On Friday, Oct. 12, 2007, the Lakeland Times published an article about the Rest Lake Dam controversy. The headline was “Rest Lake Dam Will Maintain Status Quo Until Next Summer”.

Jon Simonsen told the reporter that DNR staff are busy sorting through public comments and “an environmental impact analysis”. They are also preparing a FAQ page for the DNR website. (We’ll post that information when it is available.) He went on to say:

“This winter we’ll be drafting the environmental analysis document. This

months.”

He also cautioned that the schedule is tentative and could be pushed back because of further research.

These comments underscore the fact that the DNR has kept the Town waiting for a resolution for several years. Discussions started in 2003. In 2008 we will be entering our fifth year of environmental and economic uncertainty. Eight meetings were held with participants from the upstream Chain and the downstream Manitowish River. The most prominent item on each agenda was the DNR’s proposal for an experiment in natural sturgeon reproduction downstream. The sturgeon population was aging, and there appeared to be little reproduction.

To stimulate natural reproduction, the DNR wanted to move more water through the Rest Lake Dam at exactly the time when the Chain was supposed to be filling. The MWLA argued that there was insufficient evidence of probable success to justify altering the 70-year history of upstream water management. If the Chain’s levels were significantly impacted, there would be serious effects on fisheries, wetlands, wildlife environments, shoreline structures, property values, and the Town’s tourist economy.

During the talks downstream participants continued to raise issues of flooding and property damage, especially when water from the fall drawdown sent more water through the Dam. They felt that their side of the Dam was not receiving equitable treatment. It was acknowledged that if there were heavy fall rains at the same time the Chain was being drawn down, there might be negative effects on riverfront properties. The upstream representatives agreed to a plan that would extend the fall drawdown in order to help prevent flooding downstream.

As for other proposed changes, The MWLA said it could not support them as long as the DNR was ignoring reasons, other than flow-rate, for sturgeon decline. It also objected to the open-ended nature of the sturgeon experiment with no defined end-point. Even though the DNR asserted that low levels might occur “only once in every eight years”, the drought conditions of 2005 (later occurring in 2007) made that assertion seem meaningless. Also the DNR had done no field studies in the Chain, other than a survey of shoreline structures in the fall of 2005.

After that survey, the DNR withdrew a request to reduce the drawdown by 6” (i.e. winter ice-levels would be 6” higher), but in 2006, it returned to that idea. Xcel countered by pointing out that the only economic benefit from the Dam came from sufficient waters at drawdown going downstream to provide more water for hydro-electric dams. Also if there were structural damage from ice, Xcel would be the one blamed.

A number of local residents suggested that holding water over the winter might be a good idea in order to raise summer levels. But when the DNR stated categorically that 50 cubic feet per second would be maintained during dry conditions, even if that meant reducing Chain water-levels, the then-formed Defense Fund concluded that winter-held water would be sent down the river, rather than being retained in the Chain.

50 cfs appears in all DNR documents as the minimum flow figure, and work group participants were told that this figure appears in the 1939 official Operating Order. But it was discovered that only levels, not flows, appear in that Order. The Defense Fund’s attorney revealed this finding in a strong letter sent to the DNR in January 2007.

Nevertheless, the DNR chose to run 50 cfs through the Dam in mid-summer 2007 at the worst point in the summer’s drought. It said that its “#1 priority” was to get more water downstream. The Defense Fund hired independent water specialists to do measurements of inflow and outflow. They determined that inflow, at mid-summer, was 40 cfs or less, and that outflow through the Dam might be running as high as 69 cfs.

Another strong letter from the Defense Fund attorney went to the DNR in mid-August 2007. He pointed out that the DNR had violated the 1939 Order’s requirement that depth in the Chain go no lower than 7’3”. Levels, after the DNR ordered 50 cfs through the dam, plunged to 6’1”. The DNR insisted that Wisconsin Statute 31.34 justified a minimum flow of at least “25% of the natural low flow” but they used a questionable base to calculate the 25%.

A public meeting on August 25 brought out more than 500 people to register their complaints to DNR personnel. Since then the agency has been processing those complaints and also numerous letters and emails. There is little that organizations and townspeople can do until the DNR reveals the terms of a new Operating Order, which as the Lakeland Times article reports, may not be until next summer 2008. Upstream interests continue to press for an actual environmental assessment of the Chain along with a credible economic impact study.

A new DNR Secretary, Matt Frank, took over in early fall 2007. To register your comments, write to him at 101 S. Webster St. - AD/5, Madison WI 53703 or send an email to matt.frank@dnr.state.wi.us.

DNR Web Site