m responsible for following,” DeGross said.
Patton stressed that people should continue to advocate for what they want.
“It’s really important,” she said. “People have this opportunity during the public comment period to say exactly what they want to see happen here, and hopefully they’ll take that to heart and listen to what people have to say. But I think contacting your legislators, both state and U.S. legislators, will hopefully bring some movement to it, too.”
There are no more public meetings scheduled, but people are still able to review the plan and submit their written comments through June 28. The plan is on the VNP website in the Frozen Lake Surface Use Plan documents list. Comments may be submitted online at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/VOYA-frozen, or can be mailed to Frozen Lake Surface Use Plan, Voyageurs National Park, 360 Hwy 11 East, International Falls MN 56649.