VOYAGEURS NATIONAL PARK- Winter users of frozen lake surfaces here won’t have to cope with a new set of rules this season, as implementation of a new Frozen Lake Surface Access and Use Plan proposed earlier this year by park officials won’t be ready to go until at least 2024.
The plan would restrict off-road vehicles, trucks, SUVs and other vehicles to two designated ice roads on Kabetogama and Rainy lakes, although such vehicles would be allowed to operate within 300 feet of those roads. It also would place restrictions on placement and occupation of ice fishing shelters.
What is available now on the park’s dedicated webpage for the plan is analysis of all of the public comments received about the proposal, along with a second file with the complete comments themselves.
The analysis does not include verbal comments made at public meetings at Kabetogama and International Falls or a virtual meeting alternative. A total of 224 people attended those sessions, with nearly half, 111, at the Kabetogama meeting.
Written comments were analyzed by the park service and broken down into 20 topic areas. The top six topics for comment included socioeconomics, visitor experience, Minnesota state regulations, ORV use, ice road use and location, and accessibility.
Socioeconomics
Commenters raised concerns about the economic impact the proposal would have on area businesses that already struggle in the off-season for tourists. Several commenters noted that the local economy was still struggling from the COVID pandemic and worried that the plan would hinder the area’s recovery. Some business owners said the plan could cause them to close.
“The proposed regulations would effectively destroy the business for local (and long-time) ice fishing outfitters, and the trickle-down effect on all the other businesses that benefit from these winter visitors,” one person said.
“It hurts local business who are just trying to survive. It hurts park user experiences, and it makes the park an undesirable destination during the winter. People will go to other lakes where they are free to access those lakes with any means available to them,” another person said.
Commenters noted that many people do not own snowmobiles and that the plan would limit access to lower-income people who cannot afford to purchase or maintain a snowmobile. Some commenters expressed more general concerns about the plan being discriminatory against lower-income visitors.
Others noted that the proposal would limit the ability of private landowners who access their property through the park to access their cabins. It would also negatively affect private landowners’ ability to maintain their properties because the off-road vehicles used during the winter are the only practical and safe method to transport certain materials to water access properties, commenters said.
Visitor experience
Comments in this category were mixed, with some noting how off-road vehicles enhance visitor experiences and others saying they detract from those experiences.
Those arguing for the value of off-road vehicles highlighted their use for touring, ice fishing, snowshoeing, sightseeing, and viewing the northern lights. Some commenters said that they could not enjoy the park in the winter without the use of ATVs and UTVs and that the plan would significantly alter their access and enjoyment of the park.
On the flip side of the question, many were in favor of the plan’s restrictions on vehicles and ice shelters. They noted the benefits of enjoying time in a quiet environment and explained that their experience is less pleasant when there is noise from adjacent vehicles. One person said that recreational vehicles and large ice shelters could negatively affect activities like cross country skiing and snowshoeing.
Many were worried about the impact on visitors’ ability to have an enjoyable ice fishing experience, as the restrictions would greatly reduce the area of the lakes accessible to fishing.
“Please continue to allow off road vehicles on the frozen surfaces of the park. My wife, four sons, and I have enjoyed countless days…in the beautiful park by accessing our favorite fishing spots in this manner,” one commenter said.
State regulations
The letter most directly addressing issues in this category came from DNR Northeast Region Director Shelly Patten, who also spoke at the Kabetogama public meeting. In her written comments, Patten tackles one of the biggest concerns head-on, noting that the state of Minnesota did not give up its authority over the waters in Voyageurs National Park when the land was conveyed to the park service. Patten said it is contrary to law for the park to treat frozen lake waters in the same manner as land. She also contends that VNP has no legal authority to strip the state or the riparian owners of their interests, including the right of access to the frozen surfaces.
Patten’s letter concludes with a summary that sets up an outright rejection of the frozen roads plan.
“After review of the Frozen Lake Plan and attending the public comment sessions, the DNR has significant concerns, as detailed above,” Patten said. “The proposed Frozen Lake Plan would have serious adverse impacts on the state’s property interest in its public waters and our obligations associated with the public waters the state owns within the boundaries of VNP. It would also have adverse impacts on property owners, Minnesotans, businesses, surrounding communities, and visitors to the area. We therefore request that the provisions related to public access and ice shelters be withdrawn.”
Off-road use
Most comments in this category supported the continued use of off-road vehicles on frozen lakes in the park without further restriction or regulation. Commenters indicated that restrictions on ORV use would negatively affect the public’s right to access the park. One commenter pointed out that snowmobiles may not be viable for providing access without adequate snow depths. Others noted that some types of off-road vehicles have less impact on the park than snowmobiles.
The Kabetogama Town Board weighed in on this issue.
“It is the Kabetogama Township Board position that all should be free to travel anywhere on all lake surfaces. UTV’s are used for warmth and comfort for many individuals while traveling on the ice. UTV’s are used for transporting fish houses, and trucks are the only vehicle that can transport larger fishing shelters. ATV and UTV’s are used as a safe mode of travel on the ice surface. As the winter days change, ATV and UTV travel may be the only way to continue to safely travel in the park. There are many residents, vacationers, etc., to whom access would be limited if the mode of transportation is curtailed by changes to the frozen lake surfaces access that currently exists,” the board wrote.
Ice road use
Numerous commenters argued that creating ice roads is an outdated idea that is too costly and unnecessary because of new ATV technology. Other supporters of this idea said that having no ice roads would reduce crowding and pressure on the lakes, and that the park would be better off spending its money on such things as year-round trails for ATVs and snowmobile and ski trails.
“The plowed ice roads that VNP has established have been a failure due to the conditions the last few years,” said another commenter. “My opinion is the park doesn’t have adequate staff, time or compassion to maintain these ice roads. So, my suggestion is to not do an ice road at all. Let the people use the park “as is”.
Accessibility
This category focused on how the proposed plan would disproportionately and adversely affect older park users and those with disabilities who are unable to use snowmobiles to access frozen lake surfaces in the park.
“ORVs are becoming more popular because of their multi-season capability. Requiring visitors to only access the lakes with snowmobiles shuts out families that cannot afford to purchase multiple snowmobiles, senior citizens, and those with physical limitations that cannot use snowmobiles safely,” said one person.
“I have a disability which affects my legs (pain and numbness) and use a tracked side-by-side vehicle for winter access to enjoy ice fishing anywhere on the lake and to support the various resorts anywhere on the lake to get food and/or gas,” wrote another.
“Preventing people like me who do not / cannot snowmobile from enjoying VNP to the fullest extent we can with the methods and equipment we find safe and enjoyable is contrary to the purpose of a national park, and a violation of Minnesota State Law,” said a third.
Altogether, the PDF document of all 182 comment letters submitted is 113 single-spaced pages long.
Moving forward
At the first public meeting, VNP Superintendent Bob DeGross expressed the desire to receive public input into the plan while at the same time noting that federal regulations requires some type of regulations be put in place. In response to feedback at that meeting, DeGross extended the deadline for public comments to be submitted.
Now the park will move forward using a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process that will allow for two more public comment periods before a final plan is developed and implemented. That process will likely begin in the spring or summer of 2024.