FERNBERG ROAD – During a time when roadless areas across the nation are facing a significant shift in how they’re managed, one property owner near Ely is calling for a road to be constructed to a remote lake on the edge of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.
Troy Venjohn owns a 43-acre lot on the shores of Triangle Lake. In multiple public comments he’s submitted to the U.S. Forest Service this year, Venjohn cites the need for a road leading to properties near Triangle Lake, which sits near the end of the Fernberg on the edge of the BWCA Wilderness. The reason for improved access to the remote lake is that a Forest Service plan, known as the Fernberg Project, to use prescribed fire in and around the BWCA Wilderness puts private property at risk, according to Venjohn.
“We suggest that the Forest Service extend Forest (Road) 439 from the current BWCA/Kawishiwi boundary (which is unused), redirecting it southwest toward the fire-prone area south of Triangle Lake,” Venjohn wrote to the Forest Service in a Feb. 12 letter. “Decommissioning the south portion of the road would mean there would be no net new roads in the area. By shifting the route, the Forest Service can better manage this section of the forest while enabling private landowners to take necessary precautions further protecting Forest land. It would allow landowners to bring in appropriate equipment for clearing and maintaining the forest to prevent wildfire.”
Venjohn’s assertion that Forest Service Road 439 is “unused” or is even seldomly used did not align with others P&P spoke with for this article from the Ely area, several of whom said the road is used for access to the Kawishiwi River and for fishing in that part of the BWCA Wilderness.
Regardless, the idea of building a road in what is currently a roadless area brings to the surface simmering tensions across the nation as the Trump administration seeks to repeal the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, a policy that some say has protected vast lands of national forest for more than two decades.
The Roadless Rule, enacted in 2001 under the Clinton administration, restricts road construction and development across nearly 60 million acres of national forests, including Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota.
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins announced an intent to repeal the rule in June, arguing the policy is outdated and overly restrictive.
In an Aug. 6 letter he submitted to the Forest Service, Venjohn states that the Forest Service’s plan to use prescribed fire to burn up to 84,000 acres near his property “does not provide mechanisms for private landowners to mitigate risks on or near their properties prior to the burn. The area south of Triangle Lake is one of the highest fire-risk zones in the nation, as confirmed in discussions with the Kawishiwi District Ranger.”
Carbon copied (cc’d) on the missive he submitted last month to the Forest Service are Superior National Forest Supervisor Tom Hall and U.S. Rep. Pete Stauber, among others. For reasons not immediately made clear, Venjohn also included Vice-President JD Vance to the objection letter he submitted on the Fernberg Project. Multiple messages and emails were left with Venjohn during the past week seeking comments for this article. He did not respond as of Sept. 3.
In the August letter he submitted to the Forest Service, Venjohn describes himself as the “manager” of Triangle Trail Association/Triangle Trail LLC. Triangle Trail LLC is a Minnesota corporation “representing a minimum of seven properties, 120 acres, and 16 owners,” Venjohn writes.
In the August missive he submitted on the group’s behalf, it’s not immediately clear who would pay for a road to be built connecting the Fernberg to the properties near Triangle Lake. What is clear is that in addition to mitigating wildfire risk, any such road would allow for development of the remote lake, including septic systems and other modern amenities.
Not everyone who owns property near Triangle Lake agrees that a road leading to the remote watershed is the right idea. Dean Bushey and his wife own multiple off-grid cabins they rent as vacation properties near Triangle Lake. Bushey told Paddle and Portage Sept. 3 that he agrees with Venjohn when it comes to the Forest Service needing to mitigate the risk for any prescribed fires near Greenstone Lake or Triangle Lake. However, property owners who bought land in this area knew what they were signing up for when they purchased property near Triangle Lake. Expecting modern conveniences such as septic and electricity is not compatible with the reality of having property near a roadless area that borders a designated wilderness area, Bushey said.
Venjohn states that the Greenstone Lake East roadless area was added to the Superior National Forest Plan roadless inventory in 2004. Greenstone Lake sits southwest of Triangle Lake and the Fernberg Road. Historically, this area had walking trails, snowmobile/ATV paths, and roads, but was administratively designated roadless, Venjohn explained.
A recent USDA press release states that the Roadless Rule, being overly restrictive, harms 30 percent of National Forest System lands. The rule also hurt rural economies, according to the recent USDA memo.
“(The Trump) administration is dedicated to removing burdensome, outdated, one-size-fits-all regulations that not only put people and livelihoods at risk but also stifle economic growth in rural America,” Rollins said.
In late August the USDA announced the release of a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement on the proposed repeal of the Roadless Rule. The notice was available for public inspection in the Federal Register in the final days of August.
Stepping back from the idea of building a road in what is currently a roadless area, the Fernberg Project continues to spark mixed reactions from BWCA enthusiasts, private landowners, and others who live near Ely.
The Forest Service maintains the plan could reduce the threat of fires to human lives and private property. Furthermore, the Fernberg Project could see tens of thousands of acres inside the Boundary Waters burned intentionally, logging on federal lands outside the wilderness, and numerous other activities across a broad swath of forest in the heart of canoe country.
Venjohn and Triangle Trail LLC are not the only skeptics of the Fernberg Project. Organizations across the country, including the Sierra Club and Wilderness Watch, voiced skepticism about the project in comments that were made public earlier this year. Among the concerns raised are potential violations of the Wilderness Act, destruction of critical lynx habitat, and burning old-growth forests.
“The Forest Service’s approval of 84,000 acres of activity to re-engineer the natural landscape into reflecting the wildfire fuel conditions most desired by managers also undermines the goals of the Wilderness Act,” the group Wilderness Watch shared in its submitted comment.
The Fernberg Road extends about 15 miles east from Ely, surrounded on three sides by the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. The road corridor, which ranges from roughly 2½ miles to 4½ miles wide, is full of homes, cabins, resorts, and recreation sites.
“The existing conditions we’re seeing on the ground is this buildup of what we would term hazardous fuels,” says Aaron Kania, Superior National Forest Kawishiwi district ranger.
And while wildfires are viewed by some simply as destructive forces of nature, they played a significant role in shaping what today are considered the most stunning landscapes across the Boundary Waters. The reality is this is a place where wildfire is common—even necessary.
Historically, some of the most important fires the Boundary Waters landscape experienced were those started intentionally by the Indigenous people who have lived here for centuries and who used these fires as a tool of sorts. Other times the fires started naturally, from a lightning strike, for example. Across the 1854 Ceded Territory, a vast area of land in northeastern Minnesota that includes all of Superior National Forest and the BWCA Wilderness, Indigenous people have for generations engaged in the practice of intentionally lighting smaller, controlled fires with specific outcomes in mind, including acquiring food and materials for clothing, making canoes, and following other means of living with the land known as “cultural burning.”
Despite a long list of objections from across the country, the Fernberg Project brings together several recent issues, like the historic role of fire in what’s now the BWCA Wilderness, lessons about managing wildfires and protecting people, human intervention in what is supposed to be untouched territory, and the future of fire and the southern boreal forest in a changing climate.
The wilderness area presents special challenges not only to fighting wildfires, but also to conducting planned fires. Without roads to use for access or firebreaks, and without the use of any logging equipment to prepare sites, setting a fire and putting it out takes extra effort. Prescribed burning in the wilderness also challenges ideas inherent to how wilderness is managed in the United States. One person who has long been involved in protecting wilderness says such human intervention is inappropriate under long-standing policy.
Kevin Proescholdt, wilderness advocate and director of conservation for national nonprofit Wilderness Watch, believes the proposal could run afoul of Congress. The Boundary Waters is a federally designated wilderness area protected by the 1964 Wilderness Act and 1978 BWCA Act.
“It’s not that I’m opposed to having any fires in the Boundary Waters,” he says. “It’s that, when we set aside wilderness areas, we are allowing nature to call the shots, and not manipulating them like forests outside the wilderness.”
The two acts of Congress say humans are supposed to basically leave wilderness alone. Proescholdt was involved in efforts to pass the 1978 Act, and has spent much of his career seeking its enforcement.
“They shouldn’t be doing this kind of manipulation in wilderness,” he says. “It goes directly against the mandate to keep these areas untrammeled and unmanaged.”
Forest Service officials say it’s a matter of thinking on a different time scale. By conducting prescribed burns now, the agency might not have to intensively intervene in some future natural fires. Forest Service officials told Paddle and Portage last winter that there are several ways the agency is supposed to protect wilderness, including managing for a natural ecosystem.
The tactics include allowing short-term management, like prescribed burns, to allow for fewer interventions, like fighting natural fires, in the long term. The Forest Service also says the proposed fires are authorized by policy that allows for wilderness management activities to protect life and property.
“Our Forest Service policy that was interpreted from the 1964 Act doesn’t allow for ecological burning,” the Forest Service said. “But it does allow for burning for public safety and basically preventing risk to life and property.”
The Fernberg Project would not be the first prescribed burning in the Boundary Waters. Burning was conducted on about 50,000 acres inside the wilderness after the 1999 blowdown, and 1,300 acres of burning were authorized again in 2022 for the HiLo Project, primarily around Burntside and Slim lakes.
Rather than intentionally setting fires in the Boundary Waters, Proescholdt advocates for allowing natural fires ignited by lightning to burn. In recent years, few if any natural ignitions have been left to burn, but have rather been suppressed and extinguished as quickly as possible.
The Forest Service is often restricted by the timing of natural fires, climate and forest conditions, budget constraints, and concerns about fires getting out of control. Prescribed fires are usually conducted in the spring or fall, when cooler, wetter conditions make fire more manageable. But wildfires often hit the area during summer, when hot and dry conditions make it much more dangerous to allow fires to burn.
Proescholdt puts the Fernberg Project among a trend he has observed across the country, with federal land managers attempting significant interventions in wilderness, which advocates say are prohibited by the Wilderness Act.
“For decades, the Forest Service has been saying we’re going to allow natural fires to play their role in the ecosystem, but I don’t see that happening,” he says.
