Enhancing the Role of Resorts and Fishing Guides in Preventing the Introduction and Spread of Aquatic Invasive Species
This study was conducted on behalf of Cass County, Minnesota
by
Patrick G. Welle, Ph.D.*
Emeritus Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies
Bemidji State University
Bemidji, Minnesota
Draft Final Report Submitted September 16, 2016
* The author is grateful for assistance from staff with Cass County Environmental Services, especially John Ringle and Rima Smith-Keprios. Valuable support and assistance was provided by members of the Association of Cass County Lakes (ACCL), particularly Jerry Lerom. The author also appreciates the input provided by other members of the advisory committee for this project. This study would not have been possible without the generous participation of resort owners, fishing guides and resort guests.
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In November 2013 the Cass County Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Prevention and Management Plan was adopted. It begins with the Problem Statement:“Aquatic invasive species have the potential to disrupt the ecological and economic health of Cass County.” The Plan clearly identified The Boy River Chain of Lakes as at high risk of infestation by zebra mussels and faucet snails. While the priority is educating boaters and inspecting watercraft at public accesses, the county and its partnersalso seek to identify and address other potential pathways for AIS introduction. The main purpose of this study is to invite resort owners to offer ideas on the best ways to insure that guests employ adequate measures with boats, trailers and other equipment to avoid AIS introductions.
This study iscomprised of three components. The main component involves interviewing resort owners to learn their views on the current AIS situation and to elicit suggestions for improvements. The second and third components are to identify cost-effective practices for implementing inspections and to conduct ex-post assessment of the effectiveness of components 1 and 2.
All 56 resorts operating on Leech Lake and the Boy River Chain of lakes, eleven lakes in all, participated in the study. Interviews were conducted with the persons having the most hands-on experience with how customers launch and pull boats. In all but a handful of cases, this was the resort owner.
Responses indicate that resort owners/managers place a great deal of importance on preventing the spread of AIS. Various species were discussed and the greatest emphasis was placed on preventing zebra mussels with Eurasian milfoil being a close second.
A critical foundation for the educational goals of this research is provided in the responses to the three-part question asking for respondents’ level of agreement/ disagreement with: a.) the respondent having adequate knowledge about AIS risks to the lake, b) all or nearly all of the customers having adequate knowledge about AIS risks to the lake, and c) all or nearly all of the customers having adequate knowledge about precautions to take with boats, trailers, etc. There is widespread agreement that resort owners have adequate knowledge but substantial disagreement that customers know. From a practical standpoint it is good that owners/managers expressed slightly more agreement that customers know what precautions to take with their equipment to avoid spreading AIS. Still over a third of owner/managers “Disagree” and two “Strongly Disagree” that customers know what precautions to take. Results indicate that there is greater confidence that MN residents are getting the message and taking the precautions required by state law, but there is much less confidence regarding non-residents. This situation constitutes a serious problem.
Another major component of the interview asked respondents to rate their satisfaction with various aspects of AIS educational efforts and policies. The series asked about levels of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with overall efforts, State efforts, county efforts and ACCL efforts, respectively. Only seven of the fifty-six respondents expressed dissatisfaction with overall efforts, with nine being neutral. This question served to begin the process of assessing AIS educational efforts and policies and prompted specific descriptions of satisfactory and unsatisfactory aspects. Ratings of State efforts were the least satisfactory of the four. Many of these leaders in the tourism industry were unaware of the roles served by Cass County so were neutral. A high level of satisfaction exists with ACCL’s role, particularly regarding the educational materials. The educational piece that was seen as most useful was the ½ sheet. This is an updated hand-out that has been revised since the MN DNR created it a few years ago. The positive ratings given by these businesses corroborates the findings in the cost-effectiveness analysis that it is sensible that the county also designated this as its primary piece at public accesses in 2015.
The concluding portion of interview asked owners/managers to characterize patterns of boat usage among resort guests. One number that is of interest for understanding this situation is the percent of resort guests that bring their own boats. Over half of the resorts reported that between 60 and 80% of guests bring their own boats. The variations between these businesses is indicated by the range between 30 and 100%. It was further categorized into percentages of guests who bring boats from out of state. Responses indicate diversity of customer traits and activities across the 56 resorts: some have a customer base which is predominantly Minnesotan and others attract more than half of their guests from elsewhere. Nearly all resorts fell in the range of 10 to 50% of guests who bring boats from out of state. Another major finding of this study is that this group of non-residents warrants special attention in terms of educational efforts, best practices at ramps and public policies to prevent the spread of AIS.
Another pattern of boat use explored in this study is referred to as “lake hopping.” Resort clientele was categorized into those who only boat on the lake where the resort is located, those who boat on 2-5 lakes and those who boat on more than 5 lakes. The evidence does not indicate a high volume of “lake hopping” but should not be dismissed because just a few risky launches could cause multiple introductions of AIS. A related concern expressed by some resorts is their customers who are not overnight guests but who come to use their boat ramps. Resorts that have more of this activity indicate a high degree of sensitivity among the resort staff where this occurs and exemplary vigilance to prevent AIS transport from use of their ramps.
A wealth of information is provided in owner/managers’ verbal explanations of their closed-ended responses. The ideas are too voluminous to capture adequately in an Executive Summary but major themes show a deep commitment to protect the lakes they cherish that are the basis of their livelihoods. Comments describe many ways in which this motivation translates into great care in monitoring and managing activities at their boat ramps. Most place the highest priority on education as the main way to prevent the spread of AIS. A rich set of ideas are offered on how resorts can better partner with other entities involved in AIS prevention and innovative suggestions for improving resource allocation and AIS policies.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 4
LIST OF TABLES ...... 5
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF STUDY ...... 6
METHODS ...... 7
Surveying at Resorts: Resort Owners ...... 7
The Population of Resorts and Fishing Guides...... 7
Formation and Pre-Testing of the Survey Instruments ...... 8
Determining Best Practices for Educating Resort Guests . ...... 8
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Educational Efforts . ...... 8
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 9
Results from the Owner Interviews ...... 9
Statistics from Closed-Ended Responses ...... 9
Selected Resort Owner Responses Expressing Commonly-Held Views or Specific Ideas 23
Closed-Ended Responses From Guides During Phone Interviews...... 31
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis...... 31
Best Practices for Educating Resort Guests...... 33
Other Ideas for Preventing the Introduction and Spread of AIS ...... 35
CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS ...... 36
APPENDICES ...... 38
Appendix A: List of Resorts and Fishing Guides...... 38
Appendix B: Interview Protocol for Resort Owners...... 41
Appendix C: Interview Protocol for Fishing Guides...... 46
Appendix D: Interview Protocol for Resort Guests ...... 48
Appendix E: Comments From Resort Owner Interviews...... 51
Appendix F: Comments From Phone Interviews With Fishing Guides ...... 98
Appendix G: Frequencies of Responses and Comments From Interviews With Resort Guests ...... 103
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Do you Own or Operate the Resort? ...... 9
Table 2a: Importance of Preventing AIS in general ...... 10
Table 2b: Importance of Preventing Zebra Mussels ...... 10
Table 2c: Importance of Preventing Eurasian Milfoil ...... 11
Table 2d: Importance of Preventing Spiny Water Flea ...... 11
Table 2e: Importance of Preventing Asian Carp ...... 12
Table 3: Mean responses on Importance with “Not Sure” Excluded ...... 12
Table 4: Importance Other AIS ...... 13
Table 5a: Owner Knowledge ...... 13
Table 5b: Customer Knowledge ...... 13
Table 5c: Customer Precautions ...... 14
Table 6: Other Concerns ...... 15
Table 7: Satisfaction Overall ...... 16
Table 8: Satisfaction with State Efforts ...... 16
Table 9: Satisfaction with Cass County Efforts ...... 17
Table 10: Satisfaction with ACCL Educational Materials ...... 18
Table 11: Percent of Guests Who Bring Boats ...... 19
Table 12: Percent of Residents from Other States Who Bring Boats ...... 20
Table 13: Percent of Boaters Who Only Use This Lake...... 21
Table 14: Percent of Boaters Who Boat on 2-5 Lakes...... 21
Table 15: Percent of Boaters Who Boat on More Than 5 Lakes ...... 22
Table 16: Lake Where Resort is Located ...... 22
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF STUDY
In November 2013 the Cass County Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Prevention and Management Plan was adopted. It begins with the Problem Statement:
“Aquatic invasive species have the potential to disrupt the ecological and economic health of Cass County. Aquatic invasive species 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.”
The Plan clearly identified The Boy River Chain of Lakes as at high risk of infestation by zebra mussels and faucet snails. Implementing the Cass County Plan was made much easier in 2015 with increased state aid to Cass County in excess of $500,000. Cass County and the Association of Cass County Lakes (ACCL) along with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) set a priority on educating boaters and inspecting watercraft at public accesses within the county. Statewide a major focus for educating the public has been at public accesses and this is reflected in the state funding formula which distributes funds to counties based on metrics related to the use of public accesses.Because of the importance of public accesses on Cass County lakes, it receives the third highest funding among the 87 counties in Minnesota.
As partners in adopting the AIS Plan, Cass County and ACCL also seekto identify and address other potential pathways for AIS introduction beyond public accesses. One prong in implementing the plan is to recognize resorts as water recreation access points and to include resort owners and others in the tourism industry as collaborators in employing best practices to prevent introduction of AIS into area lakes and streams.
The main purpose of this study is to invite resort owners to offer ideas on the best ways to insure that guests employ adequate measures with boats, trailers and other equipment to avoid AIS introductions.The idea is to empower resorts to deal with their customers as partners in protecting lakes from AIS infestations. Rather than dictating rules for tourists, the intent is for resorts to be proactive in sharing ideas and implementing effective ways that include visitors in solving AIS threats without undue intrusions on the visitor experience.In order to enhance understanding about the perspectives of resort owners on the AIS threat, progress on educating guests, the current state of compliance with boating rules and ideas for future improvements all fifty-six resort owners in the study area – Leech Lake and the Boy River Chain of Lakes – were interviewed. Fishing guides, as other vital members of the area tourism industry, are also on the front lines with visitors and so are also included in this study.
Additional purposes of this study relate to assessing the efforts thus far at educating the public about AIS. Given the higher level of funding that is now available, cost-effectiveness analysis is warranted to focus on the wisest investments for reducing the introduction and spread of AIS. This study takes stock of past and current spending within the county’s AIS plan and approaches that are most effective at informing the boating public and reducing risky behaviors. The final prong of this study involved interviewing a small sample (43) of resorts guests in 2016 to learn from them which educational efforts have had the biggest impact on their understanding about the AIS threat and preventative measures.
METHODS
This study iscomprised of three components: 1. Gather input from resort owners and fishing guides to enhance their role in preventing the introduction and spread of AIS by identifying and implementing best practices for launching boats from lake accesses other than public accesses; 2. Evaluate how paid inspectors and volunteers are being utilized on various lakes in Cass County to identify cost-effective practices for implementing inspections to maximize the flow of information to and from access patrons; and 3. Conduct ex-post assessment of the effectiveness of Components 1 and 2 in strengthening a. the information flow about potential pathways of AIS introduction and best prevention practices, b. the general level of knowledge about responsible behaviors related to AIS and c. partnerships between public, non-profit and private businesses as collaborators to manage risk of introduction and spread of AIS in a cost-effective manner.
Surveying at Resorts: Resort Owners
The first component initiated the project with forming and convening an Advisory Committee comprised of representatives of project partners including willing leaders in the resort community. The Advisory Committee helped shape the interview questions for resorts and facilitate the establishment of a network of business participants. The bulk of the work under this component entailed interviews conducted by Dr. Patrick Welle with resort owners in the study area as to their perspectives on AIS, the potential risks of introduction of AIS through private boat accesses and their willingness to identify and implement best practices for dealing with customers using these accesses.
The Population of Resorts and Fishing Guides
Fishing guides were included in the study to capture another business activity that involves launching boats at both public and private accesses. Multiple listings of resorts and guide services and tourism directories were cross-referenced to establish a comprehensive population of resorts and guide services. The list was corroborated by members of the Advisory Committee and resort leaders. Asubsequent project is envisioned that will foster collaboration among members of the tourism industry. It will be founded onfindings from these face-to-face contacts and other discussions -butis beyond the scope of this study. This subsequent effort will beto develop a network of resort leaders that might be referred to as “Resort Stewards.” These stewards would identify and implement best practices at private accesses and assist in the development of an educational module for resorts and other access-related businesses around the state.
Formation and Pre-Testing of the Survey Instruments
Early in 2015 collaborators on the project were asked to draft descriptions of pieces of information that should be collected or questions to be asked in the face-to-face interviews. This input was collated and summarized to be circulated among members of the Advisory Committee as it was being formed. The first wave of input came from staff with Cass County Environmental Services and leaders from ACCL. The advisory group expanded as additional members of ACCL got involved and three resort owners were recruited to assist in an advisory capacity. Multiple drafts of the interview protocol for resorts were circulated with valuable feedback provided that improved the survey instrument. Help was also provided in shaping the introductory letter that was mailed to all resort owners during the spring of 2015. The letter provided background on the study, notice that Dr. Welle would be visiting resorts and an invitation to reply with preferred dates and times for interviews.