Channel 11 News tonight. Mississippi dead fish.

Is the loss of several thousand fish even statistically significant on the Miss?

Semi joke: arent most of them Asian Carp anyway?

Quote:

---

Did I read above that the discharge is still “off”? If so, when its flipped back on, will this same effect happen in reverse with the rapidly warming water?

Hopefully they consider this if there’s an option to slowly re-implement the discharge.

---

No it should be a slow warm up, it “should not” be an issue I don’t really think there is anything they can do to keep the temp up if they have to take a unit offline, rapidly. I do not know any detail of the shutdown, nor could I share them If I did, trust me they didn’t want to shut the plant down.

I’m glad they stepped up to say they would pay some for the fish, overall I think wither they are really responsible or not, it is the right thing to do.

I think the river is a better fishery because of the locks, pools, closing dams, and wing dams, but….it would still be a heck of a fishery without it….We then wouldn’t have the large cruisers bothering us and only those of us with real river navigating skills would enjoy the river. You ever fished the upper Missouri river? There is a huge dam here and there but no wingers or closers. Very treacherous to navigate, but theres some awesome fishing too. Alot less pressure. A little off track I know, just got me thinking…

What are the potential implications of a similar event at Prairie Island on the P3 & P4 fisheries?

Could we possibly experience an significant fish kill on the upper Pool 4 walleye/sauger and other species?

I’m a little ignorant on the location of the Prairie Island warm water discharge relative to Lock and Dam #3.

Any thoughts folks?

Quote:

---

If it wasn’t for the Corp, putting in the wingdams and the dams……..We wouldn’t have anything for a fishery……It would just be a river……..

Imagine Redwing Dam being removed…….and all the wingdams removed from P3?

Those dams were not put there for us fisherman.

By “fate” we’re lucky that they are there and the fish like them!!!!!!

---

I disagree with you Gary.

No one knows what the Miss was like as a fishery before it was choked up with dams. Don’t get me wrong, i think the locks and dams should stay in place for economic reasons.

Barge traffic and flood control are very important. However, from a biological perspective damming a river, especially the Army Corp of Eng’s system, is bad for the fish in the system.

The Miss was anything but “just a river”. Some places it ran many miles wide. Must have been something to see…

I’m with you, Nick. In this day and age of big business bashing, we need to cut them a break. They contribute so much more good than bad. Besides, it wasn’t like they dumped some pollution into the water. If they decide to replace what was killed off, good for them. If not, this is indeed just a blip on the radar.

Martin,

The plant at Red Wing only raises the temp 2 degrees so changes isn’t enough to cause the thermal shock that happened at Monti. I’ve always questioned why the EPA and DNR set such a tight limit but after today I understand. It hurts but I have em credit for the wisdom.

hmmm you think man made structure makes a river a better fishery? I think it makes it a worse fishery, all in ones opinion I suppose. I dont understand how anyone would not blame excel energy for this , just my personal opinion, and ohhh by the way comparing my measly 50-60 pounds of garbage a month and my fuel use to what “big” business does is out of line. I think Im now a little dumber after reading that post

On to the fish kill its been reported as a couple thousand yoy smallies a couple hundred adults and numerous “rough” fish (like walleyes ) have been reported dead….. this is only the floaters, and doesn’t take into account the “sinkers” and delayed mortality… IMHO its a BIG deal for this area…. and ya’ll better just stay down there for a couple years and not try to fish this area cuase there all dead

I’m a boiler operator, and I work for Xcel, I run this stuff everyday, though I do not work at the plant in question, been doing so for 8 years now. I know these things can happen in a split second, and there is nothing you can do about them, but hang on for the ride. There are lots of regulations on how warm the water can be comming out of the discharge, and they drop load to keep within range, it is something all plants moniter. Xcel has always been very proactive in environmental issues, but I don’t think every issue is for seeable, and this was a tradgec, but bottom line is they were within the set regulations. I can’t say it won’t happen again for 100% certainity, but I’m sure they will look into what they can do to help prevent it from happening again.

I am an avid bass tournament fisherman. I have taken all the abuse from the tournament bashers when the everstart/stren tournaments had problems(which are debatable still).
I love the river in the only state which I have ever known it(navigable)but I also appriciate the way a river runs true. Both hold many fish alike. In fact one not more than another. Its just harder to find fish on a natural river. But they are there.
This is getting a bit out of hand. The power company or whoever is responsible made a mistake. It happens. Bass tournaments ocasionally make mistakes.(or the DNR) It happens. All that make mistakes really do try to correct them and learn from them.
I am a realist(if thats a real word). I could sling lots of mud here but I take the high road. It was a mistake.
Just like the Everstarts/Strens, however many fish were killed is a tragedy…..It will be ok and we’ll catch fish on that stretch again. The Mississippi is a great fishery and will recover quickly.

I see everybody here is concerned about a fishkill and i am too. The mississippi river was damned up in the early 30’s for the main reason of flood control that was wreaking havoc downstream for many miles all the way to the last dam down at St. Louis Missouri. Now that the flood waters are controlled population has been able to move close to the waters edge without too much of a yearly worry about major flooding that was devistating befor the dams were built. The river in St. Louis is 2 1/2 to 3 times as wide as in northen waters from years of flooding and erosion and the vast backwater pools that are there now to hold that water. All the other reasons were secondary but just about as important like barge traffic and enjoying a calmer pool verses a main channel when it comes to navigation with the barges and pleasure craft. When it comes to the populations of fish, i see the wingdams as a huge plus with the 10’s of thousands of rocks that creat each wingdam. Almost every wingdam has this many in them. Most of the rocks are a safe haven for fingerlings of all species and alot of those fingerlings wouldn’t have made it if it weren’t for those rocks plus the kazillions of crawfish and aquatic life thats in and on them, insects etc and they creat millions of pounds of food for the fish every year. If it wasen’t for the dams and wingdams to hold the channel in the same place year after year through the many floods, the river would be constantly changing and locating fish would be more of a chore every year. I see the daming of the mississippi and the structures thats been created, wingdams, deep channels, slower water flow, vast stable backwaters the same as i see a lake or productive reservoir. Like these types of water they are now stable and produce billions of fish that an undamed river would not be able to produce. When they build a new lake they make fish holding areas for the fry to seek shelter in, just like the wingdams to bring up populations of all species. I for one know that the amount of fish the structures on the mississippi have created and held over the years, probably in the quad trillions, just an estimate, far outweighs any fish loss caused by this power plant. I think in the overall length of years that the dams and wingdams have been around and the fish that has been produced by these, that on a fish scale the amount of fish lost this one time is just a very small blip on the fish radar considering the amount of fish that these waters have created and polonged the life of. Also i think these warmer areas create an invironment of less winter kills because the water around these discharges are warmer year after year creating a haven for some that the winter water temps would have killed, shad for example, a huge food source and one of the mainstays for most of the gamefish in these pools. I see this water temp flucuation as a very minor thing that killed (afew) fish compared to how it would have been if these warm water discharges weren’t created in the first place. All these fish fall into the growth that the pools have created that probably half wouldn’t be there if it wasen’t for these manmade structures. I for one feel that these structures have created Billions of fish that wouldn’t have been there if the dams or powerplants weren’t in place so this loss really isn’t hurting the river much anyway in a bigger picture. Id be willing to say that the amount of fish that has been saved because of the warmer water over the years because of winter kill water temps. far out weighs any loss that this temperature flucuation has taken this one time. I think the fishery has been stableized because of these manmade structures, the elements of nature are pretty harsh sometimes and these structures have created and saved alot of fish over the years.

Was it even on the news?

I know that one of the first things a person, me included, is going to think about is the company that made these water temperatures rise paying restitution. I thought about this and i had to compare the total amount of fish and the food supplies that these warm water discharges have created throught the years and i agree its very tempting to want them to pay for any damage done. I thought this way,,, If it wasen’t for the warm water discharges that are saving fish for the next year that through those years alot of fish would have died. Point in mind, say at each powerplant there a dozen big female smallmouth along with old huge female walleyes seeking the warm stable water there. If a person looks at it as what would happen if those warm waters discharges weren’t there for these older fish. I see them possibly dieing and not being able to lay thier eggs the next early spring in the surrounding areas to keep populations at a maximum, so has the power plant really hurt anything. In other words those fish would have died that needed these warmer waters to make it through just one more year. These warm water discharges that were created by water that is used for cooling these reactors or used in steam turbines has been a good decesion for those people who use electricity, everyone of us plus its put on hold the deaths of alot of older mature walleyes, smallmouths and probably every other species that wouldn’t have made it through just one more year, maybe two. These decesions to put these plants online when they were built was a good idea and they have served the populations of both humans and fish very well. I see this one little loss of fish as an unwanted unlucky thing that happened but what about all the good these discharges have done over the years. What im asking is it even a finable offense to fine the electric company when all the good the warm water discharge has done over the years. If it wasen’t for these discharges holding mature walleyes etc. over winter they wouldn’t have made it to spawn again. Is it really an offense when something doesn’t work right that is beyond human control at a power plant and has a thought in safety device so the plant can run properly and not maybe explode or kill a few workers by a high pressure steam rupture that work there. What im saying is does this safety system that is in control for our safety really deserve a fine when they are the ones who have created and held over alot of fish that wouldn’t have made it. To me if anything a flucuation on a safety system kicked in but we have gained thousands of fish through the years from these sysytems, is this really an offense because of all the positive things that these warm water discharges have done through the years. To me its comparing a high tech safety system, when its needed, to its purpose to see wheather or not there should be a fine involved. Should this high tech safety system that protects people and was engineered to do just this be held responsible for this fish kill, i don’t think its even an offense when it comes to the overall amount of fish that this same system has protected year after year to keep our fish populations up. An unavoidable unlucky situation yes, but an offense,,,no. This isn’t meant as anything against anyone who think restitution should be payed, its just a diffrent point of view because things aren’t perfect sometimes no matter how hard we try to solve them. These warm water discharges have saved and created more wildlife over the years than one simple safety systems setup, for our protection, has taken away. I for one am glad we have these productive systems and the fish they help save over winter and the new life those fish create in the spring. Is a well thought out safety system responsibe for a fishkill,,, yes, is it a fineable offese and should they be made to pay restitution for the fish loss,,,no considering all the good its done holding fish over to spawn again next spring and create thousands of offspring.

I saw the promo for this story on channel 11 at about 4-5 pm, set the tivo for the news, came back this am to watch it and NO story?!?!?!?!?
Anybody hear anything else on this, like what species were found?

Just think though, the ones that survived are probably super resistant to temperature change. It’s a harsh case of natural selection. Rivers are such robust ecosystems that I doubt this will have much of an impact, however I’d like to see some pictures. That could change my opinion in a heartbeat.

Quote:

---

natural selection

---

I hear what you’re saying Pug, but that’s like saying murder is natural selection. Man made impeads the word “natural” in this case.

Mossy, I didn’t have time to read through all of your post, but acording to the Corp of Engineers website, the lock and dams were installed to aid commerce (barge traffic) in the 30’s as roller dams don’t have much effect on flooding.

As far as the river once being wide, it was quite the opposite. Once the dams were installed by the C of E, the backwaters as we know them were created. North Lake on Pool 3 was a forest. Stoddard and the Nelson Bottoms, as well as Weaver were dry land. In researching this, I found that the river was more along the lines of what you would see in the Little Falls area.

Exactly Chris!
That explains all the “flooded timber” areas. Atleast in the P3 and P4 areas.

Quote:

---

What I would like to know is how does Xcel Energy plan help restore the resources that were lost in the blink of an eye ….

---

Kind of tough to restore a catfish that may have taken decades to grow…then, too, dropping temps are easier on fish than rising temps…suspect more survived than initially thought…now, fish like shad would have a real issue. Cats? Not so much I’m betting…and smallies are a northern fish…although ‘a few’ are now floating southward on the current…

Quote:

---

As far as the river once being wide, it was quite the opposite. Once the dams were installed by the C of E, the backwaters as we know them were created. North Lake on Pool 3 was a forest. Stoddard and the Nelson Bottoms, as well as Weaver were dry land. In researching this, I found that the river was more along the lines of what you would see in the Little Falls area.

---

I’m curious (and not trying to start an arguement), what research are you basing this off of? I believe the Stoddard Islands were built to recreate the original islands that were lost when the L&D system went in.

Also, Lake Pepin was there b/f the L&D’s, it’s a natural riverine lake.

Quote:

---

I hear what you’re saying Pug, but that’s like saying murder is natural selection. Man made impeads the word “natural” in this case.

---

Well my post was kind of tongue in cheek. I would still like to see some pictures or verification of the fish and sizes. Smaller fish and minnows would be the most susceptible to death from rapid temp changes. They would probably also reside in the warmest parts of the warm water pocket near the source when it existed.

Wait, I just wanted to defend my previous post too. “Natural Selection” is a term that cannot be broken down into parts.

Quote:

---

The process in nature by which, according to Darwin’s theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

---

Although the source of the warm water may not be common and I guess you could call it man made, still the process of water warming and cooling is a natural phenomenon.

Put it this way, what do you consider Natural Selection, fish dieing from a dramatic drop in temperature or Man culling and keeping only the biggest of the fish for his stringer.

I just had to throw in my selective harvest rant.

The warming and cooling of water that the fish know are nothing like what just happened. For many fisherman it is obvious that even if water temps warm up near spawning temp the fish normally do not spawn because the photo-period is part of the equation. A fish knows if the daylight is short and the water is warm…it’s not time. Same as deer.

As far as the culling goes, please PM me because you are totally mis-educated on the process. Culling (mainly to increase weight in a tournament and is legal in most states) has nothing to do with harvesting…all the fish are returned to the water. We want the fish to LIVE! Anyway, I have much more to say… please PM me.

As far as your “natural selection” definition…it made perfect sense when you said, “According to darwin” So why are humans going the opposite way of your “darwin theory”?

Quote:

---

The Nuclear plant at Monticello shut down indefinitely

---

I wonder if that falls under pugs “strongest survives” darwin theory?

I don’t know why this post even is going this far??? I thought we might all agree that many fish died, corrective actions are being taken, and now we should move on…

Quote:

---

As far as the culling goes, please PM me because you are totally mis-educated on the process. Culling (mainly to increase weight in a tournament and is legal in most states) has nothing to do with harvesting…all the fish are returned to the water. We want the fish to LIVE! Anyway, I have much more to say… please PM me.

As far as your “natural selection” definition…it made perfect sense when you said, “According to darwin” So why are humans going the opposite way of your “darwin theory”?

---

There is more than one definition of culling. I am not talking about tournament culling. I am talking about recreational anglers keeping only the largest fish of their total catch then bringing them home, removing them from the gene pool. I know how tournaments go to great lengths to keep the fish alive.

That definition of natural selection I just grabbed off the net. You don’t believe in natural selection? Man is the only animal who hunts the biggest, strongest and healthiest prey. Then we wonder why fish are getting stunted or there aren’t as many big fish.

As for humans going in the opposite direction, I always say, people aren’t as smart as they think (including myself).

As for this thread, we really are on the same page. I am not happy that thousands of fish died. Part of what I said was joking and part of it was trying to give people hope that maybe it was mostly young and small fish. I know that isn’t the greatest consolation.

for thoughs of you that realy care to know what happend hear it is.

A trubine control value failed open which caused a loss of steam pressuere in the piping, that sent a signal to the control room and the unit shut down in about 1/10000 of a second (thats laymens terms)

Xcel is paying what the state says all those fish are worth and thats $500 each fish

In addition to Alvinmack’s post and link to the Star or pioneer press, the Rochester Post bulletin had almost the same article except some additional info regarding the fish. They had the total number of fish at around 300 also.

“About 2400 of the fish were smallmouth bass, while many of the rest wererough fish, said Paul Diedrich, area fisheries supervisor with the MNDNR. Most were 6 inches or smaller, and the loss probably won’t be noticeable to anglers, he said”
I am not saying anything is right or wrong, just passing on what I think is a little more info.

I was told that the main reason for the dams was for flood control, the barge traffic and everything else was also a plus that came from the dams, thats the belief from the people i’ve talked to in the past, the corp. might know. Maybe in the northern stretch of the river it was for barge traffic, the lower stretches might have been for flood control.