Yet another setback APM fee increase | Minnesota Fishing Forum - Controversies

Fishing Reports Banner

Posts 1 through 2 for Yet another setback APM fee increase

     

New? - Register Here!

No Obligations - Click Here for more information. Login

Main Forum Page     |     Fishing Blogs     |     Find a Fishing Partner     |     My Fishing Pals Home     |     To The Top - Minnesota Fishing Forum - Controversies
You Are Currently Viewing - Minnesota Fishing Forum - Controversies  
Yet another setback APM fee increase - - - 2 messages. Showing 1 through 2.
Bassville_Usa
Junior Member
Joined 03/06/2008
Posts:52

Bassville_Usa's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 1 Posted: 04:34 PM 10/29/10 (CST)
As many of you are aware the permit process and fees to remove aquatic habitat by lakeshore owners has been a bone of contention with folks like me who want to see the habitat restored or at least 75% restored. Not removed, clear cut, treated with herbicides, dug up or cut down. As more and more new development occurs, much of it is on lakeshore that was bypassed in the past. Bypassed because it isn't the sandy windswept weed free lakeshore. But with permits some areas can be opened up. This is probably not to bad, but often it is a very large area and an attempt to create a golf course atmosphere rather then a outdoors setting. Enough Preaching!!

In the last few years the Legislature directed the DNR to make this program self-supporting. So after an exacting process a new fee structure was approved. These new fees drew the ire of many lakeshore owners and ended up going to an Administrative Law Judge. I'm additionally concerned about this program, because it is being underwritten by taking funds from the Water Rec account. This account comes from Boat License fees and shouldn't be used to help underwrite aquatic plant destruction.

So, the ALJ found for the DNR and the rule was forwarded to the Governor’s Office after DNR received the ALJ’s report in April. The rules need to be adopted within 180 days of receiving the ALJ’s report or they must be withdrawn. The DNR did not received the Governor’s Office approval to proceed to adopt the rule, the 180 day deadline expired on Oct. 19, 2010.
Bassville_Usa
Junior Member
Joined 03/06/2008
Posts:52

Bassville_Usa's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 2 Posted: 05:29 PM 10/29/10 (CST)


APM Fee explanation

The total annual revenue generated by the current permit program is approximately $322,000. The DNR spends about $1,013,000 per year on the APM Program. DNR staff process applications and issue APM permits, conduct field inspections, monitor activities authorized by the permit, enforce rules and permit requirements, and track and analyze permit activity. Based on the direction received from the 2008 Legislature the DNR needs to increase fees to recover the difference (approximately $692,000) between the current revenues and the cost of the APM permit program.

(I’m summarizing below and likely about 95% on target)

Current levels

1) individuals who do a small amount of submersed aquatic plant removal using mechanical methods do not need a permit and don’t pay a fee;

2) the permit fee for most APM permits is low ($35 per individual property owner or less);

3) multiple property owners on a single permit (>21) receive a reduced permit fee because of the $750 fee cap;

4) multi-year permits have a permit fee that is lower than consecutive one-year permits;

5) when a permit for more than one type of control is issued (e.g. rooted aquatic plants and filamentous algae) only the higher permit fee is charged; and

6) permits for some type of invasive aquatic plant control (e.g. purple loosestrife) are free.



Proposed levels

the draft rule proposes the following:

1. A flat $90 permit fee for near-shore removal of aquatic vegetation.

2. Elimination of the existing financial incentive associated with group permits.

3. Reducing the incentive for three-year automated plant control device permits – three-year permits will cost 2/3 the cost of three single-year permits.


4. Maintain incentive for channels through emergent vegetation – Individuals will pay $90 for the first year that the permit is issued, with the permit remaining valid as long as the individual owns the property (providing certain requirements are met)

5. Adds permit fees for some previously free permits – e.g., commercial mechanical control, commercial harvest of aquatic plants for resale.

6. Keeps free permits for specific activities – transplant (restore) aquatic vegetation in public waters and removal of a floating bog that has lodged against a property owners shoreline.

7. Issue free permits for lake-wide control of aquatic invasive species, such as Eurasian watermilfoil, curly-leaf pondweed, and flowering-rush.




Yet another setback APM fee increase - - - 2 messages. Showing 1 through 2.
You Are Currently Viewing - Minnesota Fishing Forum - Controversies  

New? - Register Here

No Obligations - Click Here for more information. Login

Main Forum Page     |     Top of This Forum     |     My Fishing Pals Home
Members Browsing
the Forums:
    Lure retriever     Muskie captain    
Users Online:2
Guests Online:270
Total Online: 272


Terms and Conditions