Asian Carp Barrier

  • mahmoodmahi
    Posts: 30
    #1222550

    I am starting this thread so we can all share information about the processed Asian Carp barriers at Saint Anthony Falls and The Ford Dam. If you have links to any news reports, proposed legislation, or anything else pertaining to the Asian carp issue put it here. What I have heard is that if electric barriers are put in, fishing will then be banned 2 miles from each of the barriers. I haven’t actually seen this in writing, so I can’t confirm this. If its true then that means 8 miles of one of the states best trophy fisheries for almost every warm water species will become inaccessible. Furthermore, this is one of the few trophy fisheries where shore access is all public, and shore fishing is productive. So if you have any info, please post it.

    big_g
    Isle, MN
    Posts: 22450
    #1047687

    My blurb… close off 8 miles to save hundreds of miles and backwaters/lakes from becoming infected….. no brainer

    Brian Klawitter
    Keymaster
    Minnesota/Wisconsin Mississippi River
    Posts: 59992
    #1047694

    I have the video of the Corps testifying about this barrier, the two miles of river that will be off limits to boats under 22 feet and no shore fishing.

    I also mentions if a person is fully immersed near the barrier they will have a 50/50 chance of surviving.

    Now I’ve HEARD the costs to run this barrier after installation will be between $7k and $20k per month.

    Brian Klawitter
    Keymaster
    Minnesota/Wisconsin Mississippi River
    Posts: 59992
    #1047705

    HIGHLIGHTS OF VIDEO ->

    Electronic Barrier being looked at in MN

    No shore fishing around St Anthony Falls or Lock and Dam #1 (Ford Dam)

    No boats across the barrier less than 22 feet long.

    90% of all lockages are of boats less than 22 feet.

    If a human is immersed in the water, they have a 50% chance of surviving.

    No public hearing to start on the design.

    “It’s not like a secret and people don’t know about it”

    This has never been done in a lock within the US.

    MN DNR “We would be extreamly happy if this could be done within a year”.

    http://stream2.video.state.mn.us/Senate/cmte_env_020912.wmv

    The Electric Barricade starts at 1:13

    Brian Klawitter
    Keymaster
    Minnesota/Wisconsin Mississippi River
    Posts: 59992
    #1047707

    1
    Long-Term Funding Needs for Aquatic Invasive Species Programs

    Submitted to:
    Environment and Natural Resources Committees
    of the Minnesota House and Senate
    January 15, 2012

    Prepared by:
    Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
    Division of Ecological and Water Resources
    500 Lafayette Road
    St. Paul, MN 55155

    2
    Introduction
    The 2011 Minnesota legislature passed legislation (Laws of Minnesota 2011, Chapter 107, Section 106) that states:
    “By January 15, 2012, the commissioner of natural resources shall report to the house of representatives and senate committees with jurisdiction over environment and natural resources policy and finance on the long-term funding needed to implement and enforce Minnesota Statutes, chapter 84D, including recommendations on the appropriate amount of the watercraft surcharge.”

    This report summarizes funding requirements needed to sustain the current level of effort for aquatic invasive species (AIS) prevention, management, and enforcement as well as funding required to significantly increase prevention strategies. The report does not cover the growing need to fund prevention efforts for Asian carp. Boaters are not a vector for the spread of Asian carp; therefore, the watercraft license surcharge is not a suitable source of revenue for this issue.

    Background
    The spread of AIS is one of the top conservation challenges facing Minnesota today. AIS prevention and management is funded primarily with General Fund and the Invasive Species Account (ISA). General Fund support for this program was increased during the FY 2008-2009 biennium, but has subsequently declined because of the General Fund deficit.

    Most of the revenue for the ISA comes from a $5 surcharge on watercraft licenses and a $2 surcharge on non-resident fishing licenses.

    These two sources generate approximately $1,600,000/year.

    In addition, there is an annual transfer of $750,000 from the Water Recreation Account (WRA) to the ISA.

    The current annual appropriation from the ISA is $2,742,000. With all three sources of revenue, there is still a structural deficit that will cause the fund balance to go negative in the future.

    The FY 2012-2013 budget also provided one-time funding from the Environmental and Natural Resource Trust Fund ($5,690,000) and Heritage Enhancement Account ($2,000,000) to increase AIS prevention and management efforts. Demands for prevention and management programs continue to increase and a long-term, dedicated funding source is needed to address the economic and environmental impacts caused by AIS.

    The total budget for AIS is $7.2 million in FY12 and 8.6 million in FY13.

    More than half ($4.5 million) of the FY13 budget is from one-time appropriations (Table 1).

    Table 1. Aquatic invasive species appropriations for fiscal years 2012-2013.
    Fund
    FY12
    FY13
    Comments
    Invasive Species Account
    $ 2,742,000
    $ 2,742,000
    $5 surcharge on boat licenses; $2 surcharge on non-resident fishing licenses; $750,000 transfer from WRA
    General Fund
    $ 1,318,000
    $ 1,318,000
    Heritage Enhancement
    $ 1,000,000
    $ 1,000,000
    One-time funding for biennium
    Env. and Nat. Res. Trust Fund
    $ 2,177,000
    $ 3,513,000
    One-time funding for biennium
    Total
    $ 7,237,000
    $ 8,573,000

    3
    The increased funding in the fiscal year 2012-2013 biennium is accelerating actions to prevent and manage invasive species infestations. Planned program expenditures for fiscal year 2013 are detailed in table 2.

    Table 2. Planned program expenditures for aquatic invasive species in fiscal year 2013.

    Funding Needed to Maintain Current Program Levels
    The amount of annual revenue from the watercraft surcharge and non-resident fishing license surcharge needed to maintain AIS programs at current levels ($8.6 million/year) is provided in three scenarios below:

    1) $6,450,000/year if General Fund and the WRA transfer are maintained;
    2) $7,750,000/year if General Fund is eliminated and the WRA transfer is maintained; and
    3) $8,600,000/year is needed if General Fund and the WRA transfer are eliminated.
    The watercraft license surcharge is currently $5, or $1.66/year since boat licenses are good for three years. Table 3 describes three potential options for increasing the watercraft license surcharge to generate approximately the $8,600,000 (takes into account $400,000 non- resident fishing license surcharge revenues) needed under the third scenario listed above.

    This would result in watercraft owners paying about $10/year on average rather than $1.66/year.

    Table 3. Potential watercraft license surcharge* scenarios that would raise $8.6 M in revenues annually (current watercraft license surcharge fee is $5).
    Watercraft Type
    Scenario 1
    Scenario 2
    Scenario 3
    Canoes
    $ 10
    $ 15
    $ 20
    Boats 17 ft and under
    $ 33
    $ 32
    $ 30
    All other watercraft
    $ 43
    $ 42
    $ 41
    *Surcharge is part of the boat license fee and the boat license is good for three years. Calculations take into account $400,000 generated from non-resident fishing licenses.

    Options for Expanding Statewide Prevention Programs
    The DNR hired a consulting firm to analyze and report on costs and other requirements for several statewide mandatory inspection/prevention options. To date, there has been a great deal of discussion about different strategies Minnesota should adopt for a more comprehensive statewide prevention program, but no clear understanding of the costs and infrastructure

    Aquatic Invasive Species FY13FUNDWork activitiesISAGFHEENRTFTotals
    Enforcement918,000$ 600,000$ 200,000$ 1,718,000$
    Inspection Program400,000$ 1,800,000$ 2,200,000$
    Inspection equipment300,000$ 300,000$
    Public Awareness and Prevent Grants300,000$ 300,000$
    AIS Management (grants primarily)726,000$ 400,000$ 100,000$ 1,226,000$
    Statwide Coordination & Field Operations1,956,000$ 33,000$ 1,989,000$
    Asian Carp Coord,. Planning & Monitoring60,000$ 80,000$ 140,000$
    Lake Service Provider Training 50,000$ 50,000$ Implementation of BMPs for water accesess500,000$ 500,000$ Zebra mussel research150,000$ 150,000$
    TOTAL2,742,000$ 1,318,000$ 1,000,000$ 3,513,000$ 8,573,000$ Grand Total

    4
    requirements to implement these various strategies or how good a fit they are for Minnesota. This report has not been finalized, but preliminary information is available and has been used for the following summary of some the strategies that were evaluated. All of the cost estimates (Table 4) should be considered preliminary at this time. Once the report is finalized, the department anticipates having a more thorough discussion with the legislature and stakeholders about choosing the best statewide prevention strategy for Minnesota.

    Red Lake/Blue Lake
    This concept uses color coded tags that indicate if a watercraft is being used on zebra mussel infested waters (red tag) or waters that are not infested with zebra mussels (blue tag). Watercraft with red tags would be required to be inspected and receive a blue tag prior to launching on a water body that is not infested with zebra mussels. Watercraft with blue tags would be required to be inspected and receive a red tag prior to launching on a water body infested with zebra mussels. This strategy would utilize centralized inspection stations rather than inspection stations at public water accesses or along roads.
    Annual cost is estimated at $22 – $28 million.

    This strategy has some distinct advantages over the other options including:
    1) It is more efficient that requiring inspections prior to every trip before launching on all waters or after every trip when leaving zebra mussel infested waters, because no inspection is required if a person boats on only “red” or “blue” lakes;
    2) It affects all watercraft users and covers people using private and public access and out-of-state boaters equally well;
    3) Citizens would choose the time and location for inspections and are not subject to waiting in line at accesses or being pulled over on the highway; and
    4) Tags would be highly visible making it easy for the public to help with enforcement.

    The major drawback of this strategy is that it only works well for one species, which in this case would be zebra mussels. The system would quickly become too complex and cumbersome if there was a different color tag for each combination of AIS. On the other hand, if red tags were allowed on all infested waters it would allow boaters to travel freely between waters with zebra mussels to waters that have only EurAsian watermilfoil or spiny water fleas.
    Required Inspections Before Launching (all waters)
    This strategy requires a mandatory inspection prior to launching a watercraft on any water body (uninfested and infested waters). It would be prohibitively expensive and impractical to employ this strategy at each of the state’s public and private accesses (about 3,800 total accesses). Utilizing centralized inspection stations would make this strategy more feasible, but costs are still relatively high, estimated at $44 to $59 million/year (Table 4).

    Some people have proposed using radio frequency identification technology and automatic gates at public water accesses to facilitate this approach, i.e., a code would be obtained after passing an inspection that would allow entry through the gate. This would increase start-up costs in year one (Table 4) and it is unclear how this could be applied to private accesses, especially where someone accesses through a private lake lot. Some other means of verifying that an inspection has been passed may be more workable (e.g., a visible tag that could be placed on the watercraft). This strategy does have a major advantage over the red lake/blue lake option in that it would address all AIS.

    Required Inspections When Leaving Zebra Mussel Infested Waters

    This concept requires mandatory inspections for all watercraft leaving infested waters and would require inspectors to be stationed at all public and private accesses on zebra mussel infested waters.

    Estimated annual cost is $65 to $71 million/year. Focusing on zebra mussel infested

    5
    waters significantly reduces the cost compared to requiring inspections at all public and private water accesses before launching; however, this option is more expensive than using centralized stations to require inspections before launching on all waters because it requires stationing someone at every public (210) and private water access on zebra mussel infested waters. As with the red lake/blue lake strategy, this option only addresses zebra mussels and not other AIS. A less expensive variation on this strategy would be to have “containment zones” around high-use zebra mussel waters (estimated at $10 million/year; Table 4). This option focuses on high-use areas and would utilize centralized inspection stations. One of the biggest challenges with this option is making sure that inspection stations are located to intercept most or all water users without causing traffic congestion and undue waiting periods during peak use periods.

    Self Inspection/Certification
    This concept would have individuals inspect their own watercraft after completing AIS training and testing requirements. This could be a mandatory requirement as a condition of operating a watercraft or pulling a trailer with a watercraft. It could also be incorporated as an option to allow people to bypass inspection requirements in one of the other prevention strategies. In general, this is a lower cost alternative (Table 4), but relying on individuals to do their own inspection would likely increase the chance of spreading AIS compared to other options.

    Enforcement
    The costs of the various options may not adequately reflect increased enforcement needs to ensure that the strategies are as effective as possible. Recommended enforcement increases will be identified as the department refines the cost estimates and continues evaluating these options.

    Privatization Opportunities
    The centralized inspection stations required for any of these options could be privatized. There are a number of considerations that will need to be addressed in any privatizing strategy. First, inspection station infrastructure would need to be available across the entire state or other defined geographical area depending on the strategy used. These stations would need to be open to the public during weekend and evening hours during the prime boating season. There would be a great deal of seasonal and geographical variability in the number of people using these inspection stations. Further, it could be problematic to use existing businesses for inspection stations, because they would not necessarily be set up or staffed to handle the number of boaters that could come through at peak times. Given these considerations, the state may need to consider making an initial investment in setting up inspection stations and contracting with a private vendor to run them, as opposed to using or retrofitting existing private businesses.

    If the private sector performed inspections, DNR would maintain authority and oversight for enforcement, training, licensing, developing inspection and decontamination procedures, and other administrative roles. It is unclear how privatizing might affect the overall costs of the various options. State program costs for administration and oversight of private sector inspectors are estimated to range from $3,000,000 to $7,000,000 per year, but boaters would be required to pay a market-based fee to the private vendor(s) doing the inspections.

    6
    Table 4. Preliminary costs associated with implementing various aquatic invasive species prevention options and the amount of additional watercraft surcharge needed per watercraft to fund each concept.
    Concept Description Cost Per Year Add’l surcharge* needed (avg. per boat)

    Red Lake/Blue Lake
    Required inspection before launch when moving from a zebra mussel infested lake (Red) to lakes not infested with zebra mussels (Blue) and vice versa. A tagging system would be used to mark boats red or blue.
    $22, 000,000- $28,000,000
    $90

    Required inspection before launch
    Required inspection before launch, inspectors at all public and private accesses during open water season and daylight hours.
    $550,000,000- $600,000,000
    $2300
    Required inspection before launch @ Centralized Stations
    Required inspection before launch. Inspections and decontamination conducted at centralized locations in each MN county.
    $44,000,000 -$59,000,000
    $200
    Required inspection before launch @ Centralized Stations; with high tech monitoring at accesses
    Same as above, and provide an active monitoring system at each public and private access. Using radio frequency identification (RFID) and remote controlled and/or automatic gates to gain or deny access for each boating launch.
    $145,000,000 (year 1)
    54,000,000 (year 2)
    $500
    Required inspections when leaving Zebra Mussel Infested Waters
    Require inspections when leaving zebra mussel infested waters at public and private accesses. Inspectors stationed at all accesses on zebra mussel infested waters.
    $65,000,000-$71,000,000
    $270
    Containment Zones
    Require inspections of all boats leaving “containment zones” at centralized inspection stations located with the zone (areas designated around high use zebra mussel infested waters) regions).
    $10,000,000
    $40
    Self Inspection/ Certification
    MN DNR trains citizen inspectors to self -inspect boats and ensure decontamination.
    $8,000,000-$11,000,000
    $40
    *Surcharge is part of the boat license fee and the boat license is good for three years.
    Summary
    The department feels that, at a minimum, the watercraft license and non-resident fishing license surcharges need to be increased enough to maintain current AIS program levels. This would require raising fees to increase annual revenues from $1.6 million/year to $8.6 million/year, if the current General Fund appropriation and WRA transfer are eliminated. Once the report on statewide prevention options is finalized, the department anticipates having a more thorough discussion with the legislature and stakeholders about choosing the best statewide prevention strategy for Minnesota. It is likely that these discussions will lead to requests for additional AIS program funding.

    The total cost to produce this report: Preparation: $2,013; Printing $50

    Buzz
    Minneapolis MN
    Posts: 1814
    #1047721

    Whoa, there isn’t even a plan anywhere near touching down yet. This two mile stuff just serves to create discord. The next meeting of the Asian Carp forum is set for April 19th. If I had a crystal ball I’d predict that we might see the St Anthony lock closed or at least some sort of deterrent barrier installed in the lock. Here is our lastest press release

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    MARCH 8, 2012
    Asian Carp Have Arrived: Broad Support Emerges for Legislation to Stop Invasive Fish
    St. Paul, Minnesota – A broad coalition of supporters – including sportsmen, environmentalists, and property owners – applaud the introduction of legislation aimed at stopping the advance of Asian carp into Minnesota’s waters. Now that Asian carp have been found in the Mississippi River, it is critical that action is taken as quickly as possible: the long-term health of Minnesota’s lakes, rivers and streams depend on it. A change in lock operations must occur to prevent Asian carp from becoming further established in our waters.
    The Upper Mississippi Conservation and River Protection Act (Upper Mississippi CARP Act) was introduced by a bi-partisan effort, led by U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken and Representatives Keith Ellison, Erik Paulsen, and Tim Walz. The legislation is also supported by Governor Dayton and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The bill would require the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock be closed in the event that Asian carp are found close to the lock.
    The bill would also require the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a feasibility study on closing the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock, and to examine the possibility of using other control methods, such as modifying lock operations and installing alternative barriers, to stop the spread of Asian carp.
    “The recent capture of live Asian carp just south of the Twin Cities is a game-changer,” said Marc Smith, senior policy manager with the National Wildlife Federation. “If carp are allowed to move further upstream, Minnesota’s wildlife and way of life are at risk.”
    Asian carp are an invasive species that can grow to more than four feet long and weigh up to 100 pounds, while quickly dominating a body of water by consuming the same food that sustains native fish populations.
    “Minnesota’s hunters and anglers applaud this new legislation to protect our wildlife heritage from Asian carp,” said Gary Botzek, executive director of the Minnesota Conservation Federation. “Asian carp provide a clear and present danger to Minnesota’s vast natural resources. The time for action is now.”
    Although positive eDNA tests of Asian carp were detected in the Mississippi, Minnesota and St. Croix rivers near the Twin Cities in 2011, it took until March 2nd of this year for a silver or bighead carp to be physically caught in the Mississippi River (near Winona).
    Christine R. Goepfert, program manager with the Minnesota office of the National Parks Conservation Association, applauds this effort: “The Mississippi River is a valuable part of our national park system and serves as a gateway to the thousands of other lakes and rivers in Minnesota. This bi-partisan effort is an important first step toward protecting all of Minnesota’s rivers and nearby parks from the spread of Asian Carp.”
    This opportunity must not be passed up: the health of our waters and our economy depend on action now. Pass the CARP Act!
    ###
    Contact:
    Gary Botzek, Minnesota Conservation Federation, 651-283-4511, [email protected]
    Marc Smith, National Wildlife Federation, 734-255-5413, [email protected]
    Henry VanOffelen, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, 218-849-5270, [email protected]
    Additional Information:
    Coalition Members: Anglers for Habitat, Audubon Minnesota – National Audubon Society, Clean Water Action, Fish and Wildlife Legislative Alliance, Friends of the Mississippi River, Izaak Walton League of Minnesota, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Minnesota Coalition of Lake Associations, Minnesota Conservation Federation, Minnesota Seasonal Recreation Property Owners, Mississippi River Fund, Minnesota Coalition of Lake Associations, Minnesota Waters, National Parks and Conservation Association, National Wildlife Federation, National Parks Conservation Association, St. Croix River Association, Minnesota Trout Unlimited, New Ulm Area Sport Fisherman
    Additional Quotes for Media:
     “This is not just a once in a lifetime opportunity, it may be the one time in our history that that we have the chance to prevent the spread of Asian carp to waters upstream of Minneapolis. We must not pass this up. The health of our waters and our economy depend on action now.” – Henry VanOffelen, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy
     “If we as a state fail in our fight against Asian Carp to halt the further spread, the financial and recreational consequences will be profound.” – Barb Halbakken Fischburg, Minnesota Coalition of Lake Associations
     “This legislation provides some critical protections for Minnesota’s waters, however, it is only part of an all-out effort needed from state and local government and the private sector. We have to take swift action in order to prevent a body blow to our fishing and outdoor recreation industries – some of the largest industries in the state.” – Darrell Gerber, Clean Water Action
     “The National Audubon Society is pleased that this important step has been taken to protect the river ecosystem important to the Mississippi River Flyway. Millions of ducks, tundra swans, egrets, herons and other water birds depend on a healthy aquatic ecosystem as the migrate along the river.” – Don Arnosti, Audubon Minnesota
     “The legislation is critical and we need every member of the MN Delegation on board. We can’t let the perfect get in the way of good. The water assets of the state are at risk and this federal legislation will help ensure their future.” – Dave Zentner, Izaak Walton League of America

    mplspug
    Palmetto, Florida
    Posts: 25026
    #1047722

    Quote:


    My blurb… close off 8 miles to save hundreds of miles and backwaters/lakes from becoming infected….. no brainer



    You know how many backwater areas there are above Saint Anthony? How many lakes are connected? How big a flowing body of water has to be to support silver carp?

    Never waste a good crisis. I should also add, never ask a good question.

    I emailed all the legislators who co authored the bill for this. Guess how many responded. Not even a form letter. Why do you suppose that is?

    Who wants to help organize the April Fools gathering/protest? I’ll even email the legislators and invite them.

    Brian Klawitter
    Keymaster
    Minnesota/Wisconsin Mississippi River
    Posts: 59992
    #1047730

    Quote:


    “The National Audubon Society is pleased that this important step has been taken to protect the river ecosystem important to the Mississippi River Flyway. Millions of ducks, tundra swans, egrets, herons and other water birds depend on a healthy aquatic ecosystem as the migrate along the river.” – Don Arnosti, Audubon Minnesota


    This is the same Audubon Society that was pushing for the L&D #3 Fish Passageway.

    Brian Klawitter
    Keymaster
    Minnesota/Wisconsin Mississippi River
    Posts: 59992
    #1047734

    Reconstructing Lock and Dam 3 to be Fish Friendly

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is working on a major reconstruction of Lock and Dam #3 (6 miles upriver from Red Wing) costing $51 million. Congress has appropriated money for a fish passageway ($15 million), but the Corps is only studying the fish ladder, while proceeding ahead with navigation and embankment construction. Fish passage is needed to connect tens of thousands of acres and more than 200 miles of suitable habitat above and below the dam for the use of more than two dozen species of endangered, threatened and special concern fish and mussels (which depend on the fish for dispersal).

    Among the species to be benefited by passage are Paddlefish and Lake Sturgeon, Higgin’s Eye and Winged Mapleleaf Mussels, as well as robust populations of Walleye and Sauger. Audubon is working with the Departments of Natural Resources in Wisconsin and Minnesota, with our Coulee Region Audubon chapter and with leaders in Congress to make sure construction of a fish passageway does occur with the money that has already been appropriated for this project. We see this as a test for the Corps to determine if they are serious about moving environmental project forward when navigational improvements are made, as they have often stated. The fish passage has been in discussions for 15 years and now is the best chance to finally get it constructed.

    Link<<

    DISCORD!!

    Too late to worry about that Vern.

    The only good thing that’s coming out of the Asian Carp talks is it stopped the passageway talks (I think). I can’t get a response from any of the government agencies about the passageway.

    In fact, I was contacted by the Corp to help find sportsman’s groups that are for blocking the Vermilion River to ensure fish do not go around the lock and dam via that route.

    I’ve ripped on the WI DNR for supporting and pushing for the passageway, but I have to give them a high five for sitting out of these talks when it comes to spending money for the feel good barriers and the like.

    Those organizations listed need to find another cause. Maybe straightening out the border water rules and regulations would be a good place to start.

    /off the soap box for a breath.

    dfresh
    Fridley, MN
    Posts: 3053
    #1047740

    I caught a blurb on MPR yesterday about this, so I went to their website, and I guess they had a discussion with the Superintendent of the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area :

    http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/03/08/daily-circuit-asian-carp-mississippi/

    I have not had a chance to listen to it yest, but I know he mentioned favoring a physical barrier as far south as Pool 19.. If anyone has the time to listen to it, I’d be interested to hear the highlights.

    mahmoodmahi
    Posts: 30
    #1047746

    Pug, I think in addition to a protest, it may be good to talk about starting an informal group that advocates for Urban Mississippi fisherman. The best thing right now though is to keep educating each other on the proposed barrier, what it will mean for the area, and the research to date on asian carp.

    clicker
    Posts: 130
    #1047834

    I think these should become standard on all boats that use the river. Be a fun method of removing carp!

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.