Thank you very much. I'm delighted to join non Fraser and all the many other participants here today on this program to discuss the future of the Boundary Waters canoe area as well as its past how it has been managed. And what should we do to best protect in and best make that are available for public? Several years ago a traveler to a remote area in the United States search of an outdoors recreational experience encountered this sign at the forest edge. Save our environment leave this place. That's fine could probably be put up at any one of the entrances to The Boundary Waters canoe area. That's probably the best way to protect it and save it to keep the people out. Because of the increasing pressure of use on a very fragile more sensitive environment and one which all of us are concerned about. That's why we're here today. I I think that the Don Fraser is not a very fine job of presenting his views and I want to thank him for the slideshow. I don't have any more modest program here for the Iron Range and So I leave the hector. I'm just a little too too a picture to show here and displaying the area and want to join with all of you though. I think the purpose of this meeting is to attempt to approach the controversy in a reasonable and responsible way. Controversy that has gone on for 75 years and probably longer. As we go on through this debate in the public forum, and it will continue for quite some time. Do the hearings that will be held in Washington possibly even out here in Minnesota. Answer the many public discussions will be held in many forms all throughout the state and another States. I think we all would do well to keep in mind an old adage speaker Samurai speak to the house longer than any man in history. So let us disagree. But let us disagree without being disagreeable. Much of the Boundary Waters. Canoe Area Debate has been very disagreeable. As well as inaccurate. I think it should be the purpose of this program. 2 program this conducted properly at a center of learning to be most agreeable. As well as reasonable rational and responsible and factual rather than misleading in the public debate. Eye doctor Searles very scholarly presentation set the tone. for that discussion What is his his very scholarly presentation also mask the very deep and bitter emotions and have surrounded The Boundary Waters canoe area throughout its history. I was born and raised in Chisholm and heart of the Iron Range. I've traveled throughout that area. I live most of my life in the midst of that controversy and all deeply people feel on both sides of that issue. Condemnation. Went to which we went through in the 1950s late 1940s and on into the early 60s and they're very deep and long-lasting feelings among the people of the area better their attitude for the rest of the state and the rest of the country. That is one of the fact that we must deal with. Feelings are deep on both sides of the issues. And I know because I have very close friend. Some of my very best friends are Advocates of very opposite viewpoints. The central fact of the Boundary Waters canoe area is that it is a Wilderness more in name than in fact in an operation. The interior Zone 618000 Acres laced with portage's canoe routes paddle routes, but also with motor boat and snowmobile areas have been used for many years. the portal Zone also laced with motor and snowmobile routes. Hadal zones and Timber harvesting the whole area largely logged over beginning even in the 1880s. A long history of dispute as to how that area should be used. It was all brought to a head in 1964. When The Boundary Waters canoe area was included in the National Wilderness preservation act along with a total of 9600000 Acres of wilderness throughout the United States. Boundary Waters canoe area that time represented about 10% of the total Wilderness in the United States since that time. We've added another 8.6 million Acres of wilderness to the National Wilderness system for total of about 18 million Acres of wilderness with the Boundary Waters represent 5.6% of that acreage. There are 168 other areas. Scattered throughout the United States east and west north and south under consideration in various stages of consideration for Wilderness either awaiting enactment by Congress or under review by the land managing agency. Whether it's the forest service in the National Park Service or the Bureau of Land Management. In addition The Carter Administration is proposing some 119 million acres in Alaska and various study forms for Wilderness consideration. It's not as though we didn't have any Wilderness. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have anymore I'm saying is that the Boundary Waters canoe area has to be put in his perspective just as the argument is made that there are plenty of other areas for people to enjoy snowmobiles and motorboats. There are also plenty of other areas for people to enjoy wilderness. I think we should reduce this one or that we should give it any less consideration. the argument Cuts both ways We've already reviewed the history of The Boundary Waters canoe area, but the Salient fact to me throughout the entire history of The Boundary Waters. Canoe area is that Established use has been protected has been recognized by executive Act of the president by administrative actions of the secretaries of Agriculture and by acts of Congress just now the law of the land. It was secretary Jardin in 1926 who dealing with that embryonic piece of The Boundary Waters canoe area than a thousand square miles is 640000 acres in his management plan for management of that area a proper harvesting of Timber with the preservation of natural screens around along Lake Shores campgrounds in similar areas is not inconsistent with preserving opportunities for Wilderness Recreation. 1936 and 1938 then secretary of agriculture Wilson under President Roosevelt the other President Roosevelt reaffirm that position. By restating it and issuing a new management plan that recognized. What's the position of Timber harvesting the use of Motor Vehicles for traveling weather on this with a snowmobile motor boats or limited roads into the area gradually the use of vehicles over land into the Boundary Waters canoe area was eliminated in properly soul. The fact is the timber harvesting and motorboat travel throughout the area continue to be recognized. as late as 1948 further management plan for the Boundary Waters canoe area was issued by then secretary Clinton P Anderson, which established what is today the two area system or two zone system in the interior Zone and the portal Zone Interiors on being one of the portals own of more intensive or multiple use again in 1957 when you were home free proposes first version of the national Wilderness Act There was a provision that that recognized the established use of The Boundary Waters canoe area while including it in the National Wilderness system making it a part of the of the nation's reserve of wilderness lands. He also recognized the very long-standing and very direct relationship of that area to the people who live near it and whose livelihoods depend upon it. The exception that he wrote Into the Wilderness Act was not an afterthought was not something that came up just by accident on the senate floor. It is one that he very carefully contrived and very carefully crafted as a as a legislative draftsman in response to questions and issues that have been raised by the people of the area. He went up to Ely. What up to Virginia? He traveled throughout that area and hold open and held open public meetings to receive the views of the people in the area and how best they feel that area should be managed and as a result of that he determined that there should be certain areas protected. That was a consensus. It was a commitment was an accident to law and it stands as a commitment to the nation of the Congress of the people of the area and the people of the nation as to haul that area should be used. But regardless of Acts of presidents of secretaries of agriculture. of the Congress Or the courts the controversy continued. I was elected in 1974. I decided that that was an issue that wasn't going to go away cuz one is going to be with us for a long time. It was probably then the most emotional and and difficult issue in my district alongside of Reserve Mining Company. I stated very clearly. That is your Mining Company should be discharging its failings on land and I proceeded to work my best ability to get that accomplished. I also felt that the Boundary Waters canoe area kind of her. She ought to be resolved and that head-on and not to just sit back and and let events take their course. On my way. So I went back and I read through all the management plans are read through all of the history of use of the area. I talked with people who know their business on Wilderness like Bud Heintzelman. No there there business on the lawsuits like Chuck Dayton and the people in the local area Ali surrounding area, Virginia the Iron Range the North Shore. simple loggers miners People that work in the taconite industry who seek that area out for recreation. The only rugged Rocky Outdoors area, they can go and really relax and enjoy themselves and find out what is it that people want. Those have been using the area for snowmobiling and motorboats wanted a lot more than they had. Those who were interested in the pure Wilderness experience one of the great deal more than was available. Rather than just makeup. Pure simple political decision on on chop off a piece here and a piece there and give you some and you some I went and studied at all and I went and travel to other areas of the national forest system to see how Their Manners see what other possibilities are might be for a compromise a balanced management plan that would recognize all of the legitimate interests and not not just one on one side or the other. The result of all of this was to area management plan that pretty well reflects the history and development and the commitment of the federal government has made to the people at the hall that area would be managed. When I attempted to do was to suck in Wilderness, what is truly Wilderness to set aside for multiple recreational use that area that is best suited for that kind of use. Cnidaria would designate as a national Recreation Area. The other would be designated as a wilderness. And I've held open public meetings. I've traveled throughout my district. I've been in other parts of the state to hear other viewpoints, but Heintzelman well knows I've my office has been open available. He's coming to look at all the maps that I've developed. I think we got a very open and constructive Cooperative relationship. To receive the views of everybody. I want to hear what everyone has to say on it. I made some modifications and made some changes try to tighten up certain areas of use make it a better and more workable plan. the area designated as Wilderness which is area code 650-3008 that includes virtually all of the Virgin timber in The Boundary Waters canoe area. There's a few little Scatter Plots outside of it and that will be protected by a management plan. It will be managed in in the Titus fraction of any Wilderness Area in the United States. My bill is says missed Fraser's bill. Plugs up the exclusion the loophole if you will or the Wilderness Act of 1964. Which allows a motorboat use in certain areas where that use has been established? If the exclusion of the Wilderness act exemptions that Wilderness Act of 1964 supplies to all Wilderness areas, by the way, we're not plugged up then you could have a Wilderness Area in which there still would be dispute over how it should be used to my bill and the dawn freezers Bill takes care of that, be no aircraft flying over the area, you know logging no Mining and no commercial activity 1200 miles of exclusive paddle routes. four paddle canoes throughout the Wilderness Area National Recreation Area is Don said no more complicated and its management being complicated has never bothered the u.s. Forest service pretty capable of managing complicated areas and complicating things themselves sometimes. I think that's what it takes to be fair. to all the interests my bill will prohibit mining in the area in a little different fashion than the Fraser Fraser Bill takes the approach that the area can be zoned. And the there is a court case decided by judge Neville some two years ago or a year ago that provides for our suggest suggest as a Judicial booty call Dad on over there dictum by the court that you can so Nan area Vision was overruled and it's not just was overruled went back to the went back to the forest service to decide as to on administrative basis. So what they want to do whether they wish to attempt is only area or not. Constitutional lawyers that I've talked to said that doesn't make it so probably won't stand up this make good sense to temperature zone and area because you may get into complications of legislative taking and the government then required under the due process of law provision of the Constitution to make payments. So I have taken language out of a bill that we passed last year called mining mining in the Parks which sets up a very thorough program of identifying the mineral interests determining whether they're valid or not and then determining what to do with them other to acquire them more than just leave them and prevent their use and I think that's a very responsible way to go about it. And then you can't find any event both bills will resolve that issue. I don't think that mining is likely in The Boundary Waters canoe area. Those are a lot of Riddick or is copper nickel, or is it a very low grade quality their sulfide ores with your complicated at to process in the refining and smelting phase of copper nickel development Inc. The international nickel company undertook a very extensive sampling of its ores which lie. Well without the Boundary Waters canoe area and found that they contain 6/10 of 1% of copper nickel ore and decided not to mind that it gives them 12 pounds of metal from a ton of ore and they couldn't make it an economical go. I don't think that's based on jalaja clevidence that I've read and vice from from geologist that it just isn't the reasonable proposal to operate in there. But the main thing is to prevent the possibility of its nest with my little do. Timber harvesting remains another very controversial issue There are valid Timber sales awaiting execution. If you weld it waiting to be carried out within the Boundary Waters canoe area firm by of federal court of appeals and the companies were prepared this winter to go in and do the logging until we sat down and we reason together discussed it and I persuaded them to hold off until Congress could have an opportunity to decide this issue. My feeling that we could have action on legislation this year a my bill will eliminate those Timber sales. Which were the subject of Court litigation? Was it an easy thing to propose either 9000 people in the 8th congressional district is livelihoods depend on Timber harvesting. a hundred million dollar payroll a few years ago and Two Harbors when the railroad shut down and laid 800 men off the job Economic Development Administration. Financed study a feasibility study for a pulp and tissue Mill at Two Harbors. Surveys done on the area indicated at the time is that because of the shortage of supply of wood and availability of wood and difficulty to acquire Adam Adam marketable Price. Is that the mill would not be an economic feasibility? Blind and paper company abandoned its plans to go forward. I'm saying is that the wood supply is very marginal. Very thin. In the 18 major Timber producing countries counties of of the North country. From about 2 St. Louis County on North to the Canadian border and west on overthrew Beltrami and Rosso a County. We have the greatest concentration of wood supply and of wood processing Industries. Since the last Forest survey done by the u.s. Forest service on federally owned lands and adjacent lands, which is done in 1962. We had a 17% loss Timber availability in that area is already being utilized at or close to its maximum in terms of what is economically available at the Mill. So it's easy to say that this represents only a very small or X percent of the wood supply in, Minnesota. but if it's like wearing a size 15 shirt if you normally wear size 16 It gets a little tight. And what we want to do is to make additional Timber available in the area working properly be grown the area of the national Recreation Area in which Timber harvesting would be permitted under my bill is largely Flatlands. It is not interlaced with. Motorboat it is not available as The Boundary Waters are for these wide expanses of water. It's generally second cut area. Where there is ground cover sufficient to sustain growth on a on an annual yield basis. attractive the present Boundary Waters canoe area Outside of the Interior Zone contains about 21% of the total softwood availability in all of the federal Forest lands in Minnesota. What I am proposing is that Timber harvesting which I think is in the National interest. We passed a law last year to establish a whole new program for a Timber harvesting throughout the United States. Should be conducted here. in the interest of the economy of the area in the interest of the national economy and in the interest of the resource itself. The main management tool if you will all over centuries within the Boundary Waters canoe area been fire. How fire does not lend itself to Regeneration of the long-lived species like red pine because the Red Pine seeds? According to the silver culturalist won't regenerate in the ash area left after fires. And so what you got are less desirable species from an aesthetic standpoint. And what is happening within the Boundary Waters canoe area is the is a growing expanse of hardwood Aspen largely which grow by Roots Roots out and rhizomes. They pop out of the ground like mushrooms. And that's that is now becoming a very significant species within that area management of some kind of sorry for going to if we're going to produce and aesthetically attractive stand of trees and the kind that is best suited to the land. the recreational aspects of my proposed National Recreation Area would leave a thousand two hundred miles of exclusive paddle canoe routes in the Wilderness Area and additional paddle routes within the national Recreation Area. It would reduce the snowmobile and motor boat routes now available to the present management system. by about 50% thought you didn't have just about 40% of the motor boat and snowmobile routes that have been available up until now. Advice by roaming them in certain areas away from those that are the most attractive like the lake 1234 Lake insula routes, which are very popular travel routes for people in the Ely Babbitt area. Most livable on the Iron Range love to go up there and make a nice little circle route. I'm going to eliminate that keep it out make that an exclusive paddle Zone and make other areas available within the national Recreation Area into and to provide additional recreational opportunities. I would add a net of 121000 Acres from what is now the Superior National Forest to the National Recreation Area including those lands, that would be best suited for recreational opportunity. But the bill in the in the National Recreation Area portion has some very important restrictions some again, which I must point out or not. Very popular to sell my Northern constituents. But again there interest after looking at over and thinking it over is that we'd rather know where we stand and have an opportunity to use some of the Syrian the way that we prefer rather than to see the controversy continued and and haven't eaten away or have it all turned over to an exclusive Wilderness experience where none of us would be able to use the area for motorized travel. And I Viewpoint is expressed by senior citizens and by handicapped people as well who also want to use the area for for recreational purposes. in the National Recreation Area My bill would prohibit the use of aircraft except on certain Lakes which are not within the Superior National Forest and they're identified in the bill Lakes where aircraft have been lining but no other area outside of that would be would be available for aircraft. Me no additional summer homes are only 44 included within the provisions of my national Recreation Area. No additional ones would be constructed for service could could restrict the use within those areas. No roads would be would be no commercial development would be permitted. And the people in the air in the local area. So that's fine. We like it that way. We'd rather not have any additional commercial development within the Boundary Waters canoe area. The section of my bill to Don refer to giving preference to small business operators is one that is taken from the national forest management act largely that the in the management of Timber sales preference be given to small business operators. It's not and they language does not extend beyond that was in the context of the bill where where it appears and it's very clear that that's what what is intended for service has to manage other forestlands United States. That way they'll do so here as well. The summary the end of this legislative attempt is that we're trying to do is to balance the uses balance the interests. Tempting to recognize that that there are those who want to have what you might call a pure Wilderness experience. And that is provided right here. Add red area. And the other areas where you see different colors, there are different levels of use. recognizing the different characteristics of the land and the different the history of use in those areas. So that we don't take away from people what they have had and what has been committed to them for many years. The recognize that there is a national interest in wilderness. That there is a national interest in Wood fiber Supply that there is a national interest in multi recreational use 40% of the people. From outside the states who use the Boundary Waters canoe area you use motorized travel with a motor canoe or motorboat or snowmobile that in the winter time months of December through first part of March that up to 90% of the use of that area's by snowmobilers very little by others. People will not be disturbed by Motors in that area. an attempt to resolve the conflict by Establishing areas where people can pursue their uses their interests without disturbing others. I guess that was kind of my view of of where we ought to go and how we often to manage resources in in general. I don't think there's anything in life. That's all one way or the other. Each of us has had to make some compromises somewhere along the line in everything that we've done. We're trying to do is to make one that's a compromise in the public interest. Thank you very much.