DNR, stakeholders move closer to Rest Lake Dam compromise Manitowish Chain may be lowered six inches instead of 12

Vilas County News Review
Debbie Munson Badini
Sports/Outdoors Editor
Wednesday, November 29, 2006

After debating proposed Rest Lake Dam operation changes for the past three years, members of the Manitowish River/Rest Lake Dam Work Group have taken steps toward drafting a compromise, which if approved, could help group members avoid a court battle with the state Department of Natural Resources.

At stake is an estimated six inches of water elevation that members of the Manitowish Waters Lakes Association want to keep in the Manitowish Chain during the summer boating season, and which the DNR has proposed taking in order to increase the amount of water flowing over the dam to aid in a sturgeon restoration project downstream and improve wildlife habitat along the river.

The DNR's original proposal could have lowered water elevation on the chain by an entire foot, which was vehemently opposed by the lakes association members, who say lowering the chain by 12 inches would impede navigation on the chain, lower property values by an estimated $60 million and wreak havoc on the local tourism-based economy.

Locked in a stalemate

But with representatives from Friends of the Manitowish River strongly supporting the DNR's proposal to lower the chain by up to one foot, for reasons including better control of fall flooding and improved habitat for fish and wildlife downstream, it seemed the group would be locked in a stalemate, forcing the DNR to draft a rule mandating the changes, which could then be challenged in an administrative court.

But Manitowish Waters town chairman John Hanson ended that deadlock at the most recent work group meeting Monday by proposing the DNR lower the chain by only six inches in the summer, and in exchange, reduce draw down on the chain by six inches in the winter.

"If we could reach this kind of compromise, we would be able to avoid the process of a long protracted battle here," Hanson told the group members. "If you keep six inches in the summer and six in the winter, then that equals the foot of water they want downstream."

The lake association members had previously resisted keeping more water in the chain over the winter, fearing damage to permanent piers and other structures along shore. But Hanson said six inches would be more palatable for winter storage than an entire foot.

"I think small increments of six inches could be sold [to those opposing the changes]," he said. "Those small tweaks could solve the rest of the issues."

Compromise will be drafted

Hearing a lack of objections from both sides of the table - where representatives from the town, the lakes association and the Manitowish Waters Chamber of Commerce sat facing representatives from Friends of the Manitowish River, the Turtle Flambeau Flowage Association and the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, among others - DNR water resource specialist Jim Kreitlow, who has led the creation of the proposal for the agency, said he would draft a letter detailing the compromise and how it would affect the dam proposal.

According to DNR regional water leader Tom Jerow, the stakeholder groups will then have 30 days from receipt of the letter to voice their support or objection to the possible compromise before the DNR will decide how to proceed.

"[Being able to lower the chain] six inches would go a long way to helping out in the process," Kreitlow said. "I'm not objecting to it, because one foot was always a target. This is a way of starting somewhere and then being able to evaluate it over time."

Agreement not assured

However, attorney Mike Fitzpatrick, who represents the Manitowish Waters Lakes Association, said he does not believe his clients will approve of the proposed compromise once it is in writing and its power is fully explained.

"The problem is that the DNR can determine what the chain elevation fluctuations may be with the increased flows, but their proposal gives hierarchy to the amount of water flowing over the dam, not the elevation of the chain," Fitzpatrick said in an interview. "So, if the chain is near that eight foot mark, but flows are under what they want for the sturgeon, they can keep increasing the flow, dropping the chain even further. Flow trumps elevation in their proposal."

Among a host of other concerns, Fitzpatrick said the lake association is primarily worried about the economic impacts lower water elevation may have for area businesses and property owners.

"With more than $600 million in property values on the chain, if values went down even 10 percent, which is a conservative estimate at best, that is a loss of $60 million," Fitzpatrick said, adding that the agency should not move forward with their proposal without conducting a thorough environmental assessment, which would include an economic impact study of the proposed changes on the area.

However, Jerow said at the meeting that an environmental assessment would not be required unless the DNR writes a formal order mandating the dam operation changes.

"And even if there is an EA (environmental assessment) or an EIS (a more intensive environmental impact statement), which will include an economic study, the results will be informational only. They will not drive the decision-making process," Jerow said.

Economic impacts not proven

Members of the Friends of the Manitowish River also expressed some disappointment with the compromise Monday, but said they would be willing to get somewhere.

"If this doesn't work, they will have to increase flows again in the future [when the project is reevaluated in five years] which may lower the chain further," said John Bates. "I beg of you to consider just doing one foot now and making a one time adjustment to it."

Besides leaning toward the one-foot drop in elevation rather than the six-inch drop, Bates also said he is not sure concerns about diminished property values are realistic.

"Why do they assume their property values will go down?" he asked the group. "Values didn't go down last year during the drought, so why would they go down from this? They are making a lot of strong statements about 'economic disaster,' but there is no evidence to prove any of this."

Though not all members of the group left the meeting happy with the compromise on the table, Jerow said the agency would proceed with drafting the letter and waiting for stakeholder response.

"If we can, through this process, do what's best for the entire resource," Jerow said, "then I have to believe we are also doing what's right for the economic interests as well."