Cass County AIS Prevention and Management Plan

September 30, 2013

Cass County AIS Prevention and Management Plan September 30, 2013

I. Problem Statement:

Aquatic invasive species have the potential to disrupt the ecological and economic health of Cass County. Aquatic invasives can be spread by individuals often without any awareness. Cass County has many outstanding lakes, and is dependent on healthy environmental conditions. At the time of publication of this plan (October 2013), there are 14 infestations of aquatic invasive species in Cass County.

Cass County has a network of lake associations dedicated to protecting lakes. Cass County’s staff and commissioners have a long commitment to protecting the county’s ecological integrity. Therefore, the existing infrastructure of county staff and stakeholders around the lakes have come together to develop a comprehensive plan to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species through awareness, coordination of resources, and development of specific opportunities to prevent new infestations.

II. Mission and Vision Statements:

MISSION: The mission of the Cass County Aquatic Invasive Species Task Force, acknowledging the potential ecological, economic and social impact of aquatic invasive species, is to coordinate and implement a comprehensive county-wide prevention and management plan. The Task Force partners represent, but are not limited to, the Association of Cass County Lakes and its member lake associations and their collective memberships, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, local, state and federal units of government and agencies, the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe and the business community who benefits directly from the lakes, rivers and streams in Cass County.

The Task Force will utilize the collective resources of all partners to aggressively plan, pursue and implement strategies to prevent all forms of aquatic invasive species from entering the public waters of Cass County through the many potential lake access points by providing ongoing education, watercraft inspection and decontamination. This plan guides the county and its partners in a way that enhances the existing state program and provides a road map for defining local priorities and needs. The goal is to prevent infestations from occurring, and manage those waters that are infested.

VISION: The Cass County Aquatic Invasive Species Task Force, by its leadership and support through education, connections and issue advocacy, engaged and empowered citizen members and partners, agencies and units of local government will conduct activities aimed at prevention of all forms of aquatic invasive species from entering the public waters of Cass County.

III. Planning Committee and County AIS Task Force:

For the purpose of developing this plan, a planning committee representing stakeholders affected by or interested in aquatic invasive species was convened. The members were self- selected. Invited or participating members included: Cass County – John Ringle, Will Pehling, Jim Dowson, Kelly Condiff City of Walker – Scott Bruns Leech Lake Association – John Eaton, Jim Dawson Resorts – Cathy Duvall, Mark Novotny, Martin Andresen Chamber of Commerce – Cindy Wannarka ACCL – Jerry Lerom, Stan Kumpula, Jim Bedell (Pleasant Lake Association) Ten Mile Lake Association – Ivar Siqveland, Bob Iversen Fishing Guides – Al Maas, Larry Anderson Realtors – Jed Shaw USFS – Chippewa National Forest - Todd Tisler USACE – Timm Renneke LLBO – Bobby Henderson MN DNR – Doug Schultz, Joe Eisterhold, Molly MacGregor (coordinator)

IV. Process for developing the plan:

The process for developing a county AIS plan followed the State of Minnesota Invasive Species Advisory Council Management Plan. The steps in the planning process are:

1. Convene Planning Committee 2. Assess Risk 3. Identify Resources 4. Propose Actions 5. Assign Roles and Responsibilities 6. Draft Communications Plan 7. Develop Implementation Plan 8. Implement 9. Review and Evaluate Annually 10. Adjust

An organizing meeting was held April 5; the first management plan work meeting was May 8, with follow up meetings June 5 and July 3. The draft plan was presented to the public for review and comment August 7 in Walker, and August 8 in Backus. The committee reviewed the final working draft September 13, 2013.

V. Current rules

Minnesota’s laws on invasive species are codified as Chapter 84D of Minnesota Statutes. Section 84D.03 authorizes the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources to designate waters as infested if the Commissioner determines:

 the water contains a population of an aquatic invasive species that could spread to other waters if use of the water and related activities are not regulated to prevent this;  the water is highly likely to be infested by an aquatic invasive species because it is connected to a water that contains a population of an aquatic invasive species.

Considerations for determining which invasive species comprise infested waters are:  the extent of a species distribution within the state;  the likely means of spread for a species; and  whether regulations specific to infested waters containing a specific species will effectively reduce that species' spread.

Minnesota has several state laws intended to minimize the introduction and spread of invasive species of wild animal and aquatic plants in the state. Using a four-tiered system, invasive species are classified as prohibited, regulated, unregulated nonnative species, or are unclassified and remain as unlisted nonnative species.

This classification system establishes the level of regulation and allowable uses for each species. The MN DNR has regulatory authority over aquatic plants and animals, and terrestrial vertebrates. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture has regulatory authority over terrestrial plants (noxious weeds) and plant pests.

Prohibited invasive species

Certain invasive species that can threaten natural resources and their use have been designated as prohibited invasive species in Minnesota. It is unlawful (a misdemeanor) to possess, import, purchase, transport, or introduce these species except under a permit for disposal, control, research, or education.

Regulated invasive species

It is legal to possess, sell, buy, and transport regulated invasive species, but they may not be introduced into a free-living state, such as being released or planted in public waters.

Unlisted nonnative species

Unlisted nonnative species are those that are not prohibited, regulated, or unregulated. Several steps must occur before an unlisted nonnative species may be legally released into a free-living state:  the individual proposing to release the species must file an application and supporting information with the Minnesota DNR  The DNR must conduct a thorough evaluation  The species must be designated into an appropriate classification

Transportation prohibitions

Current state law prohibits transportation of all aquatic plants. Under state law, it is unlawful to:

 transport aquatic plants, except as allowed in statutes  transport zebra mussels and other prohibited species of animals  place or attempt to place into waters of the state a boat, seaplane, or trailer that has aquatic plants, zebra mussels, or other prohibited invasive species attached.

As of July 1, 2012, a boat lift, dock, swim raft, or associated equipment that has been removed from any water body may not be placed in another water body until a minimum of 21 days have passed.

Regulations on transport of water

As of July 1, 2012, the following regulations apply to the transportation of water in boats and other water-related equipment by boaters from all waters in the state:  A person leaving waters of the state must drain all water from water-related equipment, including bait containers, live wells, and bilges, by removing the drain plug before transporting the watercraft and equipment from the water access or riparian property;  Drain plugs, bailers, valves, or other devices used to control the draining of water from ballast tanks, bilges, and live wells must be removed or opened while transporting watercraft and water-related equipment;  Emergency response vehicles and equipment may be transported on a public road with the drain plug or other similar device replaced only after all water has been drained from the equipment upon leaving the water body.

VI. Accomplishments to date

Aquatic invasive species have been of concern for Cass County’s residents and visitors for some time. Many of the partners to development of this plan have already set in motion activities that encourage awareness of aquatic invasive species and how to prevent infestations.

For example, Cass County sent every property owner information about rules and best practices for preventing aquatic invasive species infestations in the 2013 property tax statements.

Ten Mile Association has an AIS Task Force which has produced a plan to develop an inspection and decontamination program. The lake association installed “Internet-Landing Device Sensor (I-LIDS) which provided information on the number of launches. The association also established a volunteer inspection program, and compared results with similar information gathered by inspectors at other lakes in the region.

VII. Assessing the risk of aquatic invasive species in Cass County.

Understanding the potential scope of aquatic invasive species in Cass County is important in defining the plan to manage aquatic invasive species. First step is identifying the current status of infestations in the county. Here’s a summary of designated infested waters, and waters of concern as determined by the committee:

Species Infested Lake or River Lake or River Of Concern Zebra Mussel Gull, Winnibigoshish Cass, Leech, Mississippi River and Boy River chain Eurasian water milfoil Leech, Town Line, Washburn Faucet Snails Winnibigoshish, Leech Lake Cass, Leech, Mississippi River River, downstream of Mud and Boy River chain Lake

Other species are of concern. These species are listed at the website of the Minnesota Invasive Species Advisory Council at http://www.mda.state.mn.us/en/plants/pestmanagement/misac/profiles.aspx

The committee focused on the species listed above because these are most likely to cause widespread economic and ecological damage, and because actions taken to prevent the movement of these species will also prevent other species of concern such as rusty crayfish, which is classified by the state as regulated, or curly leaf pondweed, which is classified by the state as prohibited.

The planning group evaluated the potential considered risk from several perspectives: lakes at risk for movement of AIS into the lake; lakes at risk for infestation; high use lakes, and the consequence of AIS to the county, the economic impact to lake property values and tourism.

Risk of AIS infestation or movement to Cass County lakes is influenced by a number of factors. These include the number and type of lakes, existing infestations, public accesses, and use of the lakes. Fishing, boating, and shoreland use all are potential sources of aquatic invasive species infestations.

Fishing tournaments were reviewed as a potential source of infestations. Fishing tournaments are popular in Cass County. In 2013, the DNR-issued permits for 12 tournaments. The tournaments are an outreach and education opportunity for the plan’s implementation team.

In the tournament permit, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources requires tournaments to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species. These rules are authorized under Minnesota Statute 84.05. Rules governing permits for fishing contests are set forth Minnesota Chapter of Administrative Rules 6212.2525, and attached as an appendix to this plan.

Minnesota statutes also authorized the sheriff of the county in which the fishing contest to be held to issue a permit for the fishing tournament. The committee will work with the Cass County Water Patrol to review the county process for issuing permits for fishing tournaments, and to make recommendations as deemed necessary. The committee will complete this task by November 30, 2013, in time for the 2014 tournament season.

Cass County has 514 lakes more than 10 acres in size. The lake water quality generally meets state standards. There are 14 designated infestations of aquatic invasive species (Eurasian water milfoil, spiny water flea and zebra mussels) in Cass County as of April 29, 2013, the date of the most designated waters list issued by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

Three lakes – Leech, Town Line and Washburn – are infested with Eurasian water milfoil. Faucet Snail is infested in Lake Winnibigoshish, the Mississippi River and the Leech Lake River in Cass County. Zebra mussels have infested eight Cass County lakes: Bass, Green’s, Gull, Gull River, Margaret, Spider, Upper Gull and Lake Winnibigoshish.

There are 129 public accesses in Cass County. Of these, 72 are trailer access where boat owners can back a trailer into the water. Of the total accesses, 59 are owned or operated by the DNR; three are owned or operated by Mn DOT; eight are owned or operated by the county; three are owned or operated by a township, and five are owned or operated by a city. The number of public access owners or operators complicates AIS management, in that each access owner or operator has its own approach to management and the county program must be flexible enough to accommodate differences. Each access owner or operator is constrained by the resources available for operation. A township has less capacity for management than does the county, for example. There are also accesses that are privately owned by businesses, such as resorts or marinas. Finally, there are accesses at the end of roads which are used traditionally, but are not owned or maintained by any one entity.

There is a map of water accesses and the table of trailer launches accesses at the end of this plan.

DNR-trained inspectors collect data about use of accesses. This data is compiled by the DNR’s statewide AIS program and used to develop the DNR’s tiered approach to assigning inspections. The members of the task force recognized that not all lakes in Cass County fall within the DNR’s priority system. Therefore, the committee developed a recommendation for a project to assist in the evaluation and recommendation of waters not listed on the DNR inspection schedule for prioritization for inspections. This program would help the county and other stakeholders in Cass County have a rational system for determining need for inspections, which can be used to prioritize locations and prepare budgets for voluntary inspections on accesses not covered by the DNR statewide inspection program. Data about use at DNR AIS inspection sites in Cass County would be the foundation of this program.

The committee adopted the following tiered approach to assessing risk of aquatic invasive species movement and infestation to Cass County lakes. This approach was based on the personal experience and best professional judgment of fisheries staff about lake use. Further, the task force is exploring a program to count use at accesses not inspected by DNR. This program would be designed as a joint county-lake association program and would be provided only for those lake associations willing to pay for the counters and collect and manage the data. It would be limited to non-DNR inspected accesses. It would also be conducted in cooperation with Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks and Trails, which manages state water accesses, and with other local authorities managing water accesses in Cass County.

The actual implementation of the proposed project would be a partnership between ACCL and Cass County. Installation of car counters at selected boat ramps would provide numbers of users per day. The daily counts can be reported in blocks of time set by the group. Preference should be given to accesses that the committee believes are being used by visitors or residents. The data would confirm whether that assumption of use is correct.

Counters would be installed, by being buried near the ramp, at the start of the boating season and stay in place until the end of the season – possibly mid-September, or a point determined by the group). Counters use a battery which usually lasts the season. Data is downloaded and transferred to an electronic spread sheet for management, evaluation and development of reports.

AIS plan implementation team would review reports of use at specific accesses and evaluate according to the tiered approach for prioritizing accesses in Cass County that are not inspected by DNR. This tiered approach was recommended by the committee as a way to focus limited inspection resources in locations that would not otherwise be inspected and where inspections would be the most useful.

The tiered approach for prioritizing non-DNR inspected waters is as follows:

1. Lakes at highest risk for movement of aquatic invasive species. These lakes include those that are the high destination fishing lakes, or lakes that have infestations or that within the watershed of an infested lake. These lakes have a well-known and busy public access and experience high levels of use by both local residents as well as visitors. These lakes will be contained and should be the first waters protected through outreach, inspections and planning. These lakes will be candidates for state resources. This tier follows the DNR system, and is not a new system for Cass County. This tier recognizes the DNR’s inspection program as the foundation for inspection on these lakes. This tier is set by DNR and not by Cass County or ACCL.

2. Lakes at highest risk for infestation. These lakes do not yet have invasive species present but are considered at risk because there are multiple accesses, and the lakes are widely popular lakes for fishing and boating. These lakes will be shielded. Protection efforts should be funded

8 by state grants when and if available and local resources. In short, these are the first accesses where the Cass County plan is likely to seek resources to provide inspections. The inspectors at these accesses will be DNR trained but will be supported by resources from the local units of government.

3. Lakes with limited opportunity for public access but that are destination lakes for visitors as well as local residents, for boating and fishing. These lakes will also be shielded. Resources for these lakes should be local. These lakes will require a volunteer program. It may be necessary to recruit and train lake associations in aquatic invasive species management. Inspections at these accesses are limited to those waters where lake associations are able and willing to manage an inspection program. These accesses are not eligible for DNR inspection, and will not be a priority for local resources.

In 2013, according to the DNR website, the DNR’s statewide inspection program allocated at least 32 hours, and up to 135 hours for some accesses, to the following accesses in Cass County: Access Name Waterbody Infested? Species DNR Hours Gull – East Gull Lake Yes ZM 32 Leech – Federal Leech Yes EWM 35 Dam Winnie-Richards Winnibigoshish Yes FS,ZM 67 Roosevelt Roosevelt No (646 hours – grant) Leech-Walker Leech Yes EWM 135 Leech-Stony Leech Yes EWM 135 Point Leech-Erickson’s Leech Yes EWM 135 Landing Gull – Gov Point Gull Yes ZM 32 Gull Narrrows Gull Yes ZM 32 *Data provided by DNR AIS Inspection web page.

The tiered priority system for inspections at public accesses in Cass County not inspected by DNR is provided in the tables below, with one table for each tier:

Tier 1 - Currently infested or at highest risk of infestation and/or movement of undocumented infestation(s): Current DNR inspection & Lake Use decontamination priority Comments

Gull High High, multiple accesses (3 accesses ZM infested, inspected by DNR) Shared County border

Sylvan High High, multiple accesses (not currently Shared access with inspected by DNR) Gull

Cass/Pike Bay High High, multiple accesses (not currently Few/no infestations, inspected by DNR) Shared County border

Leech High High, multiple accesses; (4 accesses Multiple infestations, inspected by DNR). ZM probable

Winnibigoshish High High, multiple accesses; (1 access Multiple infestations, inspected by DNR; closed July 2013 ZM infested, Shared County border

Tier 2 - Lakes at high risk of infestation and/or movement of AIS:

Current DNR inspection & Lake Use decontamination priority Comments

Pillager Moderate No accesses inspected by DNR Near Gull Lake

High – DNR watercraft inspection Shared border with Roosevelt High grant recipient 2012 & 2013 Crow Wing County

Headwaters of Boy Ten Mile & River downstream Moderate-High No DNR inspections connecting 25 lakes

Thunder High No DNR inspections Destination lake

Washburn High No DNR inspections Destination lake

Woman Chain High No DNR inspections Boy River connection, multiple accesses, traffic on chain of lakes

Current DNR inspection & decon Lake Use priority Comments Moderate- Connected to Boy Inguadona High None River Moderate- Connected to Boy Little Boy/Wabedo High None River Connected to Boy Pleasant Moderate None River Connected to Boy Blackwater/Mule Moderate None River Pine Mountain Moderate None Destination lake

Potential economic impact of AIS infestation to Cass County shoreland property values and tourism

There is considerable interest in determining the economic impact of the threat of aquatic invasive species, and the potential impact of an infestation of aquatic invasive species. Hubbard County’s AIS Task Force reviewed that county’s property tax records and found that nearly 60 percent of the county’s taxable market value comes from riparian property, which accounts for 52 percent of net tax receipts. The conclusion is that shoreland property is a significant component of the county’s revenues. If an aquatic invasive species infestation occurs, it could result in reduced valuations for shoreland property.

A quick review of Cass County’s taxable market value for five water-dominated townships (Woodrow, Wabedo, Hiram, Shingobee, Fairview) shows that noncommercial seasonal recreation class, associated with seasonal lakeshore property owners, accounts for 70 percent of the total taxable market value for those townships. Research from Wisconsin indicates that infestations of aquatic invasive species have the potential to reduce property values by 10 to 15 percent. That would be amount to an annual loss of $90 million to $135 million for those townships alone.

CASS County Taxable Market Value – Selected Local Units

Taxable Taxable Taxable TOTAL Taxable Taxable Market Market Market Market Market Value – Value- Value – Value – Value – Wabedo Fairview Shingobee Woodrow Hiram Twp Twp Twp Twp Twp

Farm 0 1,288,807 3,962,358 2,304,636 1,900,105 Homestead Farm Non 56,392 0 229,709 403,464 288,234 Homestead 20,038,654 24,046,722 22,729,500 25,137,245 Timber 23,073,656 Noncommercial 151,028,187 169,014,248 132,435,246 191,458,760 900,867,498 Seasonal 256,931,057 Recreation Residential 52,172,112 50,453,928 102,773,160 149,082,432 96,489,619 Homestead Residential 4,293,568 2,350,370 13,709,811 11,956,335 Non 4,929,846 Homestead 0 0 0 1,220,896 Apartments 0 Commercial 4,862,772 2,679,006 4,726,098 7,590,829 Seasonal 15,667,643 Recreation 1,078,756 257,714 1,428,469 21,072,823 Commercial 17,260,572 46,327 0 0 497,735 Industrial 46,775 58,292 0 0 127,352 Utilities 207,688 2,150,814 0 271,937 1,143,264 Personal 358,238 235,785,876 250,090,795 282,266,289 411,995,770 1,284,205,450 Total 104,066,720

The planning committee agreed to form a task force to examine the economic issues associated with AIS infestations, current and potential, in Cass County. Jerry Lerom will serve as the planning committee liaison for this group.

Rapid Response Plan

The Minnesota DNR prepared a rapid response plan for new introduction of aquatic invasive species that is new to the state, or to address a new infestation of a Cass County water by a species in Minnesota, such as the new infestation of zebra mussels in Lake Winnibigoshish. The plan recommends an incident command system approach, which has five manor functional elements (command, operations, planning, logistics, and finance and administration) which

12 develop in a modular fashion based on the size and complexity of the incident. Because AIS involves many agencies, it will likely require an unified command approach. This Cass County AIS Management Plan includes development of a rapid response plan for Cass County.

The first step is establishment of a list of individuals or organizations to be informed about infestations as soon as they are confirmed. This list should include government officials and businesses operating in the area of the new infestation.

VIII. Resources for Implementing the Cass County AIS Management Plan

Managing aquatic invasive species requires participation across many sectors. That’s because these species can be introduced through a variety of pathways. Typically, people don’t know that they are carrying invasive species. Moreover, the general approach to managing invasives is similar for many of the species. Therefore, it is important to identify potential stakeholders and partners in developing an aquatic invasive species management plan. The Cass County AIS Planning Committee developed the following list of resources:

Organization Contact Role Federal government Todd Tisler, Fish & Wildlife Program USFS - Technical support; (USFWS, USFS, NPS, Manager, USFS; participation in protection at USACE, NRCS) Timm Renneke, USACE; accesses on CNF; USACE – inspections & decontamination at Federal Dam; federal dollars State government DNR - Joe Eisterhold, AIS specialist; DNR – coordinate (DNR, MDA, PCA, Doug Schultz, area fisheries development of the plan; BWSR, University of supervisor; Regional Planner; provide technical and Minnesota Extension) Regional Information Officer financial assistance for implementation of the plan; provide training as needed. Tribes Bobby Henderson, water quality Leech Lake Band regulates specialist, LLBO; Rich Robinson, LLBO bait harvest and commercial Division of Resource Management fishery on tribal waters; also director has a role in enforcement, communication and outreach and monitoring. Neighboring Beltrami; Hubbard AIS Task Force; Important to create counties/SWCDs Itasca; Aitkin; Crow Wing partnerships with counties that share lakes and watersheds with Cass, Leech- Cass-Winnie; Kabekona; Roosevelt; Gull; MCPZA & SWCD is a way to create and

Organization Contact Role maintain these partnerships. Townships Crooked Lake and East Gull Lake Crooked Lake involved in have been involved; RALA project; Cities Walker, Cass Lake, Longville, Emily involved in RALA Hackensack, Backus, Outing, Emily, project; look at League of MN Pine River, East Gull Lake, Lake Shore Cities for AIS (website doesn’t show anything) Lake Associations Various Advocates for action on the lake; volunteers for AIS activities; should be informed and recruited for participation as the lake associations members are ground zero for information about AIS. County coalition of lake Association of Cass County Lakes Outreach; plan development, associations (COLA) review & implementation; policy; advocacy Resorts Big Rock, Hyde-a-Way, Kee-Nee- Coordinate outreach through Moo-Sha participating Leech Lake Chamber; review, advise; possibly participate in inspections; composting discarded bait Lake service providers Many are trained; most are busy in Outreach to customers the summer Fishing guides Al Maas is contact Review and advise; outreach to clients Chamber of Commerce Cindy Wannarka Communications; coordinate with Cass Economic Development Youth groups and clubs Scouts, WHA School, Bug School, Outreach, volunteer Cass Lake-Bena, Remer Northland, inspectors? Pine River-Backus, Pillager High schools WHA School, Bug School, Cass Lake- Outreach, volunteer Bena Remer Northland, Pine River- inspectors, assistance in Backus, Pillager monitoring or surveys? Environmental learning Deep Portage Possible role in monitoring, centers doing surveys, outreach

IX. Actions Proposed

The Minnesota State Management Plan for Invasive Species (October 2009) establishes a comprehensive framework for managing and preventing invasive species infestation and spread

14 using the full complement of government, academic, private and nonprofit entities, agencies and organizations with an interest in limiting infestations. The plan establishes four core elements as the foundation of invasive species management, and proposes about a dozen actions or strategies that work towards achieving the goals of each element. The plan proceeds from the premise that the task of managing and preventing invasive species has to involve all interested parties. The plan’s text It explains this approach:

Ideally, participants will determine which actions in the plan are appropriate for them to implement and will create an implementation table for their entity that can serve as their own invasive species plan. The plan will be implemented according to the implementation tables for each plan partner. Priorities for implementing an entity‘s actions will be determined by the entity that prepared the table.

Based on a review of the state plan, the following strategies and actions were selected for the Cass County AIS Management Plan:

Element Activity Responsible Schedule Product Prevention Assess condition, risk and Plan August 2013 Plan resources of county Development Team Prevention Train county field staff - County Ongoing Annual (or as zoning, septic system, land Environmental needed) report to department - on best Services team management practices to avoid spreading invasives Prevention Train local enforcement Sheriff, UNDER Ongoing Annual report to officers; train water safety DIRECTION OF team patrol DNR Prevention Encourage development of Plan Fall 2013 – Funding request to boat decontamination Implementation meet with DNR for 2014 service Team providers; season; possible USFS; USACE request to Cass Economic Development Prevention Establish a train the trainer Cass SWCD; Ongoing Annual report to program FOR VOLUNTARY lake associations; team INSPECTIONS that extends ACCL basic training to all lake associations Early Distribute identification Plan Ongoing per Report of actions Detection information Implementation communi- accomplished; Team lead, use cations plan survey of residents Partners to obtain or visitors? material or to distribute Early Conduct field surveys and ACCL – review Review and Protocols, training, Detection monitor invasive species with Hubbard consider pilot volunteers, data, populations – vegetation County project for report monitoring surveys for 2014 EWMF lakes (possibly a way to work with youth and education)

Early Develop partnerships to Plan UMN Protocols, training, Detection increase invasive species implementation Extension? volunteers, data, identification and surveys Team Pilot in 2014 report (e.g., lake associations performing annual aquatic invasive species searches; fish “round ups”); including work with DNR to accelerate zooplankton survey monitoring work; explore initiative for monitoring zebra mussels locally or regionally Rapid Participate in response plans Plan Winter 2013-4 Draft rapid Response – Develop contact list implementation response plan for immediately team, county ES, Cass County Sheriff, DNR, USFS, LLBO Management Work with cooperators – Plan Ongoing Coordinated USFS, USACE, LLBO, DNR, Implementation framework for neighboring counties – to Team implementing the develop joint management, AIS prevention & by providing a vehicle to management plan reconcile jurisdictional participation issues & to provide a unified and credible base for funding Management Develop plan for watercraft Plan Winter 2013-4 Draft inspections inspections including training Implementation program for Cass and recruitment of Team; lake County for 2014 inspectors associations; Season ACCL Management Propose & pilot a county- Cass SWCD, Fall 2013 – Train the Trainer wide train the trainer Plan develop program in place; program that meets state Implementation Spring 2014 - review, evaluate and federal requirements Team Implement and revise as needed. Management Implement car counters at Cass SWCD, Summer 2014 Up to 15 counters selected public accesses; DNR Fisheries & and Data installed; reports & develop criteria for Plan analyzed by recommendations placement; designate & train Implementation January 1, counter data cruncher Team 2015 Management Conduct watercraft As designated by Summer 2014 Inspections; data inspections Plan entered & reviewed Implementation Team Management Encourage decontamination Plan 2013-14 Outreach materials by identifying contact person Implementation who can advise about Team decontamination unit location; develop communications materials about locations of commercial decontamination units

Management Inventory lake associations Plan 2013-14 Inventory and document current AIS Implementation (database)? Report activities and individuals Team to county & ACCL trained to inspect; maintain & update inventory as needed Management Place compost bins at public Plan 2013 Review & report on access; also document Implementation actions experiences of resorts who Team are already composting fish guts & discarded bait Management Communications Plan – with Plan Summer 2013- Develop goals, specific roles and tasks Implementation Winter 2014 obtain materials, Team distribute, review results, report & revise Management Enforce laws to contain County, Ongoing Designate liaison, invasive species – in municipalities Report to plan progress implementation team Management Provide notice of infested DNR, LLBO, Ongoing Current list easily waters Partners available to residents and visitors Management Evaluation per goals & Plan Annually Report on strategies in the plan Implementation activities; report on Team effectiveness Leadership & Provide opportunities for Plan Ongoing Report on Coordination public information and Implementation activities; measure outreach – fishing Team and effectiveness tournaments, holiday Partners weekends, community events Leadership & Assist with grants for County, Plan Ongoing Report to grantor Coordination watercraft inspections Implementation training and support of hours Team Leadership & Participate in grants to County, Plan Ongoing Report to grantor Coordination manage aquatic plants Implementation Team Leadership & Coordinate with tribes and County, Plan Ongoing Report to Coordination other partners to implement Implementation Stakeholders program elements, including Team (annual meeting?) inspections, training, outreach, education

X. Implementation Plan

Cass County is the lead for implementing and managing this plan, which is likely to be delegated to the Cass Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), whose staff is housed in the county Environmental Services Department. The SWCD typically provides to individual’s technical and financial assistance in adopting best practices for conservation. It can seek, receive and administer funds, and it has a clear reporting authority within the county and with the

Minnesota Board of Water Resources. It should be clear that there is no funding for county actions in this plan. It is likely that such funding may become available. Because of the limited funding, many of the tasks of this plan will be accomplished by volunteers.

To facilitate implementation of the plan, the Cass County AIS Task Force will work with Cass SWCD to identify a group of stakeholders to assist in implementing this plan. Completing the task will be the responsibility of the individual or organization assigned to the task, and not the responsibility of county staff, unless so designated.

It is the intent of the plan development committee that at least in its first two years, administration and oversight of this plan should require five percent of Cass County FTE, or approximately 100 hours per year.

XI. Amending the Plan

This plan should be reviewed annually and updated as needed. The plan implementation team should work with Cass SWCD to set forth the review and revision process.

XII. Works

Works Cited:

A Minnesota State Management Plan for Invasive Species, St. Paul, Minnesota Invasive Species Advisory Council, October 2009, accessed on line September 27, 2013 at: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/natural_resources/invasives/state_invasive_species_plan.pdf

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Rapids Response Plan for Aquatic Invasive Species, St. Paul, MN, December 14, 2012, available from the DNR Intranet site.

Appendix 1. Trailer Launch Accesses in Cass County

Access Name Administrator Launch Type Ramp Lake Type Spider Lake Cass County Trailer Launch Plank Spider Deer Lake Cass County Trailer Launch Plank Deer Cut Lake Cass County Trailer Launch Plank Cut Cass County Land Jack Lake Department Trailer Launch Sand Jack Cass County Land Long Lake, Deerfield Department Trailer Launch Concrete Long Norway Lake North Chickamaw Beach City Trailer Launch Concrete Norway Pine Mountain Lake City of Backus Trailer Launch Plank Pine Mountain Birch Lake City of Hackensack Trailer Launch Plank Birch Girl Lake City of Longville Trailer Launch Plank Girl Lawrence Lake City of Outing Trailer Launch Concrete Lawrence Big Sand Lake City of Remer Trailer Launch Earth Big Sand Leech Lake, Walker City City of Walker Trailer Launch Concrete Leech Park Snowshoe Lake DNR Fish & Wildlife Trailer Launch Earth Little Andrus Laura Lake DNR Fish & Wildlife Trailer Launch Earth Laura Mud Lake (E) DNR Fish & Wildlife Trailer Launch Earth Mud Mud Lake (SE) DNR Fish & Wildlife Trailer Launch Gravel Mud Mud Lake (NE) DNR Fish & Wildlife Trailer Launch Concrete Mud Goose Lake DNR Fish & Wildlife Trailer Launch Concrete Goose Big Rice Lake (E) DNR Fish & Wildlife Trailer Launch Concrete Big Rice Stevens Lake DNR Forestry Trailer Launch Plank Stevens Washburn Lake DNR Forestry Trailer Launch Plank Washburn Rock Lake DNR Forestry Trailer Launch Plank Rock Crystal Lake DNR Forestry Trailer Launch Plank Crystal Welsh Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Concrete Welch Steamboat Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Concrete Steamboat

Sanburn Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Plank Sanborn

Woman Lake (W) DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Concrete Woman

Widow Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Concrete Widow

Stony Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Concrete Stony

Mule Lake (W) DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Concrete Mule

Leech Lake, Battle Point DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Concrete Leech

Leech Lake, Brevik DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Sand Leech

DNR Parks & Trails Island Lake Trailer Launch Plank Island Leech Lake, Shingobee DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Concrete Leech Island DNR Parks & Trails Long Lake, Walker Trailer Launch Concrete Long DNR Parks & Trails Little Webb Lake Trailer Launch Concrete

DNR Parks & Trails Norway Lake Trailer Launch Plank Norway DNR Parks & Trails Little Boy Lake Trailer Launch Plank Little Boy DNR Parks & Trails Little Thunder Lake Trailer Launch Plank Little Thunder DNR Parks & Trails Wabedo Lake Trailer Launch Concrete Wabedo DNR Parks & Trails Upper Trelipe Lake Trailer Launch Concrete Upper Trelipe DNR Parks & Trails Smokey Hollow Lake Trailer Launch Concrete Smokey Hollow DNR Parks & Trails Roosevelt Lake Trailer Launch Plank Roosevelt DNR Parks & Trails Silver Lake Trailer Launch Concrete Silver DNR Parks & Trails Pleasant Lake Trailer Launch Concrete Pleasant DNR Parks & Trails Sand Lake Trailer Launch Earth Sand DNR Parks & Trails Woman Lake (NE) Trailer Launch Earth Woman DNR Parks & Trails Webb Lake Trailer Launch Concrete Webb DNR Parks & Trails Ponto Lake Trailer Launch Plank Ponto DNR Parks & Trails Ten Mile Lake Trailer Launch Plank Ten Mile Sylvan Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Plank Sylvan Town Line Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Concrete Town Line Leech Lake, Sucker Bay DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Concrete Leech Long Lake, Ponto DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Concrete Long Long Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Concrete Long Leavitt Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Plank Leavitt Island Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Plank Island Lindsey Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Plank Lind

Ox Yoke Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Plank Ox Yoke Lizzie Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Concrete Lizzie Loon Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Plank Loon Mississippi River, Co Rd DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Other 3 Little Sand Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Concrete Little Sand No-ta-she-bun Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Concrete No-ta-she-bun Lower Trelipe Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Concrete Lower Trelipe Erickson's Landing DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Concrete Leech Bowen Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Plank Bowen Horseshoe Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Concrete Horseshoe Beuber Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Plank Beuber Gadbolt Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Earth Gadbolt Green Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Concrete Green Fish Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Concrete Fish Big Bass Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Plank Bass George Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Plank George Baby Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Plank Baby Big Portage Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Plank Big Portage Crow Wing River, #2, DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Gravel Wilder Landing Mississippi River, DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Concrete Schoolcraft SPK Crow Wing River, Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Plank Placid Reservoir, #3 Cass Lake Hwy2 DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Concrete Cass Inguadona Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Plank Inguadona Big Thunder Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Plank Thunder Black Water Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Plank Blackwater Five Point Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Concrete Five Point Ada Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Plank Ada Hand Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Plank Hand Hay Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Plank Hay Dade Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Gravel Dade Grave Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Concrete Grave Boy Lake DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Concrete Boy Gull Lake, Gull Narrows DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Concrete Gull Crow Wing River, #4, DNR Parks & Trails Trailer Launch Plank Fisherman's Bank Pine Lake Forest Service Trailer Launch Other Pine Leech Lake, Whipholt MNDOT Trailer Launch Concrete Leech Wayside Pillager Lake Slyvan Twp Trailer Launch Plank Pillager

Leech Lake River, U.S. Corps of Engineers Trailer Launch Concrete Federal Dam Leech Lake River, Hwy 8 U.S. Corps of Engineers Trailer Launch Concrete Gull Lake, Government U.S. Corps of Engineers Trailer Launch Concrete Gull Point Cass Lake, Wanaki (SE) U.S. Forest Service Trailer Launch Concrete Cass Thirteen Lake U.S. Forest Service Trailer Launch Concrete Thirteen Three Island Lake U.S. Forest Service Trailer Launch Concrete Three Island Pike Bay (S) U.S. Forest Service Trailer Launch Other Pike Bay Vermillion Lake U.S. Forest Service Trailer Launch Earth Vermillion Sugar Lake U.S. Forest Service Trailer Launch Other Sugar Six Mile Lake, U.S. Forest Service Trailer Launch Concrete Six Mile Campground Portage Lake U.S. Forest Service Trailer Launch Concrete Portage Moccasin Lake U.S. Forest Service Trailer Launch Concrete Moccasin Lake Winnibigoshish, U.S. Forest Service Trailer Launch Concrete Winnibigoshish Tamarack Point Lake Winnibigoshish, U.S. Forest Service Trailer Launch Concrete Winnibigoshish Richards Townsite Mabel Lake U.S. Forest Service Trailer Launch Earth Mabel Lake Winnibigoshish, U.S. Forest Service Trailer Launch Concrete Winnibigoshish Birches Cass Lake, Norway U.S. Forest Service Trailer Launch Concrete Cass Beach (S) Big Rice Lake (W) U.S. Forest Service Trailer Launch Earth Big Rice Leech Lake River US Army Corps of Engineers Trailer Launch Leech Lake, Stony Point US Forest Service Trailer Launch Concrete Leech

Appendix 2. Minnesota Rules on Fishing Contests

Issuance of permits for fishing contests is provided for by Minnesota Statutes, section 97C.081. Permits may also be required, as provided by Minnesota Statutes, section 86B.121, by the sheriff of the county in which the contest is held. Application to obtain a permit must be made a minimum of 14 days prior to the contest on forms provided by the commissioner. Application information includes name of contest, name and address of permittee, name of sponsor, name and location of contest waters, public accesses to be used with a parking plan as provided in part 6212.2700, fish species included in the contest, weigh-in stations, fish handling and release procedures, disposition of harvested fish, estimated number of participants, contest dates and hours, entry fee, and prize values. Contest rules must be attached to the application.

6212.2525 PERMITTED FISHING CONTESTS.

Subpart 1.Limitation on number of boats.

Contest participation is limited to not more than one boat for each ten acres of contest water.

Subp. 2.Equipment requirements.

The following boat live-well and fish-holding equipment requirements are mandatory for all live-release contests to minimize negative impacts to fish:

A.must have functional water pump or circulation system; and

B.must be sufficiently sized to handle the anticipated number of fish allowed in the event.

Subp. 3.Contest denials. The commissioner shall not issue fishing contest permits for:

A.tagging or marking fish for special contest rewards;

B.contests that promote or allow fizzing (the act of inserting a needle into a fish's gas bladder);

C.contests where boat take-off procedures result in unsafe boating;

D.contests on waters where the commissioner determines the activity may compromise the fish management or research data being collected; or

E.contests on opening days, holidays, and other high-use periods that the commissioner determines result in unacceptable safety risks.

Subp. 4.

Permit conditions.

A.When necessary to protect fish and fish habitat, restrict activities during high-use periods, restrict activities that affect research or management work, restrict the number of boats, ensure the safety of contest participants, or decontaminate boats participating in fishing contests on infested waters, one or more of the following conditions or restrictions shall be specified in the permit:

(1)seasonal and daily restrictions;

(2)geographical restrictions;

(3)fish holding equipment requirements;

(4)daily and possession limits;

(5)contest length;

(6)treatment, decontamination, and management practices, including those for transport and disposal of infested waters, to prevent the transport of pathogens and invasive species;

(7)use of live bait; or

(8)handling and transport of fish.

B.The commissioner shall consider the following criteria when determining conditions to be included in the permit:

(1)whether the contest activity will advance knowledge, understanding, interpretation, or management of a fish species, fish community, or water body;

(2)impacts on other public uses, research efforts, educational events, or management activities;

(3)impacts to spawning fish or areas, rice beds, critical habitat, or the fish community;

(4)whether the contest activity is detrimental or helps achieve management objectives for the specific water body;

(5)whether water temperature, water quality conditions, or pathogens would lead to undue mortality of released fish;

(6)whether contest activities during high-use periods are anticipated to cause unacceptable safety risks;

(7)whether contest activities during high-use periods are anticipated to cause user conflicts;

(8)whether the water body is infested and what invasive species are present;

(9)the type of tournament being conducted on an infested water body; or

(10)whether the applicants are coming from an area known to be infested with invasive species.

Subp. 5.Restrictions on off-site weigh-ins.

The commissioner shall not issue fishing contest permits to conduct an off-site weigh-in if the contest organizer cannot prevent the transport of invasive species or pathogens from activities associated with the contest. To prevent the transport of invasive species or pathogens associated with conducting the contest, the permit shall require, at a minimum, draining and refilling water holding equipment with groundwater or treated water, as specified by the commissioner:

A. at the access site before leaving to go to another water body;

B. at the access site before going to the weigh-in location; and

C. at the weigh-in location.

Subp. 6.Restrictions on live release weigh-ins.

A.Except for weigh-ins when fish are immediately released, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 97A.015, subdivision 26c, at the location where caught, the commissioner shall not issue fishing contest permits for live release weigh-ins:

(1)when water temperature, water quality conditions, or pathogens may lead to undue mortality of released fish;

(2)for fishing contests involving muskellunge (Esox masquinongy), sturgeon (Acipenseridae family), or trout and salmon (Salmonidae family); or

(3)for fishing contests involving walleye, sauger, and their hybrids (Sander genus within the Percidae family) from:

(a)Memorial Day to Labor Day for all inland and border waters located in and south of Traverse, Grant, Douglas, Todd, Morrison, Mille Lacs, Kanabec, and Pine Counties, except Lake Mille Lacs; and

(b)from June 14 to Labor Day for all other inland and border waters, including Lake Mille Lacs.

B.The commissioner shall not issue fishing contest permits to release fish alive after an off-site weigh-in:

(1)when fish will be held more than 2-1/2 hours from the time they leave the contest waters until they are returned to contest waters;

(2)when 100 or more fish will be weighed-in for the contest;

(3)for fishing contests involving northern pike (Esox lucius); or

(4)for fishing contests involving bass (Micropterus genus within the Centrarchidae family) during July and August.

C.The commissioner may exempt fishing contests on the Canadian border waters from the requirements described in item B, subitems (2) and (4), if the contest was operating prior to January 1, 2008, and the contest is:

(1)held in consecutive years;

(2)not moved to a new location or water body; and

(3)not conducted with more than 65 participating boats or 130 participating anglers.

Appendix 3: Ten Mile Lake AIS Inspection Report

The analysis of Ten Mile Lake launch Internet-Landing Installed Device Sensor (I-LIDS) video clips and volunteer inspector sheets from the summer of 2012 provides valuable information about watercraft use. Through frequency analysis of events recorded on volunteer sheets and variables designed to quantify activity within video captures, general trends were ascertained of the users of Ten-mile Lake for the four peak months of the boating season. This analysis enables the quantification of the number of boats using the public access, the origin of these boats, their potential for transporting aquatic invasive species, and the level of invasive species awareness among Ten Mile Lake patrons. Taken together, these factors describe activity on the lake as well as possible causes for concern.

Number of Watercraft The I-LIDS system captured a total of 5,623 video clips, 3,967 of which were either false alarms or repeat videos of a single watercraft. This left 1,656 unique watercraft entries (29% of total video clips). Boat launches were quantified by week, day of week, and time of day to display the most active times at the public access. Launches peaked during the week of July first through the seventh, with I-LIDS capturing 240 unique watercrafts during this period. Activity fell sharply the next week and gradually decreased throughout the remainder of the summer (Table 1 and Histogram 1). The most active times of day were between the hours of 10:00 am and 4:00 pm with between 147 and 181 launches during these times (Table 2 and Histogram 2). The busiest days of the week were Saturday (22%, f=365) followed by Sunday (18.2%, f=302) and Friday (16.2%, f=268) (Histogram 3 and Table 3). Finally, the percentage of clips in which watercraft registration numbers were visible was 24.4% of the 1656 unique watercraft entries (Table 4). Registration visibility was impaired in many clips by timing problems with I-LIDS.

Origin and Use of Watercraft Inspector sheets completed by volunteers at the boat landing were used to determine watercraft origin and use. As inspectors worked 16 hours per week, their data includes about 12.4% of the total watercraft launches, while 1,451 launches occurred when inspectors were not present and were categorized as “origin unknown” as this information is not conveyed through video captures. Analysis of the inspector sheets shows that 87 came from storage, 205 were local or transient, and 110 came from another lake or river (Tables 5 and 6). While patrons reported coming from lakes throughout Minnesota as well as other states, the most frequently mentioned were Leech and Big Pine, with 9 and 8 watercraft, respectively (Table 5). This finding is noteworthy in that Leech Lake is infested with Eurasian watermilfoil.

Time Since Last Launch Current recommendations from the Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) are to power- wash watercraft after leaving AIS infested lakes and preferably allowing the craft to dry out over a period of five days to ensure eradication of any aquatic species remaining. Volunteer inspector sheets were utilized to determine if watercraft entering the lake had been in a water body within the last five days before entering 10-Mile. Of the 200 boats for which this information was available, either by inspector sheets or observation done by video reviewers,

117 had been dry for more than 5 days, while 83 had been used in the last 5 days or were recognized by inspectors as having been retrieved from 10 mile in that period (Table 7). Those that had been in a water body less than 5 days previous to launch at Ten Mile were further divided into categories dependent on whether the last water body is infested with AIS. Of the 108 watercraft for which this data was obtained by inspectors, 17 vessels had recently been in waters infested with AIS, while 9 came from lakes that could not be verified as to their status (out of state, etc.) and 82 were from origins not infested with AIS (Table 8).

Watercraft Potentially Carrying AIS The identification of AIS on watercraft was determined through volunteer inspection sheets. Analysis of I-LIDS clips yielded no evidence of AIS and only a few accounts of bilge drainage due to the length and resolution of videos. The inspection sheets reported one entry or less of both aquatic vegetation or animals on watercraft as well as un-drained bilges, live wells, or bait containers. By “one entry or less”, the single video capture in question displayed a film on the watercraft that was suspected to be mud or biofilm, but a precise identification could not be determined and it is possible that the craft was simply covered in a large quantity of dust or mud from a source other than an aquatic bed. Many video clips showed questionable detail, with objects such as trailer wiring or tie-downs being mistaken for aquatic vegetation, but careful examination of those clips numerous times revealed them to be false alarms.

Level of AIS Awareness Among Boaters Volunteer inspectors determined AIS awareness. Watercraft users were asked if they were aware of AIS. From this, it was to be determined about their awareness of individual laws including: 1) Boats and trailers must be free of aquatic weeds, animals and mud, 2) All drain plugs must be removed upon leaving a body of water, 3) Live wells must be drained and dry, and 4) Transportation of bait water is not permitted between lakes and rivers (Table 9). As the inspectors did not report responses to these individual laws, boater awareness must be determined through behavior. Once again, inspection sheets accounted for just 12.4% (f=206) of total launches. There were no responses that reported “no” to awareness of these laws or grades less than “B” on boat inspections, so it can be assumed that boaters are well aware of Minnesota AIS laws.

Recommendations Many variables exist that are not easily captured by current inspector sheets, though only a few changes are needed to resolve issues. Asking more detail about watercraft origin would allow reliable cross-referencing of AIS status, while future study of video captures would also benefit from slight redesigns to the variables considered and length of the video clip, based again on what level of detail is required in analysis. Being able to determine if a vessel is truly entering or leaving a lake is not as clear with the current 10 second sampling, and a large portion of the videos are clear enough to make a best guess but not a reliable distinction. One further suggestion is an examination of launch use by dock and lift services. Video clips showed frequent launches by these services, and they often entered and exited quite quickly, raising concern that they may not be properly checking trucks and watercrafts for AIS.

Table 6 Origin of craft Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Unknown 1451 87.7 87.7 87.7 Local 132 8.0 8.0 95.6 Valid Transient 73 4.4 4.4 100.0 Total 1656 100.0 100.0

Table 7 Time since last in water Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Unknown 1456 87.9 87.9 87.9 More than 5 days 117 7.1 7.1 95.0 Valid Less than 5 days 83 5.0 5.0 100.0 Total 1656 100.0 100.0

Table 8 AIS AT ORIGIN Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 82 75.9 75.9 75.9 U 9 8.3 8.3 84.3 Valid Yes 17 15.7 100.0 15.7

Total 108 100.0 100.0

Table 9 Boater Aware of Laws Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Unknown 1450 87.3 87.3 87.3 Yes 206 12.4 12.4 100.0 Valid Total 1656 100.0 100.0

Histogram 1: Launches by Week

Histogram 2: Launches by Hour

Histogram 3: Launches by Day of Week