To Manitowish Chain Defense Fund Supporters:

The Rhinelander DNR Office has published a “Frequently Asked Questions” document about our Chain and the Rest Lake Dam. It has been distributed to the Governor’s Office, to DNR Secretary Matt Frank, and to legislators. They are using this document to answer your letters and emails. Because of the number of misstatements and questionable assertions made by DNR employees who are trying to cover their mistakes, the Manitowish Chain Defense Fund has prepared its own FAQ responses.

FAQ - Why is the DNR working on the Rest Lake Dam operation at this time?

DNR position: The DNR claims that it has been working for several years with “stakeholder” groups concerning the operations of the Rest Lake Dam. They have also claimed that they have been trying to reach an agreement on the operational strategy for the Dam. The DNR says it is trying to balance competing interests.

Defense Fund response: Unfortunately, the DNR is not making any good faith efforts to reach an agreement. Every proposal from the DNR calls for the agency to have control over the Dam without any standards as to water level or operational consistency. It has become clear that a small group of people, inside and outside the DNR, has an agenda to control the Rest Lake Dam to the detriment of the over 1,200 people who signed a petition opposing the DNR’s actions. That very large group of people will have their property values and recreational use of the Manitowish Chain severely impacted.

The DNR recently stated that their number one priority was to make sure that the people on the Manitowish River on the other side of the Dam would have the amount of water they want. The DNR’s number one priority should be to comply with the 1939 Order and Wisconsin law, as well as listening to all the people who are affected by the Dam, not just to a small group.

The DNR missed an opportunity this summer to discuss its position with the property-owners in Manitowish Waters. Instead of answering questions, DNR employees brought people to a confusing and less than useful meeting. Because of this failure, we are expecting little from the DNR in the upcoming environmental analysis process, a process which is supposed to inform the public about changes in the operation of the Dam and at the same time get public input.

FAQ - Minimum flow from a dam - what is the law?

DNR position: The DNR cites State Statute 31.34 which says that anyone maintaining a dam on a navigable stream shall consistently pass 25 percent of the natural low flow. The DNR then adopts a USGS formula (Q7, 10) for the natural low flow: i.e. the lowest average flow of a stream over 7 consecutive days within a 10-yr. period. The DNR interpretation is that this measurement shall not include the flow coming into the Chain.

In order to provide the USGS with additional streamflow data to reach a minimum flow figure, DNR reports that its staff measured 5 rivers/creeks that flow into the Chain, as well as the Manitowish River below the Dam.

Defense Fund response: The DNR has an interpretation, but it is only that. Wisconsin law does not require the use of the USGS formula. There are huge inconsistencies in how the flow equation is calculated at state-regulated dams. There is no evidence to back up the calculation of 50 cfs. This is simply an assertion by the DNR designed to influence public opinion. The DNR has been “selling” 50 cfs for more than four years. By repeating that figure over and over, the agency seeks to establish it as the norm for flow through the Dam. In 1974 the DNR determined that State Statute 31.34 required only 25 cfs through the Dam. Now it says the amount is at least twice that figure.

Why did DNR staff measure the five rivers/creeks that flow into the Chain, when they had already asserted that inflow wasn’t a factor in their calculations? How can they make a correct calculation of streamflow only from the flow below a dam?

The DNR refuses to comply with Wisconsin law for the operation of the Rest Lake Dam. The very specific 1939 Order is what controls that operation and the resulting water-levels. A vague state statute does not control the Dam.

FAQ - Why did the DNR require the dam operator to discharge 50 cfs from the dam during a drought?

DNR position: The DNR asserts that it is responsible for ensuring that the dam is operated according to its operating order and Wisconsin law. It says that State law requires that dam operator release a minimum flow of water from the dam at all times to protect public and private rights downstream. It repeats that minimum flow is equivalent to one-fourth of the natural low flow of water downstream of the dam., but not one-fourth of current low flow coming into the flowage.

The DNR says that 50 cfs should be the minimum flow because “this is the flow figure Xcel Energy has used and practiced in their dam operation.”

Defense Fund response: Once again, the DNR is trying to exclude inflow to the Chain. Inflows this past summer were lower than in non-drought years, but the DNR ignored that fact when deciding to insist on 50 cfs through the Dam at the height of the drought. The Chain, the upstream Manitowish River, and the downstream Manitowish River are all part of the same river system.

The Chippewa-Flambeau Improvement Co. (dam owner’s legal name) confirms that in most years it has reduced water discharge through the dam below 50 cfs, sometimes significantly below. This has been an effort to keep Chain levels high enough for navigation and recreation purposes. There was only one time each year that CFIC consistently used 50 cfs as the minimum flow, and that was during refill of the Chain in the Spring. In conversations over the past four years the DNR has referred to Xcel (actually CFIC) as a “violator”. Now the DNR is using this dam operator as a reference for its preferred minimum flow. They can’t have it both ways.

FAQ: - Why is the DNR not following the 1939 order and is allowing the elevation to drop below the minimum lake level of 7 feet 3 inches?

DNR position: The DNR uses the continuing drought in northern Wisconsin as justification. It says that lack of rainfall over the summer and the need to provide a minimum flow of water downstream prevented the ability to maintain the 7 foot 3 inch elevation

Defense Fund response: CFIC reduced dam flow to 40 cfs on July 5 to offset the drought effects on the Chain. The DNR ordered them to return to its favored flow figure of 50 cfs. The actual outflow (as measured by independent engineers) was 69 cfs and far exceeded the natural flows into the Chain (“run of river”). In drought times reasonable people would expect the DNR to balance the water needs of both the Chain and the downstream river. But there was no effort whatsoever to assess the damaging effects of the DNR action on upstream wetlands and fisheries.

FAQ - Why did DNR require more flow to be released over the dam than was coming into the Chain?

DNR position: The DNR repeats that it is responsible for ensuring that the dam is operated according to its operating order and Wisconsin law.

Defense Fund response: This would be a good time to observe that for four years the DNR has said that 50 cfs was required in the 1937-39 Operating Order. But there are no specific minimum flow requirements in any orders. When that fact became widely-known this summer, the DNR for the first time brought up the Wisconsin Statute 31.34 as its rationale for increasing flows through the Dam.

Also, from the beginning of the discussions, the DNR focused on the downstream sturgeon population using guesswork about outcomes. Then, when confronted with valid criticism, they tried to change the rationale for manipulating the Rest Lake Dam.

The DNR has chosen to wage a public relations war by releasing the FAQ document to a select list of officials a month before posting it on its website and sending it to the organizations that participated in the long-running “stakeholder” discussions. “Winning” has risen to the top of the DNR’s priority-list.

If you would like to read the full “FAQ” Document, go to the following DNR website:

Rest Lake Dam Link

Jack King, President

Manitowish Chain Defense Fund